Herman and swiss eds the world wide web and contemporary cultural theory

Tensions of identity in a networked era: Young people's perspectives on the risks and rewards of online self-expression
Katie Davis
New Media Society 2012 14: 634 originally published online 8 November 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1461444811422430
The at:

Published by:

422430 NMSXXX10.1177/1461444811422430DavisNew Media & Society

Abstract

14(4) 634 –651 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1461444811422430 nms.sagepub.com

Meet Anne. She is a 21-year-old senior in college majoring in biology. On a typical day, she might be spotted in one of the campus dining halls, the lab, the library, or on the

Corresponding author:
Katie Davis, Harvard Project Zero, 124 Mount Auburn Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA Email: katharine_davis@mail.harvard.edu

There appears to be a tension between the risks and opportunities associated with self-multiplicity. In this article, I explore how young people – for whom issues of identity are particularly salient – conceive of and approach this tension in their everyday lives. I report on findings from an analysis of in-depth interviews with 24 ‘digital youth’ ages 15–25 who are highly engaged in at least one form of digital media activity, including blogging, social networking, gaming, and content creation. In these interviews, partici-pants were presented with a hypothetical scenario that was designed to probe their con-ceptions of the opportunities and risks associated with online identity play (i.e. trying out different ways of presenting oneself to others), the relationship between online and offline self-expressions, and the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable online identities. The findings reported here represent key themes that emerged from an analy-sis of participants’ responses. In this article’s Discussion section, I organize these themes into a conceptual framework that summarizes the strategies young people use to recon-cile the tension between multiplicity and consistency in a networked era. The framework comprises four ‘spheres of obligation’ – to self, interpersonal relationships, online social norms, and broad community-level standards and values – that place implicit limits on self-multiplicity. The youth in this sample vary in the weight they give to each sphere when deciding how to express themselves in this networked era.

Theoretical context

Theorists of human development also underscore the social nature of identity, acknowledging the important roles that both broad social institutions and specific inter-personal relationships play in the identity formation process. According to Erikson (1968), the process of identity development – the central task of adolescence – begins when individuals start to consider contexts beyond their immediate experience and con-template what roles they will assume in the broader society. Furthermore, he argued that one’s identity does not come into existence until it has been recognized by others. In this way, Erikson conceived of identity as inhering not just in the individual but in his or her interpersonal relationships and position within society.

Identity in a networked era

network sites like Facebook. She explains how youth often phrase public messages in such a way that only their friends will understand their meaning. These messages might contain abbreviations or song lyrics that hold a particular meaning for a group of friends. Someone unfamiliar with these references, such as a parent, might infer an entirely dif-ferent meaning from an exchange between two friends than the friends themselves. Such an example illustrates how online identities are sometimes not merely consistent with but actually dependent upon offline identities.

to display pictures of cartoon characters, places visited, works of art, or other images that reflect aspects of a person’s preferences and tastes. In this way, individuals appropriate the structural features of online spaces for their own personal uses (boyd, 2007).

The need for a self that does not undergo a complete transformation across contexts is easy enough to recognize in the realm of online dating. Though a certain degree of embellishment may be expected on such sites, the success of online dating depends, ultimately, on a couple’s ability to bring their relationship offline. This transition cannot occur, however, if one or both individuals are unable to recognize each other’s online selves when they meet offline (Whitty, 2007). It is not hard to see how such an experi-ence could produce the feeling of having been deceived. Thus, it appears that self-multiplicity can in some cases cause harm to others in addition to one’s self.

The current study

Research Question 1: How do young people conceive of identity in a networked era?

Research Question 2: How do they navigate the tension between multiplicity and consistency suggested by the literature on identity?

The current study includes the 24 digital youth who responded to a particular hypo-thetical scenario during their second interview (see below). This sub-sample comprised 13 males and 11 females between the ages of 16 and 25 years (M = 19.9 years). Sixteen participants were White, three Asian, one African-American, one Hispanic, and three identified their race as Other. Eight participants were selected for their blogging experi-ences, six were active users of social networking sites, six were gamers, and four were engaged in creating online content. These demographic characteristics and digital media activities reflect the overall sample of 61 digital youth.

Downloaded from at University of Canberra on September 17, 2012

The current study focuses on participants’ responses to the identity dilemma scenario, which was presented in the following way:

You and your circle of friends at school/work are very active on Facebook. You frequently post

user name this friend used to use. Upon closer inspection of the pictures and some of the

interests listed, you become quite sure that the profile must belong to your close friend, Chris.

here?

