the presentation of self theory

Impression Management: Erving Goffman Theory

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

• Impression management refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object, or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction.
• Generally, people undertake impression management to achieve goals that require they have a desired public image. This activity is called self-presentation.
• In sociology and social psychology, self-presentation is the conscious or unconscious process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them.
• The goal is for one to present themselves the way in which they would like to be thought of by the individual or group they are interacting with. This form of management generally applies to the first impression.
• Erving Goffman popularized the concept of perception management in his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , where he argues that impression management not only influences how one is treated by other people but is an essential part of social interaction.

Impression Management in Sociology

Impression management, also known as self-presentation, refers to the ways that people attempt to control how they are perceived by others (Goffman, 1959).

By conveying particular impressions about their abilities, attitudes, motives, status, emotional reactions, and other characteristics, people can influence others to respond to them in desirable ways.

Impression management is a common way for people to influence one another in order to obtain various goals.

While earlier theorists (e.g., Burke, 1950; Hart & Burk, 1972) offered perspectives on the person as a performer, Goffman (1959) was the first to develop a specific theory concerning self-presentation.

In his well-known work, Goffman created the foundation and the defining principles of what is commonly referred to as impression management.

In explicitly laying out a purpose for his work, Goffman (1959) proposes to “consider the ways in which the individual in ordinary work situations presents himself and his activity to others, the ways in which he guides and controls the impression they form of him, and the kind of things he may or may not do while sustaining his performance before them.” (p. xi)

Social Interaction

Goffman viewed impression management not only as a means of influencing how one is treated by other people but also as an essential part of social interaction.

He communicates this view through the conceit of theatre. Actors give different performances in front of different audiences, and the actors and the audience cooperate in negotiating and maintaining the definition of a situation.

To Goffman, the self was not a fixed thing that resides within individuals but a social process. For social interactions to go smoothly, every interactant needs to project a public identity that guides others’ behaviors (Goffman, 1959, 1963; Leary, 2001; Tseelon, 1992).

Goffman defines that when people enter the presence of others, they communicate information by verbal intentional methods and by non-verbal unintentional methods.

According to Goffman, individuals participate in social interactions through performing a “line” or “a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself” (1967, p. 5).

Such lines are created and maintained by both the performer and the audience. By enacting a line effectively, a person gains positive social value or “face.”

The verbal intentional methods allow us to establish who we are and what we wish to communicate directly. We must use these methods for the majority of the actual communication of data.

Goffman is mostly interested in the non-verbal clues given off which are less easily manipulated. When these clues are manipulated the receiver generally still has the upper hand in determining how realistic the clues that are given off are.

People use these clues to determine how to treat a person and if the intentional verbal responses given off are actually honest. It is also known that most people give off clues that help to represent them in a positive light, which tends to be compensated for by the receiver.

Impression Management Techniques

• Suppressing emotions : Maintaining self-control (which we will identify with such practices as speaking briefly and modestly).
• Conforming to Situational Norms : The performer follows agreed-upon rules for behavior in the organization.
• Flattering Others : The performer compliments the perceiver. This tactic works best when flattery is not extreme and when it involves a dimension important to the perceiver.
• Being Consistent : The performer’s beliefs and behaviors are consistent. There is agreement between the performer’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors.

Self-Presentation Examples

Self-presentation can affect the emotional experience . For example, people can become socially anxious when they are motivated to make a desired impression on others but doubt that they can do so successfully (Leary, 2001).

In one paper on self-presentation and emotional experience, Schlenker and Leary (1982) argue that, in contrast to the drive models of anxiety, the cognitive state of the individual mediates both arousal and behavior.

The researchers examine the traditional inverted-U anxiety-performance curve (popularly known as the Yerkes-Dodson law) in this light.

The researchers propose that people are interpersonally secure when they do not have the goal of creating a particular impression on others.

They are not immediately concerned about others’ evaluative reactions in a social setting where they are attempting to create a particular impression and believe that they will be successful in doing so.

Meanwhile, people are anxious when they are uncertain about how to go about creating a certain impression (such as when they do not know what sort of attributes the other person is likely to be impressed with), think that they will not be able to project the types of images that will produce preferred reactions from others.

Such people think that they will not be able to project the desired image strongly enough or believe that some event will happen that will repudiate their self-presentations, causing reputational damage (Schlenker and Leary, 1982).

Psychologists have also studied impression management in the context of mental and physical health .

In one such study, Braginsky et al. (1969) showed that those hospitalized with schizophrenia modify the severity of their “disordered” behavior depending on whether making a more or less “disordered” impression would be most beneficial to them (Leary, 2001).

Additional research on university students shows that people may exaggerate or even fabricate reports of psychological distress when doing so for their social goals.

Hypochondria appears to have self-presentational features where people convey impressions of illness and injury, when doing so helps to drive desired outcomes such as eliciting support or avoiding responsibilities (Leary, 2001).

People can also engage in dangerous behaviors for self-presentation reasons such as suntanning, unsafe sex, and fast driving. People may also refuse needed medical treatment if seeking this medical treatment compromises public image (Leary et al., 1994).

Key Components

There are several determinants of impression management, and people have many reasons to monitor and regulate how others perceive them.

For example, social relationships such as friendship, group membership, romantic relationships, desirable jobs, status, and influence rely partly on other people perceiving the individual as being a particular kind of person or having certain traits.

Because people’s goals depend on them making desired impressions over undesired impressions, people are concerned with the impressions other people form of them.

Although people appear to monitor how they come across ongoingly, the degree to which they are motivated to impression manage and the types of impressions they try to foster varies by situation and individuals (Leary, 2001).

Leary and Kowalski (1990) say that there are two processes that constitute impression management, each of which operate according to different principles and are affected by different situations and dispositional aspects. The first of these processes is impression motivation, and the second is impression construction.

Impression Motivation

There are three main factors that affect how much people are motivated to impression-manage in a situation (Leary and Kowalski, 1990):

(1) How much people believe their public images are relevant to them attaining their desired goals.

When people believe that their public image is relevant to them achieving their goals, they are generally more motivated to control how others perceive them (Leary, 2001).

Conversely, when the impressions of other people have few implications on one’s outcomes, that person’s motivation to impression-manage will be lower.

This is why people are more likely to impression manage in their interactions with powerful, high-status people than those who are less powerful and have lower status (Leary, 2001).

(2) How valuable the goals are: people are also more likely to impress and manage the more valuable the goals for which their public impressions are relevant (Leary, 2001).

(3) how much of a discrepancy there is between how they want to be perceived and how they believe others perceive them..

People are more highly motivated to impression-manage when there is a difference between how they want to be perceived and how they believe others perceive them.

For example, public scandals and embarrassing events that convey undesirable impressions can cause people to make self-presentational efforts to repair what they see as their damaged reputations (Leary, 2001).

Impression Construction

Features of the social situations that people find themselves in, as well as their own personalities, determine the nature of the impressions that they try to convey.

In particular, Leary and Kowalski (1990) name five sets of factors that are especially important in impression construction (Leary, 2001).

Two of these factors include how people’s relationships with themselves (self-concept and desired identity), and three involve how people relate to others (role constraints, target value, and current or potential social image) (Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Self-concept

The impressions that people try to create are influenced not only by social context but also by one’s own self-concept .

People usually want others to see them as “how they really are” (Leary, 2001), but this is in tension with the fact that people must deliberately manage their impressions in order to be viewed accurately by others (Goffman, 1959).

People’s self-concepts can also constrain the images they try to convey.

People often believe that it is unethical to present impressions of themselves different from how they really are and generally doubt that they would successfully be able to sustain a public image inconsistent with their actual characteristics (Leary, 2001).

This risk of failure in portraying a deceptive image and the accompanying social sanctions deter people from presenting impressions discrepant from how they see themselves (Gergen, 1968; Jones and Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 1980).

People can differ in how congruent their self-presentations are with their self-perceptions.

People who are high in public self-consciousness have less congruency between their private and public selves than those lower in public self-consciousness (Tunnell, 1984; Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Desired identity

People’s desired and undesired selves – how they wish to be and not be on an internal level – also influence the images that they try to project.

Schlenker (1985) defines a desirable identity image as what a person “would like to be and thinks he or she really can be, at least at his or her best.”

People have a tendency to manage their impressions so that their images coincide with their desired selves and stay away from images that coincide with their undesired selves (Ogilivie, 1987; Schlenker, 1985; Leary, 2001).

This happens when people publicly claim attributes consistent with their desired identity and openly reject identities that they do not want to be associated with.

For example, someone who abhors bigots may take every step possible to not appear bigoted, and Gergen and Taylor (1969) showed that high-status navel cadets did not conform to low-status navel cadets because they did not want to see themselves as conformists (Leary and Kowalski, 1990).

Target value

people tailor their self-presentations to the values of the individuals whose perceptions they are concerned with.

This may lead to people sometimes fabricating identities that they think others will value.

However, more commonly, people selectively present truthful aspects of themselves that they believe coincide with the values of the person they are targeting the impression to and withhold information that they think others will value negatively (Leary, 2001).

Role constraints

the content of people’s self-presentations is affected by the roles that they take on and the norms of their social context.

In general, people want to convey impressions consistent with their roles and norms .

Many roles even carry self-presentational requirements around the kinds of impressions that the people who hold the roles should and should not convey (Leary, 2001).

Current or potential social image

People’s public image choices are also influenced by how they think they are perceived by others. As in impression motivation, self-presentational behaviors can often be aimed at dispelling undesired impressions that others hold about an individual.

When people believe that others have or are likely to develop an undesirable impression of them, they will typically try to refute that negative impression by showing that they are different from how others believe them to be.

When they are not able to refute this negative impression, they may project desirable impressions in other aspects of their identity (Leary, 2001).

Implications

In the presence of others, few of the behaviors that people make are unaffected by their desire to maintain certain impressions. Even when not explicitly trying to create a particular impression of themselves, people are constrained by concerns about their public image.

Generally, this manifests with people trying not to create undesired impressions in virtually all areas of social life (Leary, 2001).

Tedeschi et al. (1971) argued that phenomena that psychologists previously attributed to peoples’ need to have cognitive consistency actually reflected efforts to maintain an impression of consistency in others’ eyes.

