“Over the next 10 years, people’s identities are likely to be significantly affected by several important drivers of change, in particular the rapid pace of developments in technology.”1 So reads the opening salvo of Future Identities, a report commissioned by Sir John Beddington, at the time chief scientific adviser to the British government. His starting point was that “the emergence of hyperconnectivity (where people can now be constantly connected online), the spread of social media, and the increase in online personal information are key factors which will interact to influence identities.” Is this all just scaremongering by a high-profile establishment figure, or is it a serious and urgent wake-up call?
Social networking sites evolved from the 1990s version of the Internet, which was already providing many new ways to communicate and socialize. Computer-mediated communication back then was dominated by forums, early online games, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and so on, all of which had a default setting of anonymity; it was up to the user to make it personal.2 Individuals logged on and could select any name they wanted to use as an alias—for example, John_Smith9000. Those who’ve researched this earlier style of computer-mediated socializing have suggested that it was this potential for anonymity that was all-important: it allowed individuals to discover their repressed identities and learn more about themselves, presumably in a fairly safe way.3
Thus, initial investigations into online self-presentation mostly focused not so much on identity but rather on its absence in anonymous or pseudonymous online environments. These investigations found that individuals tended to engage in role-playing games and unusual behaviors in an environment that was arguably healthier than that of the real world.4 In contrast, nowadays anonymity is no longer an inherent part of socializing online. The interesting question then is what happens when you are “nonymous” (i.e., not anonymous) in an online environment.5 The identities that result are very different.
Technology researchers Nicole Ellison and danah m. boyd (who prefers her name in lowercase) have defined present-day social networking sites as sites that enable a user to (1) “construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system”; (2) “articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection”; and (3) “view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”6 Revealing personal information is now part of setting up a social networking profile: Facebook requires a user’s real name.7 While there are always ways around this, the point is that social networking sites have transformed computer-mediated communication by tethering it to your real-world identity. Additionally, a significant proportion of a user’s “friends” are people that they know or have met in real life. That’s a massive and important shift: socializing on the Internet has become fiercely personal. Identity is therefore a central issue, as are shifting notions of identity in relation to social networking sites.
But how you see yourself need not be shared with everyone else. Your online self and your “true self” are not necessarily the same. This notion of a “true self” was first introduced as long ago as 1951 by the influential American psychologist Carl Rogers, widely considered to be one of the founding fathers of psychotherapy.8 His theory was that the true self is based on existing characteristics that need not necessarily be fully expressed in normal social life, perhaps because there are not necessarily occasions when they’ll be manifest; rather, they are imagined as particular reactions in hypothetical situations. Fifty years later, the digital age saw John Bargh and his team developing the concept of the “true self on the Internet” to refer to an individual’s tendency to express the “real” aspects of the self through anonymous Internet communication rather than face-to-face communication.9 The idea is that the Internet provides individuals with a unique opportunity for self-expression that encourages people to reveal their true self, including the aspects that are not comfortably expressed face-to-face. Because of this effect, cybercommunication could be regarded as more intimate and personal than face-to-face communication. Those who form friendships in this way through social networking sites are more likely to put a premium on self-disclosure, in the hopes of expressing their true self.
According to Katelyn McKenna at New York University, people who believe that they are better able to express their true self on the Internet are more likely to form apparently close relationships in cyberspace.10 Moreover, people with a stronger tendency to express their true self in this way in the cyberworld are more likely than others to use the Internet as a social substitute.11 Using the Internet as a social substitute involves establishing new relationships with strangers and having Internet-only friends. Such people are more likely to develop a compulsive passion for their Internet activities.
In a survey of university students that explored their motives for Facebook use, a particularly interesting result was that individuals with a strong tendency to reveal their true self on the Internet reported using Facebook for establishing new friendships and for initiating or terminating romantic relationships more frequently than individuals who were less concerned about expressing their identity.12 So it would seem that, for some though not all, the use of Facebook as a vehicle for self-expression goes hand in hand with it being their main conduit of friendship. Wanting to express one’s true self through Facebook is also linked with obsessive Facebook use.13 Once again there is a paradox: those who most keenly desire to express their “true” identity are precisely those who rely most heavily on relationships in cyberspace. So it’s not so much that Facebook is inherently good or bad, but rather how it is used, and the role and importance it plays in one’s life.