After eliciting participants’ initial reactions to the scenario, interviewers proceeded to ask a series of follow-up questions. These questions were designed to probe for partici-pants’ conceptions of the opportunities and risks associated with online identity play, the relationship between online and offline self-expressions, and the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable identity expressions online.

experiences, while etic codes represent the trained observers’ interpretations of these experiences. To create our etic codes, we drew on the interview protocol – itself informed by our study’s research questions, prior empirical work, and relevant theory – to identify broad themes. For instance, the protocol included a number of questions that required participants to compare either their or others’ online and offline self-presentations. As a result, we included the etic code ‘Online vs. Offline Self-presentation.’ Our emic codes comprised themes that emerged directly from our review of participant memos and pre-liminary line-by-line readings of the interview transcripts (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). For example, a series of emic codes was created to capture participants’ various reactions to Chris’s alternate profile.

Each researcher coded an entire interview transcript, drawn at random, using the ini-tial coding scheme. We met to discuss areas of alignment and misalignment in our coding and to refine the definition of each code. After updating the coding scheme to reflect this discussion, we each coded two additional transcripts. In our second meeting, we deter-mined that each researcher was in agreement about the definition and use of all codes.

What do you see on Chris’s alternate profile?

After reading the dilemma to participants, interviewers asked, ‘What type of content on Chris’s alternate profile would surprise or upset you?’ Whatever content participants iden-tified became the focus of further questioning. At the end of the interview, participants were asked to react to different types of content that they had not yet considered. For instance, if a participant had focused throughout the interview on content suggesting that

Reacting to Chris’s alternate profile

All 24 participants discussed a variety of likely reactions to finding Chris’s alternate profile, reflecting both the complexity of their responses and the fact that they were asked to consider different types of content that Chris might share on his profile. In my analysis, I identified four types of consideration that guided participants’ reactions: 1) effects on Chris; 2) effects on Chris’s friends; 3) online social norms; and 4) broader community-level effects.

provides, ‘Some people use blogs just to be completely anonymous to the world and write completely unedited.’ As a result of these distinct qualities, Todd, age 15, thought that LiveJournal may provide Chris with a unique space to work through the confusion he could be experiencing around exploring a different sexual orientation. Similarly, sev-eral participants discussed the benefits of using LiveJournal to talk about mental or phys-ical health problems. Kathleen, age 20, commented, ‘I guess if you have issues that you’re not ready to deal with in real life, it kind of helps that out.’
Although participants acknowledged the personal benefits of having an online outlet to express oneself, they also worried about negative psychological effects. Indeed, of the participants who identified potential benefits of sharing mental health problems online, nearly all of them also discussed the harm that could befall Chris if he used his alternate profile in this way. For instance, while Andy, age 21, acknowledged that it may feel good to vent online, he expressed concern that Chris does not have a place to share these feel-ings offline. He reflected, ‘I mean if he just continues to vent [online] and he doesn’t feel like he has an outlet to go to [offline], I definitely feel like it would just end badly in any way.’ The general feeling among these participants was that Chris needs to get help offline from his parents, friends, or a professional. As good as it may feel to vent online, he cannot ultimately solve his problems there.

While mental health problems were the most common cause for concern, four partici-pants (17%) discussed the potential negative effects that maintaining an alternate profile could have on Chris’ sense of self. Asked how she would react upon finding out-of-character conduct on Chris’ LiveJournal profile, 15-year-old Brittany commented, ‘I think you can sort of get confused even if it’s on two different websites and sort of forget what you’re trying to be.’ Similarly, Becky, age 18, observed,

Downloaded from at University of Canberra on September 17, 2012

Downloaded from at University of Canberra on September 17, 2012

The first sphere – self – pertains to the personal harms that may arise from an individ-ual’s online self-expressions. While some participants acknowledged the benefits that Chris may experience from having an outlet for his pent-up emotions, most of them agreed that keeping these emotions compartmentalized is not, ultimately, the best way to work through them. This sentiment is consistent with Turkle’s (1995) warning about the nega-tive psychological effects of maintaining multiple selves that are not integrated into an overarching sense of identity that is experienced as coherent and stable. Further, a smaller group of participants were bothered by the misalignment between Chris’s alternate profile and his self-presentation in other contexts. They allowed that perfect alignment between

Downloaded from at University of Canberra on September 17, 2012

Online Social Norms

Interpersonal

Interpersonal relationships form the second sphere of obligation. Perhaps unsurpris-ingly, several participants expressed displeasure over finding gossip about them or their group of friends on Chris’s alternate profile. They regarded such speech as a personal attack that would both offend them and undermine the quality of their friendship with Chris. Interestingly, many participants felt that Chris was in some way breaching their friendship even when his alternate profile did not reference them personally. The content most likely to arouse this feeling was out-of-character conduct, such as more outgoing, gregarious behavior. It disturbed participants that their close friend was unrecognizable to them in this new context. This sentiment is understandable if one considers it in light of the literature on the social construction of the self. According to scholars such as Erikson (1968), one’s identity comes into existence only when it is recognized by others. Thus, one has an obligation to be recognizable to others. Chris failed to uphold this obli-gation, and participants responded accordingly with their disapproval.