Studies have supported Tedeschi and their colleagues’ suggestion that phenomena previously attributed to cognitive dissonance were actually affected by self-presentational processes (Schlenker, 1980).

Psychologists have applied self-presentation to their study of phenomena as far-ranging as conformity, aggression, prosocial behavior, leadership, negotiation, social influence, gender, stigmatization, and close relationships (Baumeister, 1982; Leary, 1995; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi, 1981).

Each of these studies shows that people’s efforts to make impressions on others affect these phenomena, and, ultimately, that concerns self-presentation in private social life.

For example, research shows that people are more likely to be pro-socially helpful when their helpfulness is publicized and behave more prosocially when they desire to repair a damaged social image by being helpful (Leary, 2001).

In a similar vein, many instances of aggressive behavior can be explained as self-presentational efforts to show that someone is willing to hurt others in order to get their way.

This can go as far as gender roles, for which evidence shows that men and women behave differently due to the kind of impressions that are socially expected of men and women.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.

Braginsky, B. M., Braginsky, D. D., & Ring, K. (1969). Methods of madness: The mental hospital as a last resort. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Buss, A. H., & Briggs, S. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1310-1324. Gergen, K. J. (1968). Personal consistency and the presentation of self. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 299-308). New York: Wiley.

Gergen, K. J., & Taylor, M. G. (1969). Social expectancy and self-presentation in a status hierarchy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 79-92.

Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123-142.

• Goffman, E. (1963). Embarrassment and social organization.

Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life (Vol. 21). London: Harmondsworth.

Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY, 259.

Martey, R. M., & Consalvo, M. (2011). Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group identity in Second Life. Popular Communication, 9 (3), 165-180.

Jones E E (1964) Ingratiation. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological perspectives on the self, 1(1), 231-262.

Leary M R (1995) Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behaior. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Leary, M. R.. Impression Management, Psychology of, in Smelser, N. J., & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.). (2001). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34.

Leary M R, Tchvidjian L R, Kraxberger B E 1994 Self-presentation may be hazardous to your health. Health Psychology 13: 461–70.

Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 379-385.

• Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management (Vol. 222). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological bulletin, 92(3), 641.

Tedeschi, J. T, Smith, R. B., Ill, & Brown, R. C., Jr. (1974). A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 540- 563.

Tseëlon, E. (1992). Is the presented self sincere? Goffman, impression management and the postmodern self. Theory, culture & society, 9(2), 115-128.

Tunnell, G. (1984). The discrepancy between private and public selves: Public self-consciousness and its correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 549-555.

Further Information

• Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N. L., & Norton, S. D. (2013). Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, organizations and society, 38(3), 195-213.
• Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of management, 14(2), 321-338.
• Scheff, T. J. (2005). Looking‐Glass self: Goffman as symbolic interactionist. Symbolic interaction, 28(2), 147-166.

• Science, Tech, Math ›
• Social Sciences ›
• Sociology ›
• Recommended Reading ›

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Theo Wargo / Getty Images

• Recommended Reading
• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Archaeology

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a book published in the U.S. in 1959, by sociologist Erving Goffman. In it, Goffman uses the imagery of theater in order to portray the nuances and significance of face-to-face social interaction. Goffman puts forth a theory of social interaction that he refers to as the dramaturgical model of social life.

According to Goffman, social interaction may be likened to a theater, and people in everyday life to actors on a stage, each playing a variety of roles. The audience consists of other individuals who observe the role-playing and react to the performances. In social interaction, like in theatrical performances, there is a 'front stage' region where the actors are on stage  before an audience, and their consciousness of that audience and the audience's expectations for the role they should play influence the actor's behavior. There is also a back region, or backstage, where individuals can relax, and be themselves in front of others.

Central to the book and Goffman 's theory is the idea that people, as they interact in social settings, are constantly engaged in the process of "impression management," wherein each tries to present themselves and behave in a way that will prevent embarrassment of themselves or others. This is primarily done by each person who is part of the interaction working to ensure that all parties have the same "definition of the situation," meaning that all understand what is meant to happen in that situation, what to expect from the others involved, and thus how they should behave.

Though written over half a century ago,  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life  remains one of the most famous and widely taught sociology books, listed as the 10th most important sociology book of the 20th century by the International Sociological Association in 1998.

Performance

Goffman uses the term performance to refer to all activity of an individual in front of a particular set of observers, or audience. Through this performance, the individual, or actor, gives meaning to themselves, to others, and to their situation. These performances deliver impressions to others, communicating information that confirms the actor's identity in that situation. The actor may or may not be aware of their performance or have an objective for their performance, however, the audience is constantly attributing meaning to it and the actor.

The setting for the performance includes the scenery, props, and location where the interaction takes place. Different settings will have different audiences and will thus require the actor to alter his performance for each setting.

Appearance functions to portray the performer’s social status to the audience. Appearance also tells us of the individual’s temporary social state or role, for example, whether he is engaging in work (by wearing a uniform), informal recreation, or a formal social activity. Here, dress and props communicate things that have socially ascribed meaning, like gender , status, occupation, age, and personal commitments.

Manner refers to how the individual plays the role and functions to warn the audience of how the performer will act or seek to act in a role (for example, dominant, aggressive, receptive, etc.). Inconsistency and contradiction between appearance and manner may occur and will confuse and upset an audience. This can happen, for example, when one does not present himself or behave by his perceived social status or position.

The actor’s front, as labeled by Goffman, is the part of the individual’s performance that defines the situation for the audience. It is the image or impression he or she gives to the audience. A social front can also be thought of as a script. Certain social scripts tend to become institutionalized in terms of the stereotyped expectations they contain. Certain situations or scenarios have social scripts that suggest how the actor should behave or interact. If the individual takes on a task or role that is new to him or her, he or she may find there are already several well-established fronts among which he or she must choose. According to Goffman, when a task is given a new front or script, we rarely find the script is completely new. Individuals commonly use pre-established scripts to follow for new situations, even if it is not completely appropriate or desired.

Front Stage, Back Stage, and Off Stage

In stage drama , as in everyday interactions, according to Goffman, there are three regions, each with different effects on an individual’s performance: front stage, backstage, and off-stage. The front stage is where the actor formally performs and adheres to conventions that have particular meaning for the audience. The actor knows he or she is being watched and acts accordingly.

When in the backstage region , the actor may behave differently than when in front of the audience on the front stage. This is where the individual truly gets to be herself and get rid of the roles she plays when in front of other people.

Finally, the off-stage region is where individual actors meet the audience members independently of the team performance on the front stage. Specific performances may be given when the audience is segmented as such.

• Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
• Émile Durkheim: "Suicide: A Study in Sociology"
• Definition of the Sociological Imagination and Overview of the Book
• McDonaldization: Definition and Overview of the Concept
• Overview of The History of Sexuality
• An Overview of the Book Democracy in America
• Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point"
• The Main Points of "The Communist Manifesto"
• Understanding Durkheim's Division of Labor
• Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools
• A Book Overview: "The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit Of Capitalism"
• The Social Transformation of American Medicine
• The Asch Conformity Experiments
• Famous Sociologists
• A Biography of Erving Goffman
• Goffman's Front-Stage and Backstage Behavior

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life – A Summary

A summary of The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman, and a brief discussion of its relevance to A level Sociology. 

Executive Summary

The best way to understand human action is by seeing people as actors on a ‘social stage’ who actively create an impression of themselves for the benefit of an audience (and, ultimately themselves).

When we act in the social world, we put on a ‘front’ in order to project a certain image of ourselves (call this part of our ‘social identity’ if you like) – we create a front by manipulating the setting in which we perform (e.g. our living room), our appearance (e.g. our clothes) and our manner (our emotional demeanour).

In the social world we are called upon to put on various fronts depending on the social stage on which we find ourselves and the teams of actors with whom we are performing – the work-place or the school are typical examples of social stages which require us to put on a front. On these social stages we take on roles, in relation to other team-members and carefully manage the impressions we give-off in order to ‘fit in’ to society and/ or achieve our own personal goals

Impression management involves projecting an ‘idealised image’ of ourselves, which involves concealing a number of aspects of a performance – such as the effort which goes into putting on a front, and typically hiding any personal profit we will gain from a performance/ interaction.

Unfortunately because audiences are constantly on the look-out for the signs we give off (so that they can know who we are) ‘performers can stop giving expressions, but they cannot stop giving them off’. This means that we must be constantly on our guard to practice ‘expressive control’ when on the social stage. There are plenty of things that can go wrong with our performance which might betray the fact that we are not really the person who our act suggests that we are – we might lose bodily control (slouch), or make mistakes with our clothing (a scruffy appearance) for example.

Acting out social roles is quite demanding and so in addition to the front-stage aspect of our lives, we also have back-stage areas where we can drop our front and be more relaxed, closer to our ‘true-selves’, and where we can prepare for our acting in the world.

We generally tend to think of performances as being of one or two types – the sincere and the contrived. Some people sincerely believe in the parts they are playing, they invest their true selves in the impression they give off, this is the typical case. However, other people act out their roles more cynically – they do not believe the parts they are playing are a reflection of their ‘true selves’ but instead only play their part in order to achieve another end.

However, most performances on the social stage fall somewhere between these two realities. What is required in social life is that the individual learn enough about role-playing to fulfil the basic social roles that are required of him during his life – most of us ‘buy into this’ and act out what is expected of us, so we invest an element of ourselves into our roles, but at the same time we don’t necessarily get into our roles in a gung-ho sort of way…. So most acting is neither fully ‘sincere’ or fully ‘contrived’ and most people oscillate between sincerity and cynicism throughout the day and throughout the role they are playing.

Some of the roles we play contradict each other – and so we need to keep audiences separate – some performances are only meant for certain audience members – For example a student might act studiously while at school but more care-free while amongst his friends outside of school.

Thankfully most audience members are tactful and voluntarily stay away from back-stage areas where we prepare for our social roles, and if we ever ‘fall out of character’ they tend to engage in ‘tactful inattention’ in order to save the situation.