Unlike in the real world, a Facebook identity is implicit rather than explicit: users show rather than tell by stressing their likes and dislikes instead of elaborating on their life narrative, their strategies and attitudes for coping with problems and disappointments, and all the other baggage of a normal life.14 Someone who posts a picture of a chocolate cake without any meaningful accompanying explanation leaves it up to her audience of “friends” to infer what they will. In a real-life relationship, the cake might be a physical tie-in to a much deeper and personal story: it could bring back fond memories of a shared excursion or the sense of triumph that comes with mastering a new recipe. But without shared associations—special common experiences or interests—the cake will “mean” nothing. The same could apply to people. As one Facebook user, a female student I spoke to, described it:
When you get to know people on Facebook whom you’ve hardly met, you may think at first that you know them; but it turns out that you only really know the artificial things, bands and movies they like—you’ll not know how they react to situations and crises in a way that reveals their “real” identity to others and even to themselves.
The most interesting question, however, is this: might this new and different way of expressing yourself actually mean that you see yourself differently?
Whether or not a social networking profile expresses a distorted “true” self or displays something more comparable to the real self, there is no doubt that whatever identity a person is most comfortable promoting, it is likely to be the best possible version. Untagging unflattering photos and deleting regrettable posts are just two examples of micromanaging the types of information to be seen by colleagues, family, and friends. Unsurprisingly, looking good in a photo is the most important factor reported by teenagers when considering which profile picture to select on a social networking site.15 Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman described how in general human beings are always on the alert to how others react to us, continuously adapting our outward demeanor to ensure the best possible image.16 Goffman died in 1982 and therefore never lived to see the advent of Facebook and Twitter. Yet he understood how we long to promote our “front stage” self, while the real “backstage” self pedals away furiously to ensure the most impressive performance. These are desires that sites such as Facebook and Twitter now cater to superbly by providing the widest audience ever.
Adapting this dichotomy of front stage versus backstage to the Facebook culture, we can think of a “networked identity,” a term first coined by danah boyd, who described it as follows:
On MySpace for example, you have to write yourself into being: in other words, you have to craft an impression of yourself that stands on its own. Is it the end-all and be-all in developing your sense of self? Of course not. But online expressions are a meaningful byproduct of identity formation.17
Research is showing that the identity portrayed on Facebook is neither the uninhibited real self previously displayed in anonymous computer-mediated environments nor the self presented in three-dimensional, face-to-face interactions.18 Rather, it is a deliberately constructed, socially desirable self to which individuals aspire but which they have not yet been able to achieve.19 Astonishingly, social networking has now resulted in three possible selves: the true self, expressed in anonymous environments without the constraints of social pressures; the real self, the conformed individual who is constrained by social norms in face-to-face interactions; and, for the first time, the hoped-for, possible self displayed on social networking sites.20
But perhaps this is splitting hairs. It turns out that that there is little difference between how an observer rates the personality of a Facebook page owner based on displayed material and the Facebook page owner’s actual traits.21 Nonetheless, the possibility of online identity management allows for distortion. Researchers agree that, like a funhouse mirror, the online self is likely to be an exaggerated version of the real self. And this exaggeration could get out of hand. It’s not that social networking sites have provided the first-ever opportunity for us to distort our identity and hence relationships, but they are now providing an unprecedented opportunity to do so. Creating, managing, and interacting through an online profile is a chance to advertise yourself unchallenged by the constraints of reality, to be an idealized, edited version of the “real” you. Although this online self is “an invention that, for most people, is a continual approximation of presenting our sense of self to the world,”22 the clinical psychologist Larry Rosen fears that a dangerous gap could grow between this idealized “front stage” you and the real “backstage” you, leading to a feeling of disconnection and isolation.
