PRESENTING THE SELF IN CYBERSPACE: IDENTITY PLAY IN MOOS Andrea Chester Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January, 2004 Department of Psychology The University of Melbourne Abstract The use of the Internet has increased exponentially over the last decade. Individuals across all continents are progressively engaging in cyberspace interactions at work, in education, and for leisure. These online interactions, unconstrained by the limitations of corporeal reality, offer the potential for unique presentations of the self. The general aim of the research described in this thesis was to examine self‐presentation in cyberspace. The research focused on MOOs, multi‐user, text‐based, user‐extensible online environments, as a likely site for identity experimentation and play in cyberspace. Two studies are described. In the first quantitative study, 75 university students logged on to the front page of a social MOO where they selected a screen name, chose their gender, and provided a character description. As hypothesised, self‐presentations were more likely to be based on actual identity rather than hoped for or feared selves. Contrary to expectation, little evidence was found of gender play. Self‐presentations were typically positively biased and results suggested that players also perceived themselves more positively in the online context. Although sex and age were generally unrelated to self‐presentation strategies, previous online experience, ethnicity, and personality profiles helped to explain self‐presentation behaviour. A qualitative study of a further 20 students in an educational MOO explored players’ understanding of their initial self‐presentational choices and their management of these self‐presentations over a 12‐week period. Findings from the second study were consistent with the results from the first quantitative study and confirmed a strong desire for authentic self‐ presentation. Despite this emphasis on authenticity, the intention to play with identity was manifest in the form of selective self‐disclosure, fantasy play, and exaggeration of traits. Participants also reported behaving in less inhibited i ways online. A low incidence of gender play was noted. The overt identity play assumed by the cyberspace literature was not found in either study. Rather self‐presentation in the online context appears to be governed by essentially similar processes to those that shape self‐presentation in the offline world. The implications of the findings for teaching and learning, particularly for educators who want to use MOOs for identity experimentation, are discussed. ii This is to certify that (i) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD, (ii) due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used, (iii) the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies, and appendices. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am especially grateful to my supervisor Di Bretherton for her tireless encouragement, wisdom, breadth of experience, and collegial spirit. My sincere thanks also to Rob Hall whose experience and skills in statistical analysis, data visualisation, and all‐round support were always offered promptly with unsurpassed warmth, humour, boundless enthusiasm, and generosity. Without these two people I am certain this thesis would never have been written. I am grateful to the Psychology and Disability Department at RMIT University who provided me with study leave to complete this thesis. I am especially grateful to Gillian Gwynne, with whom I developed and taught the course on which this thesis was based and Mex Butler who introduced me, with her contagious enthusiasm and impressive technical knowledge, to the delights of MOOing. My thanks also to Yoshimasa Awaji, who generously allows us to use his MOO for our teaching. I owe much to the students whose stories are contained in this thesis and to all the students with whom I have explored cyberspace. Thanks finally to my family and friends for their support, patience, and many hours of unpaid babysitting. I am especially grateful to James who unselfishly put his own writing on hold for many years so I could work on this research. And to my children who have only ever known me as a mummy who was “working on her fesis”. I look forward now to having a little more time to play… iv Table of Contents Abstract i Declaration iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v List of Tables xi List of Figures xii