The significance of Goffman’s work for A level Sociology

From a theoretical point of view Goffman criticises structuralist (Functionalist and Marxist) theories of socialisation – Marxism for example argues that school socialises children to passively accept authority and hierarchy thus preparing them for exploitation in later life. What Goffman’s theory suggests is that many children might just be acting out this acceptance of hierarchy in order to get through school with as little hassle as possible, while backstage they may think school is not particularly important, and they may not accept authority.

From a research methods point of view the significance of Goffman lies in the fact that f we really want to understand people, we would need to engage in participant-observation in order to get back-stage with them, because we only get to see peoples true feelings when they stop performing.

If a researcher merely gave people a questionnaire to fill out, or even if they did an in-depth interview with them – they could be perceived by the respondent as a member of an audience – and the results we get could just be a performance put on for the benefit of the researcher.

Ultimately from this Interactionist/ dramaturgical perspective human interaction is so intricately complex that the correct way to study human action is to look at either individuals or small groups and focus on the efforts they make to maintain their identities in public, and how these social identities differ from their more relaxed selves when they are back-stage.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

18 thoughts on “The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life – A Summary”

• Pingback: Hustle Culture and Feeling of Burnout  – New Hope
• Pingback: The Social Function Of Systematic Child Abuse | 2019 Diary – Dannielle Blumenthal
• Pingback: What Does A Panda Bear Have To Do With Grammar – My Blog
• Pingback: Clone of Do You Know How To Create A Professional Image – My Blog
• Pingback: Clone of What Is Personal Branding? Why Is It So Important? Should I Care? Really? – My Blog
• Pingback: Post Template - CHUVA
• Pingback: Reference Two: – Annotated Bibliography
• Pingback: The Journey Begins – The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
• Pingback: What Is A Finsta?  | Lifehacker Australia
• Pingback: What actually is Personal Branding? - CHUVA
• Pingback: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life Reflection Log – Short Story
• Pingback: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life – Media and Information Literacy
• Pingback: My Reaction on “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” – JZ Blogs
• Pingback: A Reaction to Erving Goffman’s “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” | Site Title
• Pingback: Positivism and Interpretivism in Social Research | ReviseSociology
• Pingback: Social Action Theory – A Summary | ReviseSociology
• Pingback: What is so great about Snapchat? | camluong

Reblogged this on News, Technology and the Individual .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959)

Erving goffman (1959): the presentation of self in everyday life.

By Jason Taylor

Introduction

Erving Goffman (1922-1982) was “arguably the most influential American sociologist of the twentieth century” (Fine & Manning, 2003, p. 34). This summary will outline one of his earliest works – The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , originally published in 1956. The book was published more widely in 1959 with some minor changes and in 1969, won the American Sociological Association’s MacIver Award (Treviño, 2003). It has been listed by the International Sociological Association (1998) as the tenth most important book of the last century.

Goffman (1959, p.12) introduces his “report” as “a sort of handbook” which details “one sociological perspective from which social life can be studied”. In it, he describes “a set of features… which together form a framework that can be applied to any concrete social establishment, be it domestic, industrial, or commercial”.

Goffman (1959) intends on providing a unique sociological perspective from which to view the social world. He names this perspective dramaturgical analysis. Elegantly intuitive, this perspective directs us to view the social world as a stage. Goffman is using the language of the theatre to describe social interaction. Much like on the stage, ‘actors’ take on ‘roles’ – they engage in a performance . There is an audience who views and interprets this performance. There are props and scripts. And there is a ‘front stage’ and a ‘backstage’.

Following the introduction, the book is broken down into six main chapters. These are:

• Performances
• Regions and Region Behaviour
• Discrepant Roles
• Communication out of Character
• The Arts of Impression Management

These six chapters outline the six ‘dramaturgical principles’ of Goffman’s theory (Fine & Manning, 2003; Manning, 1992). This section will outline some of the core aspects of each of these ‘dramaturgical principles’. The first principle (performances) will be the most detailed of the six, because it is the fundamental theoretical basis for Goffman’s (1959) overall concept. The additional five principles can be seen as supporting and building upon this underlying idea. Following from this fairly extensive summary of the book, a critical evaluation will discuss some of its main criticisms and consider why it remains an exceptionally influential piece of Sociology. Finally, we will end with some cautionary advice from Goffman on the scope and practicality of his theory.

1. Performances

A “performance” may be defined as all the activity of a given participant on a given occasion that serves to influence in any way any of the other participants. (Goffman, 1959, p.26)

I have been using the term “performance” to refer to all the activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence before a particular set of observers and which has some influence on the observers . (Goffman, 1959, p. 32)

So, by ‘performance’, Goffman (1959) is referring to any activity by an individual in the presence of others which influences those others.

It is important to recognise that there are various situations, circumstances and settings within which a performance can take place. One of the most obvious, perhaps, is a job interview. In this case, the interviewee is likely presenting a version of themselves that they believe the interviewer values in their employees – well-mannered, confident (but not arrogant), respectful, hard-working, trustworthy, and so on. They may attempt to present these characteristics through the way they dress, their posture, their manner and tone of speaking, their body language, etc. Indeed, the interviewer will also be putting on a performance – perhaps restraining themselves so as not to reveal too much about how the interview is going or presenting an authoritative demeanour, for example. However, performances occur in more subtle settings and situations, too. When a couple go out to dinner, they present themselves in a certain way – both towards each other as well as the person serving them and to other diners. The way we dress, the way we speak, the facial expressions we make, our body language, all amount to a kind of performance.

Goffman (1959) suggests that performances are an essential aspect of how we “define the situation”:

When an individual enters the presence of others, they commonly seek to acquire information about him or to bring into play information about him already possessed. They will be interested in his general socio-economic status, his conception of self, his attitude toward them, his competence, his trustworthiness, etc. Although some of this information seems to be sought almost as an end in itself, there are usually quite practical reasons for acquiring it. Information about the individual helps to define the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and what they may expect of him. Informed in these ways, the others will know how best to act in order to call forth a desired response from him. (Goffman, 1959, p.1)

Essentially, the argument here is that social interaction requires performances from all actors involved in any social interaction in order to define and negotiate the situation we find ourselves in. Through our performances, we make claims about what the situation is, who we are, and what to expect from one another.

A word of caution here. Goffman (1959) is not necessarily implying that individuals are consciously deceiving one another or ‘faking it’… at least, not all of the time:

At one extreme, one finds that the performer can be fully taken in by his own act; he can be sincerely convinced that the impression of reality which he stages is the real reality. When his audience is also convinced in this way about the show he puts on—and this seems to be the typical case—then for the moment at least, only the sociologist or the socially disgruntled will have any doubts about the “realness” of what is presented. At the other extreme, we find that the performer may not be taken in at all by his own routine. This possibility is understandable, since no one is in quite as good an observational position to see through the act as the person who puts it on. Coupled with this, the performer may be moved to guide the conviction of his audience only as a means to other ends, having no ultimate concern in the conception that they have of him or of the situation. When the individual has no belief in his own act and no ultimate concern with the beliefs of his audience, we may call him cynical, reserving the term “sincere” for individuals who believe in the impression fostered by their own performance. (Goffman, 1959, pp.17-18)

Certainly then, an individual may intentionally and consciously put on a performance in order to gain in some way from a given situation. However, performances occur in any and all social interactions. The performer may well be convinced that the performance they are giving is not really a performance at all and instead may view it as an authentic reflection of him- or herself.

Nonetheless, there has been criticism that Goffman presents a cynical view of the ‘self’. Manning (1992), for example, argues that Goffman’s theory is based on what he calls the ‘two selves thesis’. One aspect of the self is considered to be a careful performer, while the other is the “cynical manipulator behind the public performance” (Fine & Manning, 2003, p. 46). We will return to this and other criticism later in the discussion.

An essential aspect of performance, one we have considered in examples already, is what Goffman (1959) calls ‘front’:

It will be convenient to label as “front” that part of the individuals performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance. Front, then, is the expressive equipment of a standard kind intentionally or unwittingly employed by the individual during his performance. (Goffman, 1959, p. 22)

Front can be broken down into two broad components:

Setting: the manipulation of the environment to support a particular performance…

… involving furniture, décor, physical layout, and other background items which supply the scenery and stage props for the spate of human action played out before, within, or upon it.  (Goffman, 1959, p.22)

Personal Front:

refers to the other items of expressive equipment, the items that we most intimately identify with the performer himself and that we naturally expect will follow the performer wherever he goes. As part of personal front we may include: insignia of office or rank; clothing; sex, age, and racial characteristics; size and looks; posture; speech patterns; facial expressions; bodily gestures; and the like. (Goffman, 1959, p. 24)

Personal Front is broken down into two further categories – ‘Appearance’ and ‘Manner’. Appearance refers to the performers social status – how they are dressed, for example, or any status symbols they may have on show; while manner may be taken as “those stimuli which function at the time to warn us of the interaction role the performer will expect to play in the oncoming situation” (Goffman, 1959, p. 24). For example:

a haughty, aggressive manner may give the impression that the performer expects to be the one who will initiate the verbal interaction and direct its course. A meek, apologetic manner may give the impression that the performer expects to follow the lead of others, or at least that he can be led to do so. (Goffman, 1959, p.24)

Performances are often a collaborative effort. Individuals will often find themselves in situations whereby they must perform as part of a ‘team’. Examples of this include colleagues at work, students in a classroom, and family outings. ‘Teams’ work together to maintain a common impression and cooperate to contribute to defining the situation. They are required to trust one another to play their role convincingly.

Individuals who perform together as a team are therefore mutually dependent on one another. Each may have a specialised role to play, and there may be a ‘director’ who has “the right to direct and control the progress of the dramatic action” (Goffman, 1959, p. 97).  Members of a team are also generally aware that each individual within the team is performing while they are ‘frontstage’.

Members of a team also have access to a ‘backstage’ where they are able to relax and cease performing – to an extent. However, it should be recognised that each individual will still maintain their own personal performance, intended to be observed by other members of the team.

3. Regions and Region Behaviour

Continuing with the metaphor of the stage, Goffman (1959) considers there to be various regions, variably observable to different audiences, where performers will have more or less need to perform. He distinguishes between three different ‘regions’. These are front region , back region and outside region .