One direct outcome could be an exaggerated obsession with the self, since many researchers have commented on how social networking sites provide the ideal platform for narcissists.23 Given the extent of control one has over one’s online presentation and the scope of audience that can be reached, a bidirectional relationship might come as no surprise. Social networking can demonstrably increase narcissism levels. In the meta-analysis mentioned earlier, Jean Twenge and her colleagues investigated more than fourteen thousand college students and found that twenty-first-century students scored substantially higher on questionnaires for narcissism compared to those from twenty years earlier.24 However, Facebook use did not become widespread until after 2006, which means that in this study any screen-based effects on indulging the ego would have to be attributed to earlier forms of social networking sites. True, but Facebook could now be tapping into this existing predisposition (which is another reason for its popularity), thereby feeding the trend for self-obsession in a self-perpetuating cycle.25
This relationship between heightened narcissism and social networking, though well documented,26 appears to be confounded by a number of different factors, such as the number of friends, status updates and photos, and the types of interactions with other users. The connection needs to be unpacked further, as narcissism itself can be unpacked. Narcissism turns out to be a complex phenomenon that can be broken down into a range of characteristics: exhibitionism (showing off), entitlement (believing that one deserves the best), exploitativeness (taking advantage of others), superiority (feeling that one is better than others), authority (feeling like a leader), self-sufficiency (valuing independence), and vanity (focusing on one’s appearance).27
Research shows that adults who score high in superiority have a preference for posting on Facebook. For the younger generation of students, it is posting on Twitter that is associated with superiority, with Facebook activity linked to exhibitionism.28 In contrast, for adults, Facebook and Twitter are both used more by those focused on their own appearance, but not as a means of showing off, as is the case with college students. These complex findings are important, as they reveal just how many factors are involved in different types of social networking and in the very different groups of people who are all users. Most interesting of all for Mind Change is the generational difference between students and adults, which suggests that a lifetime of early exposure to the influences of Facebook and Twitter is producing a cultural mindset that is different from that of previous generations.
But what remains true across different age groups, and irrespective of the particular characteristics that predominate in the group, is that enthusiastic use of social networking sites is linked strongly to narcissism. Of course, human beings have always been vain, self-centered, and prone to bragging, but now social networking provides the opportunity to indulge in this behavior unabated and around the clock. Interestingly enough, such behavior may also be linked to low self-esteem.29
For those of any age with an existing network of friendships built up in the three-dimensional world, social networking sites can be a happy extension of communication, along with email, Skype, or phone calls, when face-to-face time together just isn’t feasible. The danger comes when a fake identity is both tempting and possible through relationships that are not based on real, three-dimensional interaction, and/or when the most important things in your life are the secondhand lives of others rather than personal experiences. Living in the context of the screen might suggest false norms of desirable lifestyles awash with friends and parties. As ordinary human beings follow the activities of these golden individuals, self-esteem will inevitably plummet; yet the constant narcissistic obsession with the self and its inadequacies will dominate. We can imagine a vicious circle where the more your identity is compromised as a result of social networking and the more inadequate you feel, the greater the appeal of a medium where you don’t need to communicate with people face-to-face.
Individuals with low self-esteem perceive Facebook as a safe, appealing place for self-disclosure, and they spend as much or more time using Facebook than people with high self-esteem.30 A world of airbrushed online portraits may appear to be a low-risk environment ideal for enriching relationships by sharing things they might otherwise be too inhibited to share. However, people with low self-esteem tend to post updates that emphasize their negative features at the expense of the positive, compared to those with high self-esteem. As a result, they are “liked” less than people who have a higher opinion of themselves.31 When asked the reasons why people unfriended others on Facebook, 41 percent nominated the annoying status updates as reasons.32 Ironically, therefore, the conviction that it is safe enough to disclose their feelings on Facebook may encourage people with low self-esteem to reveal things that lead to the very rejection they fear.
Moreover, given that the majority of a Facebook user’s “friends” do not spend time in face-to-face interactions, the impression many such “friends” have of someone with low self-esteem is likely to be negative, and this leads to further rejection.33 In contrast, expressing insecurities in face-to-face interactions typically takes place with a close friend in a trusting and intimate fashion. In contrast, the unique platform of social networking sites can lead other users to perceive as distasteful the negativity of an effective stranger with low self-esteem. This creates a situation where Facebook contact may be the only way that many “friends” communicate, yet people with low self-esteem who “overshare” on Facebook will, ironically, deter others from becoming close to them.