The third sphere of obligation extends beyond relationships among specific individu-als to the social norms that are defined and followed in particular online contexts. The youth in this sample perceived the norms of the internet to be quite broad, flexible, and somewhat more transgressive than offline social norms. Indeed, participants commonly cited online social norms as reasons why they would not be bothered by certain content on Chris’s profile, such as out-of-character conduct or even harmful or offensive con-duct. Many of them said they would interpret such content as a joke, since jokes consti-tute normative behavior online. Nevertheless, several participants did express the belief

It is notable that only two participants cited the community-level factors associated with the fourth sphere of obligation. This finding is consistent with earlier research show-ing that when confronted with hypothetical dilemmas regarding online life youth are more likely to focus on their personal well being than the well being of the broader community (Davis et al., 2010). It is possible that an older sample would show greater consideration of the fourth sphere, since Davis et al. (2010) found that adults were more likely than teens to propose community-minded solutions to the hypothetical dilemmas presented to them.

That so few participants condemned Chris for expressing hate speech on his alternate profile reveals that certain spheres of obligation may sometimes be in tension with each other. In the case of hate speech, focusing on specific online norms – as most partici-pants did – to the exclusion of broader considerations of decent behavior can result in harm to an entire group of people. Similar tensions can be detected between other spheres of obligation. For instance, several participants recognized that Chris’s alternate profile could provide him with a valuable outlet for self-expression at the same time as it might cause his friends to feel he had deceived them by hiding this different side of his personality.

Limitations and future research. One notable limitation of the current study pertains to the sample make-up. As previously discussed, this sample comprised youth who were par-ticularly active users of digital media. It is possible that youth who are less engaged with digital media would respond differently to the Chris scenario. For instance, it may be that less engaged youth would have less tolerance for Chris’s alternate profile because they and their friends do not maintain multiple online profiles. Future research should assess the extent to which the findings reported here apply to a broader group of youth. It would also be worthwhile to repeat the current study with a group of older adults in light of earlier research documenting differences between adults’ and teens’ views of online life (Davis et al., 2010).

A second limitation of this study is its reliance on participants’ responses to a hypo-thetical dilemma in the context of an interview. While this method of data collection has several advantages, as noted earlier, one drawback pertains to the issue of plausibility (Jenkins et al., 2010). If participants do not feel the hypothetical scenario is plausible, it is unlikely they will offer rich responses that reflect their personal experience. Indeed, interviewers noted that some participants in the sample appeared to be more comfortable with the Chris scenario than others.

the intertwinement of online and offline identities. The spheres of obligation and the ten-sions within it hold important implications for educational efforts aimed at reducing harmful behavior online. Specifically, this framework could serve as an assessment tool to evaluate the relative weight that students give – or fail to give – to each sphere of obligation when they go online. This insight could then be used to draw youth’s attention to and broaden their consideration of the effects of their online actions.

Notes

Adams GR and Marshall SK (1996) A developmental social psychology of identity: Understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence 19(5): 429–442.

Bargh JA and McKenna KYA (2004) The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology 55(1): 573–590.

boyd d (2007) Why youth [♥] social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: Buckingham D (ed.) Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119–142.

boyd d (2011) Living a networked public life. Paper presented at the second annual meeting of the Digital Media and Learning Conference, Long Beach, CA.

Davis K, Katz SL, Santo R and James C (2010) Fostering cross-generational dialogues about the ethics of online life. Journal of Media Literacy Education 2(2): 124–150.

Elias N and Lemish D (2009) Spinning the web of identity: The roles of the internet in the lives of immigrant adolescents. New Media & Society 11(4): 533–551.

Grisso AD and Weiss D (2005) What are gURLS talking about? Adolescent girls’ construction of sexual identity on gURL.com. In: Mazzarella SR (ed.) Girl Wide Web: Girls, the Internet, and the Negotiation of Identity. New York: Peter Lang, 13–30.

Hardey M (2002) Life beyond the screen: Embodiment and identity through the internet. The Sociological Review 50(4): 570–585.

James C, Davis K, Flores A, Francis J, Pettingill L, Rundle M, and Gardner H (2009) Young People, Ethics, and the New Digital Media: A Synthesis from the GoodPlay Project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Jenkins N, Bloor M, Fischer J, Berney L, and Neale J (2010) Putting it in context: The use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research 10(2): 175–198.

McAdams DP (1997) The case for unity in the (post)modern self: A modest proposal. In: Ashmore RD and Jussim LJ (eds) Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues. New York: Oxford University Press, 46–78.

Mead GH (1934) Mind, Self & Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Stone AR (1991) Will the real body please stand up? Boundary stories about virtual cultures. In: Benedikt M (ed.) Cyberspace: First Steps. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 81–118.

Strauss AL and Corbin JM (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Waskul D and Douglass M (1997) Cyberself: The emergence of self in on-line chat. The Information Society 13(4): 375–396.

Whitty MT (2007) The art of selling one’s ‘self’ on an online dating site: The BAR Approach. In: Whitty MT, Baker AJ and Inman JA (eds) Online Matchmaking. Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 57–69.