Front Region: Also referred to as ‘frontstage’. An audience is present and a performance is given. Essentially, an individual is ‘frontstage’, at least to a degree, any time they are in the presence of others.

Back Region: Also referred to as ‘backstage’. When ‘backstage’, individuals and teams can rehearse, relax and behave ‘out of character’.

[Backstage], the performer can relax; he can drop his front, forgo speaking his lines, and step out of character. (Goffman, 1959, p. 122)

An individual ‘backstage’ no longer has to be concerned with their appearance or manner, or with with manipulating the setting to accommodate or please an audience. Under normal circumstances the audience has little or no access to the backstage region.

Outside Region: A region occupied by ‘outsiders’ who are not intended to be present by a performer. These outsiders are neither performers or actors and are often considered to be ‘intruders’. Performances vary based on who is in the audience. Outsiders may cause confusion or embarrassment because they may not be the ‘intended audience’ for a specific performance. Goffman (1959) gives an example of a couple who regularly bicker unexpectedly receiving a guest who they do not wish to be aware of their marital troubles. Essentially, the current performance must be adapted to accommodate the outsider, although “rarely can this be done smoothly enough to preserve the newcomer’s illusion that the show suddenly put on is the performer’s natural show” (Goffman, 1959, p. 139), In other words, the ‘adapted’ performance may not be a convincing one.

4. Discrepant Roles

For far, we have considered most individuals to be categorised in one of three ways – a performer, an audience member, or an outsider. But Goffman (1959) notes that ‘discrepant roles’ also exist, where an individual may not appear what they seem or may not completely fit into any of these three predefined categories. Some examples of discrepant roles include:

The Informer:

… someone who pretends to the performers to be a member of their team, is allowed to come backstage and to acquire destructive information, and then openly or secretly sells out the show to the audience. The political, military, industrial, and criminal variants of this role are famous. If it appears that the individual first joined the team in a sincere way and not with the premeditated plan of disclosing its secrets, we sometimes call him a traitor, turncoat, or quitter, especially if he is the sort of person who ought to have made a decent teammate. The individual who all along has meant to inform on the team, and originally joins only for this purpose, is sometimes called a spy. It has frequently been noted, of course, that informers, whether traitors or spies, are often in an excellent position to play a double game, selling out the secrets of those who buy secrets from them. Informers can, of course, be classified in other ways: as Hans Speier suggests, some are professionally trained for their work, others are amateurs; some are of high estate and some of low; some work for money and others work from conviction. (Goffman, 1959, pp. 145-146)

A shill is someone who acts as though he were an ordinary member of the audience but is in fact in league with the performers. Typically, the shill either provides a visible model for the audience of the kind of response the performers are seeking or provides the kind of audience response that is necessary at the moment for the development of the performance.  (Goffman, 1959, p. 146)

We must not take the view that shills are found only in non-respectable performances… For example, at informal conversational gatherings, it is common for a wife to look interested when her husband tells an anecdote and to feed him appropriate leads and cues, although in fact she has heard the anecdote many times and knows that the show her husband is making of telling something for the first time is only a show. A shill, then, is someone who appears to be just another unsophisticated member of the audience and who uses his unapparent sophistication in the interests of the performing team. (Goffman, 1957, pp. 146-147)

Non-persons:

… are present during the interaction but in some respects do not take the role either of performer or of audience, nor do they (as do informers, shills, and spotters) pretend to be what they are not. (Goffman, 1959, p. 151)

Goffman suggests examples of ‘non-persons’ such as servants, children, the elderly and the sick. The term ‘non-person’ may come across as insensitive or prejudiced, but to be clear, Goffman is trying to outline how people are seen, thought about and treated within this framework. Such examples highlight members of society who are seen as neither performer, audience or outsider and do not make substantial impact on the way people behave in their presence. ‘Non-persons’ can often move between frontstage and backstage without causing the same sort of disruption that an ‘outsider’ might. Goffman’s (1963) work on Stigma adds a great deal of theory building on comparable concepts.

The Spotter: Undercover government or company ‘agents’ who act as a member or the public or team in order to check up on the conduct of employees or officials.

The Shopper:

… is the one who takes an unremarked, modest place in the audience… but when he leaves he goes to his employer, a competitor of the team whose performance he has witnessed, to report what he has seen. He is the professional shopper—the Gimbel’s man in Macy’s and the Macy’s man in Gimbel’s; he is the fashion spy and the foreigner at National Air Meets. [He] has a technical right to see the show but ought to have the decency, it is sometimes felt, to stay in his own back region, for his interest in the show is from the wrong perspective… (Goffman, 1959, pp. 148-149)

The Mediator: An individual who has access to both sides of a dispute but gives each side the impression that they are more loyal to them than to the other. Examples Goffman (1959) suggests are arbiters of labour disputes (negotiating between each side of the dispute), factory foremen (advancing the directives of upper management whilst maintaining the respect and willingness of workers) and chairmen or formal meetings (who are to moderate the meeting and ensure everyone is treated fairly). Goffman is amusingly cynical of ‘mediators’, concluding that they are essentially a ‘double-shill’:

When a go-between operates in the actual presence of the two teams of which he is a member, we obtain a wonderful display, not unlike a man desperately trying to play tennis with himself. Again we are forced to see that the individual is not the natural unit for our consideration but rather the team and its members. As an individual, the go-between’s activity is bizarre, untenable, and undignified, vacillating as it does from one set of appearances and loyalties to another. As a constituent part of two teams, the go-between’s vacillation is quite understandable. The go-between can be thought of simply as a double-shill. (Goffman, 1959, p. 149)

5. Communication out of Character

The discussion so far has outlined many of the ways in which a performer maintains their performance. There are, however, times when an actor may step ‘out of character’, revealing aspects of themselves that are not part of, and may be incompatible with, a given performance. For example, an actor who is unexpectedly startled or frightened while giving a performance may shout out “Good Lord” or “My God!” (Goffman, 1959, p. 169). Goffman outlines four forms this communication out of character may take:

• Treatment of the Absent: While backstage, performers may derogate and talk negatively about the audience, toward whom they speak about favourably whilst frontstage. Goffman gives an example of salespeople:

… customers who are treated respectfully during the performance are often ridiculed, gossiped about, caricatured, cursed, and criticized when the performers are backstage; here, too, plans may be worked out for “selling” them, or employing “angles” against them, or pacifying them. (Goffman, 1959, p. 170)

While it is asserted that derogative speech is most the common treatment of the absent, backstage performers may also talk positively about their audience in ways they would not whilst frontstage.

• Staging Talk: Backstage discussion between teams about various aspects of the performance, possible adjustments are considered, potential disruptions are explored, “wounds are licked, and morale is strengthened for the next performance” (Goffman, 1959, p. 176).
• Team Collusion: Communication between fellow performers and those backstage who are involved in maintaining the performance. One example of team collusion is instructions given through the in-ear piece of a television news anchor. However, team collusion can also be more subtle, such as through “unconsciously learned vocabulary of gestures and looks by which collusive staging cues can be conveyed” (Goffman, 1959, p. 181).
• Realigning Actions: Unofficial communication directed at the audience, often in an attempt to redefine the situation. Realigning actions may include “innuendo, mimicked accents, well-placed jokes, significant pauses, veiled hints, purposeful kidding, expressive overtones, and many other sign practices” (Goffman, 1959, p. 190). In the event that a performer is accused of unacceptable or improper communication out of character, through realigning actions they may attempt to claim that they did not ‘mean anything’ by their out of character communication and the audience is given a chance to disregard the outburst or mistake.

6. The Arts of Impression Management

It is a reality that performances have the potential to be disrupted. Audience members or outsiders may find their way backstage, for example, or communication out of character may result in a particular performance becoming irreconcilably contradictory with what the audience has witnessed.  ‘Impression management’ is a term used to describe the ways in which performers may plan and prepare ‘corrective practices’ for such disruptions (Goffman, 1959). These ‘dramaturgical disciplines’ may include techniques for covering up for teammates, suppressing emotions and spontaneous feelings, and maintaining self-control during performances.

Performers often rely on the “tactful tendency of the audience and outsiders to act in a protective way in order to help the performers save their own show (Goffman, 1959, p. 229). However, the tactfulness of the audience may not be enough to recover the situation, which may result in embarrassing and socially awkward consequences. As Goffman explains in his wonderfully Goffman way:

Whenever the audience exercises tact, the possibility will arise that the performers will learn that they are being tactfully protected. When this occurs, the further possibility arises that the audience will learn that the performers know they are being tactfully protected. And then, in turn, it becomes possible for the performers to learn that the audience knows that the performers know they are being protected. Now when such states of information exist, a moment in the performance may come when the separateness of the teams will break down and be momentarily replaced by a communion of glances through which each team openly admits to the other its state of information. At such moments, the whole dramaturgical structure of social interaction is suddenly and poignantly laid bare, and the line separating the teams momentarily disappears. Whether this close view of things brings shame or laughter, the teams are likely to draw rapidly back into their appointed character. (Goffman, 1959, 233)

Summary Conclusion

Here we will conclude this summary of Presentation of Self . It is a fairly extensive summary in comparison to many currently available and is focused principally on helping students to engage in the core ideas found throughout the book. As has become usual on this website, I have used extensive quotations with the aim of encouraging readers to explore this key text more directly. While I consider this summary to be fairly extensive, it does not nearly cover everything. My hope is that there is enough here to provide a relatively clear outline of what Goffman (1959) is trying to say. That said, it should be noted that Goffman’s theories are notoriously considered to be tricky to understand structurally. His work can be difficult to neatly condense and summarise. At the same time, something about his work changes the way we view the world. As Lemert (1997) puts it:

The experience Goffman effects is that of colonizing a new social place into which the reader enters, from which to exit never quite the same. To have once, even if only once, seen the social world from within such a place is never after to see it otherwise, ever after to read the world anew. In thus seeing differently, we are other than we were. (Lemert, 1997 – cited in Scheff, 2003, p.52)

Scheff (2003) adds:

Our vision of the world, and even of ourselves, is transformed by reading Goffman. (Scheff, 2003, p.52)

We will now move on to some critical analysis of the book.