While many see Facebook as a harmless tool for maintaining existing friendships, a recent study found that avid users attach too much significance to the type and amount of attention they receive on their Facebook page, and hence are disappointed.34 The conclusion is depressing:
Facebook appears to be a tool for transforming both close connections and unknown others into audiences for individualistic self-displays.… [P]ublic self-displays on social network sites may be one way young people today enact increasing values for fame and attention.… [N]ew communication technologies augment an individualistic focus on the self.35
Data from both self-report and observer rating show that individuals are more likely to express more positive emotions and present better emotional well-being on Facebook than in real life.36 Moreover, Facebook can open up an alternative world in which people can escape from reality and be the person they would like to be. We are also being exposed to “perfect” lives as we read about people who seem to have it all and are always smiling. These apparently wonderful lives increase the pressure on us to be perfect, admired, and fulfilled: a goal that is inevitably doomed to failure. Perhaps it’s more than a curious coincidence that, over the last twenty years, the number of people saying there is no one with whom they can discuss important matters has nearly tripled.37 In summary, the culture of social networking may predispose users to a narcissistic mindset that in turn enforces low self-esteem. By relying on Facebook to satisfy this need for approval, users not only think less and less of themselves but also long desperately for others to notice and to interact with them. This in turn encourages the development of an exaggerated or completely different identity: the hoped-for, possible self.
Although this scenario may seem far-fetched, it is precisely what might now be happening. Kidscape, a British charity that helps prevent bullying and protects children, conducted a survey in which they assessed young people’s cyberlives through an online questionnaire.38 Of the twenty-three hundred or so respondents between ages eleven and eighteen taking part from England, Scotland, and Wales, one in two say they lie about their personal details on the Internet. Of those, the one in eight young people who speak to strangers online are the most likely not to tell the truth, with 60 percent lying about their age and 40 percent about their personal relationships. This suggests that many young people adopt a different identity online. Although this particular survey was concerned with children’s safety online, it also highlighted the fact that children often create a different persona when they interact with others, especially strangers, in a way that they wouldn’t or couldn’t in the real world. The survey found that young people start to change their identities and to act differently online at just eleven years of age; create identities that allow them to be more rude, more sexy, more adventurous; and generally indulge in inappropriate behavior. However, knowing that people may be viewing your input and judging you accordingly could encourage young people to edit their material and be overly self-conscious. This new trend might well be just harmless fun, but then again it also might herald a society where relationships are based on ephemeral connections between imaginary identities.
Social networking sites seem to be enabling, for the first time, some kind of unreal, idealized self—in the words of a twenty-one-year-old girl, an “alter ego.” People sometimes actually talk of a split personality, an online self as opposed to an offline self, like a Dr. Jekyll morphing from time to time into a cyber Mr. Hyde. For Mr. Hyde there are no constraints on behavior and new possibilities are therefore opened up beyond the mere “fun” Dr. Jekyll could ever have just being himself.
As far as the brain is concerned, it is impossible to disentangle identity from environment and context, as we’ve seen. So it is inevitable that the identity of the next generation will be formed in the context of a pervasive, ever-changing cyberculture. The very structure of our lives means that friendships in the real world face competition from those we develop as we turn to constantly present and convenient social media. For those who do not have persistent and stable relationships, obsessive indulgence in cyberfriendships might have a negative effect on identity. Most worrying would be the dominance of the “front stage” mentality of living primarily to gain approval and recognition in the eyes of others, where whatever you might be doing is assessed as to whether or not it’s Facebook-worthy. There is the risk that those with impressionable minds and relatively little experience of the real world may become overly concerned with their social lives and define success or achievement in terms of how many friends they have on Facebook or followers on Twitter.
There is even the suggestion that social networking maps directly onto the physical brain: Professor Ryota Kanai of University College London has claimed that the size of an individual’s online social network is closely linked to certain aspects of physical brain structures implicated in social cognition.39 Specifically, the team found that variation in the number of friends on Facebook strongly and significantly predicted the size of certain brain structures. They also found that the gray matter density of one particular brain region, the amygdala, was linked to social network size in the real world, and also correlated with the extent of a subject’s online social network.