Forward 1 Chapter 1. Self‐presentation theory 4 1.1 Beginning the research: Searching for a theory 4 1.2 Self‐presentation, Goffman, and the dramaturgical approach 6 1.2.1 Giving and giving off information 6 1.2.2 Front of stage and backstage regions 7 1.3 Psychological perspectives 9 1.4 Self‐presentation: Measurement and theory 10 1.4.1 Impression monitoring 12 1.4.2 Impression motivation 14 1.4.3 Impression construction 16 1.4.3.1 Self‐concept, self‐disclosure, and deceptive self‐ presentations 16 1.4.3.2 Desired and undesired identity images 23 1.4.3.3 Target values, norms and roles 27 1.5 Postmodernism and self‐presentation 31 Chapter 2. Identity play 36 2.1 What is play? 36 2.2 Pretend play in childhood 37 2.3 The therapeutic nature of play and the playful nature of therapy 40 2.4 Identity experimentation in adolescence 41 2.4.1 Erikson’s psychosocial moratorium 42 2.4.1.1 Public identity play and signification 43 2.4.1.2 Negative identity play 43 2.4.2 Marcia’s identity statuses 45 2.5 Flow and deep play 48 Chapter 3. Cyberspace 51 3.1 Definitions 51 3.1.1 Cyberspace and the Internet 51 3.1.2 Internet usage 53 3.1.3 Terminology: “real” versus “virtual” 54 v 3.2 Forms of CMC: Interaction spaces within cyberspace 55 3.2.1 Homepages and weblogs 55 3.2.2 Email 56 3.2.3 Newsgroups 58 3.2.4 Chat 58 3.2.5 MUDs and MOOs 60 3.3 The characteristics of CMC 65 3.3.1 Telepresence 65 3.3.2 Temporality 68 3.3.3 Anonymity 69 3.3.4 Ephemerality 70 3.5 Social psychological theories of online behaviour 72 3.5.1 Cues filtered out approaches to CMC 72 3.5.1.1 Social presence theory 72 3.5.1.2 Reduced social cues theory 74 3.5.1.3 The social information processing model 76 3.5.2 The social identity explanation of deindividuation effects (SIDE) 78 Chapter 4. Self‐presentation in cyberspace 80 4.1 Self‐presentation online: Anecdotal evidence 80 4.2 Self‐presentation in Internet interaction spaces 82 4.2.1 Homepages and weblogs 82 4.2.2 Email 86 4.2.3 Newsgroups 88 4.3.4 Chat 92 4.3.4.1 Screen names 93 4.3.4.2 Character descriptions and gender choice 97 4.3.4.3 Negotiating a disembodied identity online and playing with possible selves 98 4.3.4.4 Presenting the “true” self 100 4.3.4.5 Deceptive self‐presentations 101 Chapter 5. Researching identity play in MOOs 104 5.1 The demographics of MOO users 105 5.2 MOOs as identity laboratories 105 5.3 The metaphor of play in MOOs 107 5.4 Desired identity images: wish fulfilment in MOOs 111 5.5 Undesired identity images: Acting out the feared self 114 5.6 Personality and identity play 115 5.7 CMC experience and identity play 115 5.8 Distributed and multiple identities 116 5.9 Online gender play 118 5.9.1 Communicating gender online 119 vi 5.9.2 Motivation for gender swapping 121 5.9.3 Effects of gender swapping 122 5.9.4 Prevalence of gender swapping in MOOs 123 5.9.5 Attitudes towards gender swapping 124 5.9.6 Online gender swapping and gender identity 125 5.10 The relationship between the player and the character 125 5.11 Researching MOOs 127 5.11.1 Ethical issues 127 5.11.2 Validity of data collected online 133 5.11.3 Research methodologies 134 Chapter 6. Study One: Quantitative 137 6.1 Rationale 137 6.1.1 Summary of hypotheses and research questions 142 6.2 Method 144 6.2.1 Participants 144 6.2.2 Measures 144 6.2.2.1 Offline identity 144 6.2.2.2 Desired and undesired identity images 146 6.2.2.3 Offline semantic differential 146 6.2.2.4 Gender Identity 148 6.2.2.5 Personality traits 149 6.2.2.6 MOO self‐presentation measures 149 6.2.3 Procedure 150 6.2.3.1 Procedure for MOO constructs 151 6.2.4 Methodology 152 6.2.5 Data coding and analysis 152 6.2.5.1 Presentation of offline identity in the MOO description 152 6.2.5.2 Content analysis of SST and virtual character descriptions 154 6.2.5.3 Significance testing and effect size 156 6.3 Results 156 6.3.1 Demographics 157 6.3.1.1 Response rates: A comparison of completers and non‐ completers 157 6.3.1.2 Representativeness of the sample 158 6.3.1.3 CMC experience 159 6.3.1.4 Gender identity 161 6.3.1.5 Personality 162 6.3.2 Online and offline identity: Analysis of the semantic space 162 6.3.3 The screen names 175 6.3.4 Presenting the self online: Quantitative analysis 178 6.3.4.1 Self‐concept, desired identities, and undesired vii identities online 179 6.3.4.2 Importance and desirability of SST items online 182 6.3.5 Presenting the self online: Content analysis 184 6.3.5.1 Gender choice 184 6.3.5.2 Comparison of SST items and MOO descriptions.