Critical Analysis

Goffman provides us with an interesting and useful framework within which to think about social interaction through the framework of dramaturgical analysis. As we shall see, this is not a theory which claims to explain all of society or all aspects of social interaction. What it does provide is a framework that we can apply in studying social groups and their interaction between and among one another. It is a method of analysis.

The various principles he outlines offer a range of complexities that may apply in any particular social situation. One very obvious type of social space with which the dramaturgical perspective may be useful is in the workplace – (probably) any workplace. Some questions we might want to consider in studying social interaction within such an environment include:

• What are individual performers hoping to achieve through their performances?
• How do team dynamics apply in various situations?
• Where do front and back regions exist and how clear are the lines between each?
• How do performers respond to informers, or feel about spotters and how well do they work with mediators? Are there any strategies in place to guard against such discrepant intruders?
• What contexts or situations may inspire communication out of character?
• What methods of impression management are utilised in the event a performance is disrupted or exposed?

This is just one, very brief example, but hopefully it makes the point. Other settings I personally would be interested to explore through dramaturgical analysis include homeless hostels, educational establishments, prisons (which has been done, to an extent – start with Goffman’s (1961) Asylums if you find this interesting) and hospitals.

Goffman (1959) gives us a language to explore social interaction through dramaturgical analysis. The book, like much of Goffman’s work, is filled with specific examples from autobiographies and first-hand accounts of individuals experiences. Goffman is considered by many as a “brilliant maverick” (Manning, 1992, p. 1). However, he does not follow any of the clearly defined, systematic approaches used by other notable social theorists, and this has left many Sociologists in a position where they do not know how to replicate his approach:

Part of these limits of Goffman’s impact can be attributed to the daunting perception of his idiosyncratic brilliance. Few wish to place themselves in comparison with this master sociologist, particularly since his approach lacks an easily acquired method. How can one learn to do what Goffman did? Methodological guidelines do not exist. This has the effect of leaving the work both sui generis and incapable of imitation. The belief (and perhaps the reality) is that Goffman created a personalistic sociology that was virtually mimic-proof. (Fine & Manning, 2003, p. 56)

On the other hand, while few (if any) have been able to replicate Goffman’s work, some of the most influential and successful Sociologists are indebted to his writing (Fine & Manning, 2003). Goffman’s mark on Sociology is enormous. This is both the case for his theories, as well as his writing style – as Fine & Manning (2003, p. 57) put it,“Goffman’s sardonic, satiric, jokey style has served to indicate that other genres and tropes can be legitimate forms of academic writing”. Goffman’s style is interesting, humorous and natural. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is, at the very least, an incredibly readable and engaging book.

Giddens (2009) summary of his rereading of Presentation of Self outlines and reflects on some of the main criticisms of the book. One of these is that Goffman (1959) ignores power structures throughout his discussion. Giddens (2009) correctly recognises that Goffman does explore how we ‘do’ power, but notes that he neglects any sort of systematic discussion around how power is institutionally structured. His discussion of ‘non-persons’, for example, would have benefited greatly from a focus on institutional differentials of power. Furthermore, Goffman avoids providing any historical context to his ideas. While many of the examples and citations Goffman presents are historically diverse, his analysis is intrinsically grounded in the here and now. Social interaction is very much a product of historical development, and Goffman makes no attempt to investigate this. Treviño (2003) agrees,  arguing that grounding his ideas in a more ‘recognisable theoretical tradition’ would have resulted in ‘greater coherence’ in Goffman’s work.

These criticisms are valid. However, this should not be understood to undermine the value of Goffman’s ideas. While Giddens (2009) views it as ultimately inadequate, he offers Goffman a defence – Goffman’s work is concerend with analysis of interpersonal interaction within social situations rather than macro-structural theory. He takes a micro-sociological approach and this comes with limitations. While issues of power differentiation and historical context certainly would add extra value to Goffman’s work here, it is just that – added value. Indeed, Giddens (2009) makes reference to work such as Elias (1969) and Scheff (1999), who have incorporated and connected some of Goffman’s ideas with issues of power and sociohistorical development. Whilst recognising that there will always be areas that can be (and maybe should have been) explored further, be wary of allowing such criticism to detract from the usefulness of any valuable body of work. After all, there is no reason these issues cannot be explored later and/or by other scholars.

Furthermore, according to Scheff (2006, p. viii), Goffman’s work is ‘fully original’. He deliberately evades traditional social scientific methodology and practice, seeking to get…

… outside the box, beyond the conventions of our society and of social science… Goffman’s main focus was what might be called the microworld of emotions and relationships (ERW). We all live in it every day of our lives, yet we have been trained not to notice. Since Goffman noticed it, he was the discoverer of a hidden world. His work, if properly construed, provides a window into that otherwise invisible place… it is important in its own right, since it constitutes the moment-by-moment texture of our lives. Second, it is intimately connected to the larger world; it both causes and is caused by that world. If we are to have more than a passing understanding of ourselves and our society, we need to become better acquainted with the emotional/relational world… Conventional social science mostly ignores emotions and relationships in favour of behaviour and cognition. Goffman’s recognition of the existence of an ERW is the foundation of his whole approach. He realized, at some level, that conventional social and behavioural science was blind to the ERW, and might as well be blind in many other arenas as well… Following Goffman’s lead, if we are going to advance in our understanding of the human condition, we need to build a new approach. This approach would not only include the ERW, but other hitherto unrecognized structures and processes as well, such as the filigree of emotions and relationships that underlies large-scale behaviour, as in the case of collective cooperation and conflict. (Scheff, 2006, p. vii – ix)

Following Scheff (2006) then, we can turn the criticism that Goffman ignores other aspects of traditional Sociology on its head. Indeed, we can argue that Goffman is exploring aspects of social life that have remained largely hidden to the rest of the field. To quote Treviño (2003, p. 36), Presentation of Self was “the first sociological effort to truly treat face-to face interaction as a subject of study, as an order, in its own right, at its own level”. Those issues of macro social structure, those of institutional power differentials and of sociohistorical development were not revealed and communicated even nearly in full by any one body of work or by one sole theorist. As ‘discoverer’ of this aspect of the social world, it would be unreasonable to expect Goffman to combine his ideas with all available aspects of social science into one unifying theory of all social life and social structure. All science is collaborative, and Goffman provides us with one more addition to a dizzying array of diverse social science. Nonetheless, it is worth taking these criticisms seriously, if only as a recognition that Goffman, like any other social theorist, provides us with just one perspective with which to view the world. His theories should be used alongside, rather than in isolation from, other perspectives in Sociology.

Another reasonable criticism briefly mentioned earlier in this discussion is that Goffman’s view of the ‘self’ is grounded in what Manning (1992) calls the ‘two selves thesis’. It is argued here that Goffman takes a cynical view of the ‘self’, which he inherently suggests has two sides – one, the careful performer, the other the ‘cynical manipulator’ guiding the performance. It is fair to claim that human beings and their interactions are far more complex, far more multifaceted, than Goffman seems to suggest. Manning (1992) points out that Goffman recognised and attempted to distance himself from this thesis with small additions to the second 1959 edition of the book as well as in subsequent work. It seems that Goffman does not want us to view the dramaturgical analogy as a complete and full description of the self or as a tool to accurately understand all aspects of social interaction. Indeed, he uses the final few paragraphs of Presentation of Self in Everyday Life to reinforce this. We shall therefore conclude this summary as Goffman (1959) choses to end his book :

And now a final comment. In developing the conceptual framework employed in this report, some language of the stage was used. I spoke of performers and audiences; of routines and parts; of performances coming off or falling flat; of cues, stage settings and backstage; of dramaturgical needs, dramaturgical skills, and dramaturgical strategies. Now it should be admitted that this attempt to press a mere analogy so far was in part a rhetoric and a maneuver. The claim that all the world’s a stage is sufficiently commonplace for readers to be familiar with its limitations and tolerant of its presentation, knowing that at any time they will easily be able to demonstrate to themselves that it is not to be taken too seriously . An action staged in a theater is a relatively contrived illusion and an admitted one; unlike ordinary life, nothing real or actual can happen to the performed characters—although at another level of course something real and actual can happen to the reputation of performers qua professionals whose everyday job is to put on theatrical performances. And so here the language and mask of the stage will be dropped . Scaffolds, after all, are to build other things with, and should be erected with an eye to taking them down . This report is not concerned with aspects of theater that creep into everyday life. It is concerned with the structure of social encounters—the structure of those entities in social life that come into being whenever persons enter one another’s immediate physical presence. The key factor in this structure is the maintenance of a single definition of the situation , this definition having to be expressed, and this expression sustained in the face of a multitude of potential disruptions. A character staged in a theatre is not in some ways real, nor does it have the same kind of real consequences as does the thoroughly contrived character performed by a confidence man; but the successful staging of either of these types of false figures involves use of real techniques—the same techniques by which everyday persons sustain their real social situations. Those who conduct face to face interaction on a theatre’s stage must meet the key requirement of real situations; they must expressively sustain a definition of the situation: but this they do in circumstances that have facilitated their developing an apt terminology for the interactional tasks that all of us share. (Goffman, 1959, pp. 254-255, emphasis added )

Goffman (1959) intends his dramaturgical methaphor to be used as a scaffold. It is not all-emcompassing and is not adequate as an approach used in isolation. Rather, it is a means to an end. It is a method of highlighting and teasing out aspects of social interaction which, once identified, must be analysed further through the use of other Sociological methologies and perspectives. Nonetheless, the analogy of the theatre to describe everyday life is fascinating and has had substantial impact on the field.

Elias, N., 1969. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fine, G. A. & Manning, P., 2003. Erving Goffman. In: The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Social Theorists. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 34-62.

Giddens, A., 2009. On Rereading The Presentation of Self: Some Reflections. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(4), pp. 290-295.

Goffman, E., 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.

Goffman, E., 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and other Inmates. New York: Anchor.

Goffman, E., 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London: Penguin.

International Sociological Association, 1998. Books of the Century. [Online] Available at: https://www.isa-sociology.org/en/about-isa/history-of-isa/books-of-the-xx-century

Manning, P., 1992. Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Scheff, T. J., 1999. Being Mentally Ill: A Sociological Theory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Scheff, T. J., 2003. The Goffman Legacy: Deconstructing/Reconstructimg Social Science. In: Goffman’s Legacy. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 50-70.