But what does this scientific-sounding result actually tell us? Could it really be the case that using social networking sites can change brain structure, or that those who already have a certain brain structure will have a larger online social network? The difficulty lies not so much in what the scans themselves show but in the danger of overinterpretation. However fascinating this study may be, a simple brain scan does not tell us whether an activated area is an effect, a side effect, or even a cause of the behavior being observed. The imaging of different brain areas is excellent for a correlation between brain and behavior, but it does not mean that that area is the center for that behavior. The light on your iron does not mean that it’s the center for the function of the iron; it is just a corollary, a side effect of the iron working.
Remember that brain regions don’t have single jobs that map one-to-one onto behavior in the outside world. Apart from the most primitive brain regions, such as the specialized cells controlling respiration, the more sophisticated areas of the brain participate in many different functions. There is no big boss or hierarchy of command. So what does it actually mean when a particular brain area is comparably larger or denser in a scan? Interpretation, and the validity of that interpretation, will depend very much on just how precise the activity is that is being matched up to the scan.
Think back to the London taxi drivers exercising their working memory of the streets of London and how that corresponds with changes in the size of different brain areas, as shown in scans. The skills involved in knowing the best routes for navigating the metropolis are far more specific and definable, and less vague, than those in forming friendships. And again, the rookie pianists who imagined playing the piano were nonetheless still performing in their mind a specific set of movements, whether or not the actual contraction of muscles then actually ensued. A network of friendship is a far more abstract concept and thus harder to define operationally.
Still, we shouldn’t throw the neuroscience baby out with the bathwater of simplistic interpretations. Instead, let’s think about the complex ways in which the delicate, malleable brain responds to social networking, from the instant a pulse of dopamine is triggered by a response to the latest tweet through the long-term shaping of brain cell connectivity, which will ultimately result in a lifelong rearranging of synapses in the brains of those who might eventually be regarded as narcissistic or low in self-esteem.
Sherry Turkle has laid out a convincing case in her book Alone Together for the paradoxical-sounding argument that the more connected you are, the more isolated you feel.40 If you are constantly connected, you are a kind of commodity that can be compared to others and found wanting. This scenario was described in Oliver James’s Affluenza in relation to material goods and a dysfunctional lifestyle in a capitalist society: if you believe that you need to be more beautiful and richer than the next person in order to have significance, and if you see other people also as commodities for enhancing your perceived significance still further, you will be incapable of having the kind of human relationship essential for well-being.41 Each person is reduced to a series of check marks in boxes, with no independent worth despite being in a constant state of comparison. It is precisely these qualities of connectivity and comparison that have come to define the quintessence of social networking.
Social networking sites provide an unprecedented platform for social comparison and envy.42 One 2013 study that investigated the relationship between envy, life satisfaction, and Facebook use found that Facebook had triggered more than 20 percent of all reported incidents of envy or jealousy. Primarily caused by self-comparison with the social lives or vacations of others, this envy subsequently decreased life satisfaction. However, since previous research has indicated that most individuals portray an exaggerated or falsified state of contentment, the result may be a vicious cycle of portraying exaggerated happiness, feeling envious of others’ happiness, and experiencing a subsequent need to increase the portrayed levels of one’s own well-being.
This cyclical arms race driven by the basic brain mechanisms of addiction and reward would be a far cry from the identity and narrative of a life story that has until now given us our purpose and which mandates an elaborate cognitive context developed throughout life. That is not to say that envy and unhappiness, which are part of our cognitive makeup, don’t interact with the biological hook of the dopamine cycle. They have to. And if so, paradox though it might seem, are we becoming weirdly addicted to constant comparison with others, even if it ultimately makes us unhappy? Perhaps the unhappiness, that flat, let-down feeling of disappointment, is simply because you didn’t win this time around, so try again; spin the wheel or roll the dice again and next time you just may be lucky and impress everyone else. And if you could do that, it would mean you were “cool.”