Scheff, T. J., 2006. Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm for Social Science. Routledge: Oxon.

Treviño, A. J., 2003. Introduction: Erving Goffman and the Interaction Order. In: Goffman’s Legacy. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 1-49.

Self-Presentation Theory (SPT)

Self-presentation theory: a review, introduction.

Self-presentation theory explains how individuals use verbal and non-verbal cues to project a particular image in society (Goffman, 1959). The theory draws on dramaturgy metaphors, such as backstage and frontstage, as a lens to explore human behaviour in everyday life (Goffman, 1959). Using dramaturgy as an analytical tool dates back to Nicholas Evreinov’s (1927) research on theatrical instincts, as well as Kenneth Burke’s (1969) work evaluating and scrutinising dramatic action (Shulman, 2016). Continuing this discourse, Erving Goffman (1959) offered a rich vein of theoretical concepts in sociology by drawing on theatre metaphors. While sociology research at that time focused on broader societal forces and structures, self-presentation theory emphasised individual behaviours and offered a lens to evaluate how performers interact with others to achieve personal goals (Goffman, 1959). Key to self-presentation theory is the notion of impression management and the routines that individuals play to manage an audience’s perception. As a result, self-presentation is crucial in developing one’s social identity. Thus, the theory paved the way for a better understanding of identity development through the performance acts of individuals in society.

Drawing on Goffman’s (1959) theorisation, self-presentation is defined as individuals’ actions to control, shape, and modify the impressions other people have of them in a particular setting. In other words, individuals’ " performance is socialised, moulded, and modified to fit into the understanding and expectations of the society in which it is presented " (Goffman, 1959:p44). Hence, self-presentation holds a strategic value to individuals as impressions influence how others assess, treat, and reward them (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). For instance, in a workplace setting, impressions may shape personal success and career progression (Gardner & Martinko, 1988).

Self-presentation theory draws on the traditions of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1986). Goffman suggests six key principles of the theory (Goffman, 1959; Shulman, 2016). First, individuals are performers who express their self to society. In practice, individuals highlight a persona and project a particular image to others. Such a projection is a means to show their identity and who they are to the society. Second, individuals want to put forward a credible image. They do so by being truthful and authentic in the way they present themselves. They showcase their expertise in a particular domain. Third, individuals take special care to avoid presenting themselves " out of character ". They strive to ensure that their performance or communication aligns with their role and identity in society. Fourth, if a performance is inadequate and not up to the mark, individuals address or repair it by engaging in restorative actions. Such actions ensure that their desired image is not tarnished. Fifth, self-presentation occurs in social places, known as regions of performance. Such regions in everyday life include the workplace, social gatherings, and social media. As such, they are "platforms" for self-presentation. Sixth, individuals work in teams and manage the impression of the collective to achieve common goals.  In other words, a performance may not always occur alone, but can take place in concert with other individuals.

Individuals enact self-presentation because they are motivated to maximise rewards and minimise punishment (Leary & Kowalski, 1990;Schlenker, 1980). More specifically, motivations include the desire to (i) enhance self-esteem, (ii) develop a self-identity, and (iii) generate social and material benefits (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). In practice, people may strive to project an image that will result in praise and compliments, positively shaping one’s self-esteem (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). In contrast, individuals may avoid presenting an image that draws criticism and a lack of self-worth (Cohen, 1959). More specifically, a central motivation for self-presentation is to build an identity in society to foster a unique perception in the minds of others (Schlenker, 1980). Further, self-presentation is an adequate mechanism to foster rewards that can be social, including, trust, affection, and friendship. It can generate material benefits, such as financial gain (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).

Goffman (1959) uses the dramaturgical metaphor to explain the self-presentation theory and states that " the theatre metaphor is the ‘structure of the social encounter’ that occurs in all social life " (Adams & Sydie, 2002:p170). Drawing on dramaturgical metaphors, self-presentation comprises backstage and frontstage strategies akin to a theatre performance (Cho et al., 2018). These strategies are summarised in Table 1. Backstage relates to reflecting, practising, and taking adequate measures to prepare oneself (Goffman, 1959). Such practices occur in private and offer individuals a more comfortable atmosphere in which to prepare without the pressure from society, such as norms and expectations to behave in a certain way (Jeacle, 2014). The theory suggests the significance of rehearsal, which focuses on preparation work for the frontstage (Siegel, Tussyadiah & Scarles, 2023). For instance, individuals can practise and adjust their presentation at home before a formal client meeting.

Table 1: Self-presentation strategies

In contrast, frontstage comprises the " setting ", which includes the layout and objects in a particular room that set the scene for expression and action (Goffman, 1959). The setting is a place that is usually stable and unmovable, but at times can be relocated such as a circus (Goffman, 1959). Another key aspect of the frontstage is the " personal front ", which relates to personal characteristics such as sex, age, and facial expressions (Goffman, 1959). These characteristics are signals that are either fixed or vary over time (Goffman, 1959). Fixed characteristics are, for instance, one’s ethnic background, whereas characteristics that change include gestures based on one’s mood. The theory suggests that the personal front can be better understood through the lens of appearance and manner. The former relates to one’s temporal state such as work or leisure. The latter expresses the interaction role that one is likely to pursue in a given situation, like being professional and sincere (Goffman, 1959). Usually, there exists a coherence between the appearance and manner, although, at times, they may be misaligned (Goffman, 1959). For instance, a person of high status may behave in a way considered down to earth (Goffman, 1959).

Individuals can enact certain routines as part of their self-expression on the frontstage. At times, these routines can become institutionalised when an individual takes on specific roles in society (Goffman, 1959). The theory highlights the following routines: idealisation, mystification, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication, ingratiation, identification, basking in reflected glory, downward comparison, upward comparison, remaining silent, apology, and corrective action (Schütz, 1998).

Idealisation relates to individuals performing an ideal accredited impression in society (Goffman, 1959). Idealisation is common in social stratification research: individuals strive to go higher up the ladder in the social strata and adjust their self-presentations to reflect that ideal state and value system. In practice, individuals gain insight into the sign equipment required to showcase idealisation, and subsequently use it to project the accredited social class. Mystification is pursued by reducing contact and increasing social distance with the audience to create a sense of awe (Goffman, 1959). It is a means of limiting familiarity with others. For instance, mystification was used by Kings and Queens to foster an impression of power. The audience responded in a way that respected their mystic and sacred identity.

Self-promotion is pursued to create a credible image of oneself in the minds of others (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1986; Schau & Gilly, 2003). Such a form of persuasion is relevant in various circumstances, such as job interviews, influencer marketing, and presidential speeches. For instance, a candidate applying for a digital marketing role may share reflections on their expertise in search engine optimisation. An influencer focusing on health and fitness may share online videos of their exercise regimes. A presidential candidate may talk about their vast political experience to project their leadership qualities. Therefore, self-promotion focuses on projecting oneself as an expert and capable person in a particular domain (Bande et al., 2019). However, the theory suggests the issue of misrepresentation: behaviours that represent a false front (Goffman, 1959). Individuals may use credible vehicle signs for the wrong reasons, such as deception and fraud (Goffman, 1959).

Exemplification strategy focuses on creating an impression of oneself as virtuous and honourable (Bonner, Greenbaum & Quade, 2017; Gardner, 2003; Schütz, 1997). In other words, exemplification relates to creating an identity that rests on the notion of morality and ethics. For instance, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) may publish posts on social media supporting charities, which projects a righteous image. Further, individuals regularly take a stand against harmful organisational behaviours, such as those engaging in child labour.  While sharing their views on social media, those individuals exemplify a high moral ground and justify why organisations engaging in transgressions need to be held accountable. However, an exemplification strategy has its potential dangers. The society may question the motive behind such actions and consider it a means to cover up previous unethical deeds (Stone et al., 1997).  

Supplication is based on showing oneself as vulnerable and frail to draw adequate support and help from others (Christopher et al., 2005; Korzynski, Haenlein & Rautiainen, 2021) . The ingratiation strategy relates to creating a likable and attractive impression in a particular place offline, such as one’s workplace, and online on social media (Bolino, Long & Turnley, 2016; Gross et al., 2021). For instance, an individual can project themselves to be professional and collegial in the workplace to foster goodwill and social approval.

The identification strategy puts emphasis on associating oneself with a particular community to create a specific image in society (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). For instance, some consumers may link themselves to the Harley-Davidson community to create a rebellious and adventurous image (Schembri, 2009). Tattoos, leather jackets, and riding on Harley motorcycles in packs reinforce their identification (Schembri, 2009). A strategy that slightly overlaps with identification work is " basking in reflected glor y" (Cialdini et al., 1976). In this case, an individual associates themselves with another person who has a positive impression in society and thus leverages those associations (Schütz, 1998).

Downward comparison focuses on projecting oneself as superior and in a positive light to the detriment of others (Wills, 1981). One may witness downward comparison in politics as one presidential candidate expresses how their vision and proposed policies are superior compared to another candidate. Upward comparison, however, is the practice of comparing oneself with someone better to improve one’s self-evaluations and perceptions (Collins, 1996).

Remaining silent may be a particular practice for individuals to be neutral and not face any criticism or backlash (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003). Finally, particularly when one is responsible for an adverse event or has engaged in a wrong action, they may share an apology, defined as " repenting and promising moral behaviour in the future " (Hart, Tortoriello & Richardson, 2020:p2).  They may suggest putting corrective measures in place so that it does not happen again in the future (Schütz, 1998).

Figure 1 offers a generic framework of self-presentation theory, comprising frontstage and backstage strategies that help attain specific outcomes (Goffman, 1959; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). The backstage and frontstage are inter-related. Backstage strategies often involve preparation, desk research, and due diligence to gain insight into a particular performance (Jacobs, 1992). As such, backstage is an unofficial channel for individuals to gain the necessary skills, attributes, and contextual understanding to perform certain routines (Tiilikainen et al., 2024). Subsequently, individuals enact frontstage strategies involving those practised routines and impressions in a social context (Schütz, 1997).

To ensure adequate self-presentation, the theory suggests various means by which impression management can be pursued in the right way and includes defensive and protective practices (Goffman, 1959) as well as maintaining the definition of the situation (Tiilikainen et al., 2024). Defensive practices pursued by performers are a means for individuals and teams to safeguard their own performance. It requires discipline, whereby individuals have " presence of mind ". Disciplined individuals are resilient to unexpected circumstances and are sufficiently agile to ensure the performance attains its goal. In addition, individuals can enact circumspection by adequately preparing to offer a high-quality performance (Goffman, 1959). This involves taking time to design the performance and enacting foresight and prudence. Individuals may even show loyalty and devotion to other team members to ensure the overall impression does not fail (Goffman, 1959). When individuals reveal secrets or problems to outsiders, it damages the image of the team.

Protective practices, however, are pursued by audience members to help the performers manage their impressions (Goffman, 1959). They do so by not intruding on the back or frontstage. In practice, etiquette is maintained by not involving oneself in others' personal matters. Permission and consent are exercised to gain access. For instance, salespersons usually introduce themselves first and ask permission to discuss a product or service. However, the audience can exercise extra understanding and empathy when performance is not up to the mark for a person learning their trade (Goffman, 1959).

Finally, by maintaining a definition of the situation, individuals can develop an " agreed upon, subjective understanding of what will happen in a given situation or setting, and who will play which roles in the action " (Crossman, 2019). As a result, the concept defines the social order and gives symbolic meaning to human interactions that occur in everyday life (Tiilikainen et al., 2024). When the definition of the situation is not maintained or broken, the performance becomes ineffective and may even collapse (Tiilikainen et al., 2024).

Institutions shape how performers present themselves in everyday life. Goffman (1983:p1) used the terminology - interaction order – to explain the " loose coupling between interaction practices and social structure " and how " the workings of the interaction order can easily be viewed as the consequence of systems of enabling conventions, in the sense of ground rules for a game, the provisions of a traffic code or the rules of syntax of a language ". As such, the interaction order offers rules and norms that shape one’s behaviour in society. At an extreme level, institutions can have high levels of dominance and control, which Goffman (1961) defines as total institutions, which are often applied in prisons, military organisations, and even hospitals. Total institutions exert control over individuals’ daily routines, movements, and even identities (Goffman, 1961). The theoretical properties of total institutions include role dispossession i.e., " the process through which new recruits are prevented from being who they were in the world they inhabited prior to entry" (Shulman, 2016:p103). This involves trimming or programming, which relates to individuals being " shaped and coded into an object that can be fed into the administrative machinery of the establishment, to be worked on smoothly by routine operations " (Goffman, 1986:p16). Individuals in a total institution are forced to give up their identity kit i.e., personal belongings that give meaning to who they are in society (Shulman, 2016).

Theoretical developments

Since Goffman’s original work, scholars have advanced the theoretical properties of self-presentation. Specifically, in sharp contrast to total institutions, Scott (2011:p3) suggested the notion of reinventive institutions, defined as "a material, discursive or symbolic structure in which voluntary members actively seek to cultivate a new social identity, role or status. This is interpreted positively as a process of reinvention, self-improvement or transformation. It is achieved not only through formal instruction in an institutional rhetoric, but also through the mechanisms of performative regulation in the interaction context of an inmate culture" . Reinventive institutions are much more relevant in modern life, whereby individuals want to go through a transformation of their self and create a new identity (Scott, 2011). In other words, they want to let go of their previous self in pursuit of a reinvigorated new persona. Illustrative cases of reinventive institutions include spiritual communities and lifestyle groups (Shulman, 2016). Individuals are not forced to enter these communities; rather, they do so entirely voluntarily (Scott, 2010). These institutions are self-organising, i.e., the community members keep a check on each other to maintain the collective norms (Huber et al., 2020).

In contrast to Goffman’s original theorisation of self-presentation in face-to-face, offline interactions, research work has extended the theory to evaluate online impression management (Bareket-Bojmel, Moran & Shahar, 2016; Ranzini & Hoek, 2017; Rui & Stefanone, 2013). In practice, individuals use technology features such as text, images or videos to signal and manage their online image. This contrasts with non-verbal signals, such as body language, which are often common in offline interactions.  Online impression management can be managed more conveniently as individuals can develop, change, or edit informational cues in a way that suits their purpose (Sun, Fang & Zhang, 2021). However, individuals’ digital footprint may remain over time online, and it can be viewed and accessed by others anytime (Hogan, 2010). This relates to the problem of " stage breach ", where data about individuals’ private lives are retrievable on search engines and social media platforms (Shulman, 2016). As such, the internet has caused the blurring of boundaries between back and frontstage, a phenomenon dubbed as " collapsed contexts " (Davis & Jurgenson, 2014), defined as " a flattening of the spatial, temporal, and social boundaries that otherwise separate audiences on social networking sites " (Duguay, 2016:p892).  In response, individuals may use privacy filters or even delete content posted in the past that may negatively influence their image in society (DeAndrea, Tong & Lim, 2018).

Due to the advent of social media, Hogan (2010) extended Goffman’s theorisation by differentiating between "performances" and "exhibitions" that occur online. Performances, similar to Goffman’s dramaturgy metaphor, occur in real-time, such as in chat rooms, online meetings, and live streams. In this case, the situation is synchronous, and performances are time-bound (Hogan, 2010). However, exhibitions do not occur in real time, and individuals use technology artifacts afforded by social media to curate content (Hogan, 2010). These include posting a status update, uploading a photo album, or sharing a pre-recorded, edited video. As a result, exhibitions occur in asynchronous situations.

Overall, self-presentation theory provides a dramaturgy analytical lens for researchers to evaluate human behaviour in face-to-face and online interactions that involve synchronous and/or asynchronous situations. It offers a range of back and frontstage strategies that individuals and teams enact to manage their impressions in society, also suggesting that the broader institutional environment shapes how they behave in everyday life. Table 2 summarises the key conceptual definitions of self-presentation theory.

Table 2: Key concepts and definitions

Applications

Self-presentation theory is primarily anchored in sociology. However, other disciplines, such as management, marketing, and information systems, have extended the application of the theory in their respective contexts, such as work, social media, and branding. As such, the sociology discipline sheds light on the theoretical aspects of self-presentation, including its strategies, motivations, and application of the theory in everyday life (Goffman, 1959; Lewis & Neighbors, 2005; Schütz, 1998; Vohs, Baumeister & Ciarocco, 2005). Based on the theory, management scholars have investigated the application of self-presentation at work at two levels: individual and organisational (Bolino et al., 2008; Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Cook et al., 2024; Windscheid et al., 2018). At an individual level, self-presentation theory has been extensively applied to evaluate job interviews and performance appraisals (Kim et al., 2023; Moon et al., 2024). The theory is highly appropriate when determining individuals’ success or failure in securing work in organisations, as well as their job performance and career success (Gioaba & Krings, 2017; Bolino et al., 2008). For instance, leaders and managers who engage in appropriate self-presentation are more likely to generate " buy-in " and support from colleagues about their suggestions and action plans (Gardner & Martinko, 1988) . Research has even investigated how employees manage their impressions when interacting with colleagues on social media (Sun, Fang & Zhang, 2021; Ollier-Malaterre, Rothbard & Berg, 2013). This is crucial yet challenging because employees simultaneously have to manage their work and personal identities on social media (Ollier-Malaterre, Rothbard & Berg, 2013). In addition, research looked into how entrepreneurs managed their impression after the failure of their business (Kibler et al., 2021; Shepherd & Haynie, 2011). They do so to retain their credibility for future entrepreneurial ventures (Kibler et al., 2021). 

At an organisational level, empirical work has examined organisational impression management (Benthaus, Risius & Beck, 2016; Carter, 2006; Schniederjans, Cao & Schniederjans, 2013). This is defined as " any action that is intentionally designed and carried out to influence an audience’s perceptions of the organisation " (Bolino et al., 2008:p1095). Studies have explored how organizational impression management strategies focus on assertive strategies to create a positive public image, such as sharing recent achievements (Mohamed, Gardner & Paolillo, 1999). In contrast, reactive strategies are used to manage crisis situations that tarnish the reputation of an organisation (Jin, Li & Hoskisson, 2022; Rim & Ferguson, 2020). Studies have also investigated how impression management of particular individuals (such as CEOs) shapes organisational image and performance (Cowen & Montgomery, 2020; Im, Kim & Miao, 2021). In contrast, research examined how organisational factors (e.g., culture) shape employee conduct in the workplace in a way that aligns with the values and norms expected in the organisation (Ashford et al., 1998).

In contemporary marketing, the metaphor of dramaturgy, which is central to impression management, has been used in retail and service research to investigate how to enhance customer experience (Bitner, 1992). In practice, the front and backstage have been effectively used to offer guidelines and implications to improve retail and service environments (Grove, Fisk & John, 2000). The marketing field even provides insight into how brands play a role in self-presentation (Ferraro, Kirmani & Matherly, 2013; Lee, Ko & Megehee, 2015). In particular, consumers often use and purchase brands that relate to a specific self-concept they strive to build and maintain (Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2022; Clark, Slama & Wolfe, 1999). In other words, brands offer consumers identity artifacts or props to express themselves. For instance, research by Jiménez-Barreto et al. (2022) finds that consumers find cool brands (original, iconic, and popular brands) valuable to construct their cool identity. This phenomenon is pertinent to luxury brands, which enable consumers to project a classy, high-status image in society (Kim & Oh, 2022). However, such consumer practices may backfire. Other people (or observers) may have negative perceptions of consumers using brands in a conspicuous or attention-seeking way (Ferraro, Kirmani & Matherly, 2013) and perceive them as having dark personalities, including narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Razmus, Czarna & Fortuna, 2023). Observers even perceive consumers who use luxury brands to have lower levels of warmth (Cannon & Rucker, 2019). Managing impressions in marketing applies to buyer-seller relationships (Fisk & Grove, 1996). For example, sales professionals are often required to project an expert image. Impression management is also core to business-to-business marketing management, for instance, to remain resilient in crises (Alo et al., 2023; Lan & Sheng, 2023).