So what defines “cool” on social networking sites? In the past, status was proclaimed by your watch, your car, your achievements. Now status for the Digital Native is measured not by possessions or a prestigious job, but by how “famous” (loosely defined) you can be. Interestingly enough, “coolness” has now been democratized. Wealth, gender, and age are no longer relevant. Achievements are no longer required. It’s simple networking that counts. Those who decide to keep only close friends on their Facebook profile may lose out in another way, since the number of friends one has on Facebook is seen as related to one’s physical and social attractiveness.43 (Just in case you need reassuring, the optimal number of friends in regard to social attractiveness has been found to be 302.)44
For those seeking a quick and painless way of combating low self-esteem and promoting the self, a San Francisco–based company named Klout could be the answer. It provides social media analytics to measure a user’s influence across his or her social network. The analysis takes data derived from sites such as Twitter and Facebook and measures the size of a person’s network, the content created, and how other people interact with that content. The result is a Klout score that reflects your online influence.45
In case you’re thinking that a Klout score would be an irrelevance when it comes to the mainstream real world, ponder the following disturbing comment from a recent article: “Just as an SAT score is used to judge students and a credit score is used to judge financial standing, [Klout creator Joe] Fernandez hopes that the Klout score will become an ‘ingredient’ in job interviews.”46 Since he’s the founder, perhaps his predictions are a little biased and overly enthusiastic. Still, Klout makes me feel queasy. First, according to Klout, impact is based entirely on the activities carried out on social networking sites; second, it is the quantity rather than the quality of your messages that is evaluated; third, the response you generate provides an opportunity for you to use your “influence” to draw attention to different brands. People may receive “Klout Perks”—free products or discounts—based on their online impact. Although Klout denies you’ll have any obligation to talk about the product, the possibility of receiving perks such as free laptops and airline tickets even if you don’t have a high Klout score means that your friendships have become advertising space. And the fact that importance is measured through social networking, that it depends on how much attention you attract, and that this attention can be rewarded is unlikely to bring out the best in anyone. What kind of lesson are you learning about relationships—and, indeed, about how you see yourself?
For some with robust experience of real-life relationships, spending time updating social networking sites and communicating with friends may improve well-being, just as a good gossip session on the phone might, but there is the danger that “well-being” could now be achieved simply by being “popular” among other Facebook users or by having a high Klout score. While in the short term well-being is obviously a good thing, if in the longer term you begin to question such a superficial reason for feeling happy as a high Klout score, you may begin to feel that something is still missing from your life, such as the sense of fulfillment typically gained from hard work, a real-life challenge, a sporting achievement, or creative skills. In any event, taking things to the extreme, consider this question: how would any of us feel living in a future society where the end point for achieving a feeling of contentment was simply the sheer number of people noticing you in cyberspace?
“I deleted Facebook,” a friend from the real world confided, “because it was just like high school all over again, where every girl is more popular and beautiful than you are.” While some individuals may be ready to break this false happiness cycle altogether, they remain in the vast minority. In 2011, a hundred thousand U.K. Facebook users deleted their profiles.47 In a study of Facebook quitters, the main reason cited was privacy concerns. Individuals with higher Internet use were more likely to quit Facebook, indicating that they had been concerned about their obsessive social networking.48 The very fact that quitting has been termed “virtual identity suicide” by social networking researchers indicates the importance some place on their Facebook profile.
When we were looking at the neuroscience of identity, I suggested that it entails the carefully constructed and unique mind interacting with a large number of momentary external contexts over time. Those contexts and that interaction will be hugely significant in determining who you are and how you see yourself. Until now, the adult mind was the product of a dialogue between environment and self, and this dialogue allowed for pauses, self-reflection, and the slow but sure development of a robust internal narrative. In contrast, an unremitting environment lived out on social networking sites will present the polar opposite: a scenario that displaces a robust inner sense of identity in favor of one that is externally constructed and driven. And because such an identity would be so strongly dependent on the responses of others, it would recapitulate the insecurity and fragility of a child’s lopsided, still-nascent sense of self.
Until now, the continuing dialogue between the individual and the environment has been weighted in favor of an internalized, personalized life story and inner commentary that, I’ve suggested, amounts to what we call identity. As we’ve just seen, the very basic drive to share this narrative with other people has traditionally been offset by the biologically based constraints of face-to-face interaction, where friendships are formed gradually and in a highly selective manner. However, social media removes these evolutionary precautions and presses the accelerator on unfettered self-disclosure in a context where the usual brakes applied by normal interpersonal feedback are absent. So instead of a small circle of friends, the self is now publicized to an audience of hundreds—and, like all public performances, it is held up to endless scrutiny and comment. How will this overly self-centered yet fragile identity fare in interpersonal communication and relationships?