Information systems researchers have effectively investigated how technology can be used in the self-presentation process (Kim, Chan & Kankanhalli, 2012; Ma & Agarwal, 2007; Shi, Lai & Chen, 2023). The theoretical integration of self-presentation and technology is particularly relevant due to the advent of the internet, social media, metaverse, and artificial intelligence. For instance, Ma and Agarwal (2007) examined how technology artifacts afforded by virtual communities, such as avatars, nicknames, digital photographs and personal pages, enable users to enact self-presentation to create their identity. They find that when people have perceived verified identities, defined as " perceived confirmation from other community members of a focal person’s belief about (their) identities " (p. 46), it encourages the person to share knowledge with others in the virtual community. It even increases their satisfaction level with the community. Another study study found that the desire for online self-presentation, defined as the " extent to which an individual wants to present his or her preferred image in a virtual community of interest, " encourages individuals to purchase digital items, such as avatars and image files (Kim, Chan & Kankanhalli, 2012:p1235). These digital items are artifacts for self-expression and communication (Kim, Chan & Kankanhalli, 2012). The authors argue that the desire for online self-presentation in virtual communities is influenced by three factors: self-efficacy, norms, and involvement. They suggest that individuals who believe in their own capability to adequately develop a desired perception of themselves in the virtual community are more likely to engage in self-presentation work. Also, if the virtual community norms (rules and expectations) are conducive to self-presentation, the desire for self-presentation is stimulated. Further, if individuals are involved with the virtual community, i.e., they can relate to the community members, feel a strong affinity with them, and invest time and resources in the community, then it increases one’s desire for self-presentation. Chen and Chen (2020) suggest that the perceived value of those digital items encourages users to make a purchase. Yet in another study, Oh, Goh and Phan (2023) offer interesting insights and show that social media users are more inclined to share positive news to their network as part of their image-building process, as opposed to negative or controversial news. The reason is that sharing positive news reinforces one’s positive self-identity. In fact, such sharing behaviours are particularly relevant for users with a broader social network as they have a higher disposition to maintain a positive self-image (Oh, Goh & Phan, 2023).

Self-presentation theory has been applied to effectively explore human deception (DeAndrea et al., 2012; Toma, Hancock & Ellison, 2008). Individuals may apply impression management strategies to falsely show themselves favourably to achieve their desired goals (Petrescu, Ajjan & Harrison, 2023). Research shows that individuals whose motivation to produce a positive impression in a group is low are likely to present themselves in an authentic way (Wooten & Reed, 2000). Similarly, if individuals are highly motivated to create a favourable image, they are not likely to use deception in a group unless they possess the self-efficacy to engage in deceptive work (Wooten & Reed, 2000). Meanwhile, those with low self-efficacy will probably pursue evasive self-presentation practices, such as stalling or repressing information (Wooten & Reed, 2000). Self-efficacy in the context of impression management means the extent to which an individual can control and manage their impression. It is subject to the requirements or demands of self-presentation in a particular social context, and the capabilities one possesses to achieve those demands (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Figure 2 offers a framework that highlights deceptive self-presentation work in groups.

Importantly, with the advancements in digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence and deepfakes, individuals can develop content that may look real even though it is not (Mustak et al., 2023; Vasist & Krishnan, 2023). As a result, it has become extremely challenging to differentiate between authentic and fabricated content. This is further exacerbated as individuals can use digital tools, such as video filters, to project a misleading identity (Herring et al., 2024).

Limitations

Sociologists suggest that self-presentation theory, rooted in symbolic interactionism, focuses on micro-level interpretations of signs and meanings but offers a limited understanding of the broader societal factors and powers that influence individuals’ lives (Shulman, 2016). Moreover, management studies criticise the analytical ability of a theatre metaphor to explore impression management within organisations (Shulman, 2016). While self-presentation theory may be a useful framework, the extent to which a theatre’s characteristics relate to an organisation has been questioned (Shulman, 2016). This limitation is acknowledged by Goffman, who states in his book that " the perspective employed in this report is that of the theatrical performance; the principles derived are dramaturgical ones ... In using this model I will attempt not to make light of its obvious inadequacies. The stage presents things that are make-believe; presumably life presents things that are real ." (Goffman, 1959). Ongoing management research is attending to this limitation by investigating how employees manage their impression towards their co-workers and supervisors in organisations (Huang, Paterson & Wang, 2024).

Along the same lines, scholars have questioned the validity of a " performance " in self-presentation and whether such rituals are relevant in today’s society (Williams, 1986). The theory focuses on face-to-face interactions to manage impressions (Williams, 1986). Blumer (1972) suggests that the theory " stems from the narrowly constructed area of human group life ….limited the area of face-to-face association with a corresponding exclusion of the vast sum of human activity falling outside such association ." However, ongoing scholarly work is addressing this limitation by evaluating self-presentation in online environments, such as social media (Klostermann et al., 2023; Seidman, 2013). Self-presentation theory focuses heavily on the individual, and its applications to teams have received comparatively limited attention and extension (Blumer, 1972). As a result, recent research has looked into impression management on teamwork and team satisfaction (Schiller et al., 2024).

Scholars suggest that although Goffman’s conceptualisation of the interaction order offers a unique yet descriptive theoretical property, it provides limited knowledge of how the interaction order evolves over time and the explanatory variables that could suggest how and why the change occurred (Colomy & Brown, 1996). Importantly, Goffman’s conceptualisation of total institutions has received criticism in terms of its theoretical scope and generalisability, as not all organisations, such as mental hospitals, exert extreme control (Lemert, 1981). The total institution does not consider differences in " organisational goal, professional ideology, staff personality " (Weinstein, 1982:p269). Thus, research has looked into the application of impression management under different institutional environments, uncertainties in the business environment, and organisational motives (Ahmed, Elsayed & Xu, 2024; Busenbark, Lange & Certo, 2017).

Click to subscribe to our YouTube Channel.

Varqa Shamsi Bahar (Business School, Newcastle University)

How to Cite

Bahar, V.S. (2024) Self-Presentation Theory: A review . In S. Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book . Available at https://open.ncl.ac.uk / ISBN: 9781739604400

Theory Profile

Discipline Psychology Unit of Analysis Individual, teams

Operationalised Qualitatively / Quantitatively Level Micro-level

Theory Tags

ISBN: 978-1-7396044-0-0

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

• About TheoryHub
• Submissions
• YouTube Channel

TheoryHub © 2020-2024 All rights reserved

• Privacy Policy

Erving Goffman’s Theory of Presentation of Self

by kdkasi | Aug 1, 2023 | Socialization Theory

Erving Goffman’s Theory of Presentation of Self: Understanding Dramaturgy in Everyday Life

Erving Goffman, a renowned Canadian-American sociologist, introduced the concept of the “Presentation of Self” as a theoretical framework for understanding human behavior in social interactions. Drawing inspiration from theater and dramaturgy, Goffman posited that individuals engage in impression management, carefully crafting and presenting different versions of themselves to shape how others perceive them. This article explores the key components of Goffman’s theory, delves into the concept of impression management, and provides real-life examples to illustrate how individuals perform the roles of their social identity in everyday life.

Dramaturgy and the Social Stage:

Goffman’s theory of Presentation of Self adopts a dramaturgical approach, likening social life to a theatrical performance on a stage. Just as actors play various roles in a play to elicit specific reactions from the audience, individuals in society adopt different personas or social masks to influence how they are perceived by others. Social interactions are akin to scenes, and individuals become performers on this social stage, employing various techniques to create desired impressions.

Front Stage and Back Stage:

In Goffman’s theory, individuals have both front stage and back stage selves. The front stage represents the public realm, where people are in the presence of others and actively engaged in impression management. This is where individuals present their desired self-image and adhere to societal norms and expectations. On the other hand, the back stage is the private realm, where people can relax and drop their social masks. It is in this context that individuals can be their authentic selves, away from the watchful eyes of the audience.

Examples of Front Stage and Back Stage Behavior:

Job Interview:

• Front Stage : During a job interview, a candidate carefully presents themselves as competent, confident, and professional. They may dress formally, maintain eye contact, and articulate their skills and experiences to impress the interviewer and secure the position.
• Back Stage: Before the interview, the candidate may engage in self-preparation, rehearsing answers to common questions and calming nerves. They may also seek support and encouragement from family or friends, allowing themselves to express doubts or anxieties that they would not reveal during the actual interview.

Social Media:

• Front Stage: On social media platforms, individuals curate their posts and profiles to portray a particular image to their followers. They often share highlights of their lives, such as achievements, vacations, and positive experiences, presenting themselves in a favorable light.
• Back Stage: Behind the polished social media façade, individuals may face challenges and struggles in their personal lives. They may use private messaging or close groups to express vulnerability, share more intimate details, or seek advice and support from trusted friends.

Impression Management:

Impression management is a fundamental aspect of Goffman’s theory. It refers to the conscious and unconscious strategies individuals employ to influence how others perceive them. These strategies include:

• Dramatic Realization: Individuals use body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice to communicate emotions and intentions effectively. For example, a politician may adopt confident body language during a speech to project leadership qualities.
• Signaling: People use props, clothing, and symbols to convey specific messages about their identity or social status. For instance, wearing a professional suit signals authority and competence in a corporate setting.
• Idealization: Individuals present themselves in a positive light, emphasizing their strengths and achievements while downplaying weaknesses. This behavior can be seen in dating scenarios when individuals strive to create a positive impression on potential partners.

Conclusion: Erving Goffman’s theory of Presentation of Self provides a profound understanding of how individuals perform various roles and manage impressions to navigate social interactions. By viewing social life as a stage, we can better grasp the complexities of human behavior and the intricate ways in which individuals present themselves to the world. Understanding the dynamic interplay between front stage and backstage behavior, as well as the techniques of impression management, sheds light on the intricacies of human interaction and the art of self-presentation in our everyday lives.

By Khushdil Khan Kasi

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Recent Posts

• Thorstein Veblen’s The Evolution of Economic Institutions
• Thorstein Veblen’s Instincts in Human Behavior
• Thorstein Veblen’s Pecuniary Emulation
• Thorstein Veblen’s The Role of Technology in Social Change
• Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Business Enterprise
• Thorstein Veblen’s Conspicuous Consumption
• Jürgen Habermas’s Rationality in Social Institutions