“Your Profile Is So Rad”: Self-Presentation Strategies in Turkish Adolescents

DE GRUYTER MOUTON Communications 2017; 42(1): 23–46

Nevfel Boz* and Shu-Sha Angie Guan “Your profile is so rad”: Self-presentation strategies in Turkish adolescents

DOI 10.1515/commun-2017-0003

Abstract: Social networking sites like Facebook are popular and ever-expand- ing, especially among adolescents in Turkey. The study of 406 adolescents aged

14 to 18 (Mage = 15.61, SD = 1.16) provides novel insights into how adolescents from Turkey within a specific cultural framework, display certain kinds of self- presentation strategies. Using the Revised Self-Presentation Scale (RSPS; Lee et al., 1999) when coding adolescents’ profiles for strategies and information, we found that exemplification is the most utilized strategy followed by the ingratiation strategy. Self-report results differed from coded behavioral strategy use for intimidation and self-promotion, where there were higher levels of intimidation strategy than self-reported; for the self-promotion strategy, self-reported levels were higher than coded behavioral use. Particular strategy usage also predicted the sharing of types of information and the number of network friends.

Keywords: Social networking sites, self-presentation strategies, adolescents, self-disclosure, Turkey

1 Introduction

The rise of information and communications technologies has become a global phenomenon, with usage rates increasing in both developed and developing nations (International Telecommunication Union, 2013a). For example, it is es- timated that 81.03 % of individuals in the United States were using the internet in 2012, an increase from 49.03 % in 2000 (International Telecommunication Union, 2013b). Often driven by the urban, educated and wealthy (Gezgin, 2013), the same gains can be seen in Turkey, with 3.76 % of the population online in 2000 and 45.13 % in 2012 (International Telecommunication Union, 2013b).

*Corresponding author: Nevfel Boz, Children’s Digital Media Center @ Los Angeles & Depart- ment of Media and Communication, Social Science University of Ankara, Ankara, Turkey, E-mail: [email protected] Shu-Sha Angie Guan, California State University, Northridge, E-mail: [email protected] 24 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON

The use of new media for information exchange, self-expression, and con- nection in social networking sites is also especially prevalent among youth (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, and Zickuhr, 2010; Pew Research Internet Project, 2014), with Facebook continuing to be the most popular (Duggan and Smith, 2013; Madden, 2013). Alongside the United States, Turkey ranks in the top five countries for number of Facebook users (Gezgin, 2013). The popularity of social media platforms among youth in Turkey has raised concerns for problematic use such as internet dependence (Ceyhan, 2008; Erdoǧan, 2008; Kayri and Gunuc, 2010; Tahiroglu, Gonca, Uzel, Ozcan, and Avci, 2008) and cyber bullying (Aricak et al., 2008; Topcu, Erdur-Baker, and Capa-Aydin, 2008) and motivations for social media use (Gulnar, Balci, and Cakir, 2010). But research that views online spaces as another social context indicate that adolescents often resolve offline developmental issues in similar ways online (Greenfield and Subrahmanyam, 2003; Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, and Tynes, 2004; Subrah- manyam, Šmahel, and Greenﬁeld, 2006). According to Erikson (1963), one of the key tasks of adolescence is to explore and develop stable identities. To this end, teens often use social networking sites to gather cultural information and express real and idealized selves (Rainie, Lenhart, and Smith, 2012; Manago, Graham, Greenfield, and Salimkhan, 2008; Michikyan, Dennis, and Subrah- manyam, 2014; Subrahmanyam et al., 2006).

1.1 Theoretical and conceptual considerations

Widespread access to the internet has allowed consumers of media to be pro- ducers of their own content (Dominick, 1999), and social networking site users have new opportunities for identity exploration and self-presentation through moderating the information on their profiles (Stutzman, Capra, and Thompson, 2011; Tufekci, 2008). Self-presentation can be defined as a process through which individuals transmit their image to others (Jones and Pittman, 1982; Leary, 1996; Leary and Kowalski, 1990). Goffman’s dramaturgy theory (1959) argues that a primary motivator in self-presentation is to present an idealized image of oneself that aligns with cultural expectations. In order to successfully create the desired impression on an audience, individuals need to strategically control the information that they disclose (Leary, 1996; Leary and Kowalski, 1990). In other words, self-presentation provides a link between the self and others; it represents how they view themselves and how they want to be viewed by others (Baumeister, 1982; Leary and Kowalski, 1990). Even if most common self-presentation strategies are in pleasing others, people may still present themselves as intimidating or weak when they deem it necessary (Jones and DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 25

Pittman, 1982). In general, people engage in self-presentation in order to obtain social and material benefits, such as identity validation, power, friendship, or financial benefits (Jones and Pittman, 1982; Leary, 1996; Leary and Kowalski, 1990). These self-identity processes do not disappear as individuals move into online spaces. Instead, this performance element may be amplified as individuals make decisions about and use online tools for displaying a coherent sense of self to a broader audience, members of multiple social spheres, at once (Pa- pacharissi, 2011). Adolescents may use various Facebook affordances in the process of identity construction in self-presentation. Adolescents’ construction of a Facebook profile (e.g., the type and amount of self-information they disclose about their location, hobbies, interests) and the changes they make to these profiles on a daily basis (e.g., edits, posting pictures, posting comments) are acts of self- presentation. In these ways, teens construct their public personas by shaping the information on their profiles (Manago et al., 2008). People who feel capable of creating positive impressions of themselves on social networking sites are more likely to have a greater number of completed fields, number of words, group membership categories, and linked-profile friends than those who feel less self-efficacious (Kramer and Winter, 2008). The offline context also has implications for online experiences. A comparison of Chinese student activity on Facebook (a heavily US and western populat- ed social networking site) and its counterpart Renren (considered the “Face- book of China”, a Chinese social networking site with a user interface and affordances like posting and chatting similar to Facebook) show that users showed more collectivistic sharing of posts and links on Renren in ways that align with sharing-oriented values in China (Qui, Lin, and Leung, 2012). Chen (2010) also found that Taiwanese bloggers, compared to bloggers in the US, tended to emphasize social relationships more (mentioned social ties) and dis- closed less personal information. In similar ways, cultural norms in Turkey may be manifested online, shaping how Turkish youth present themselves online and the use of self-presentation strategies. The theory of social change also suggests that shifting socio-demographics in Turkey may change values and behaviors (Greenfield, 2009). That is, as Turkey transitions from a primarily agricultural, collectivistic country to a more industrialized and individualistic society, as it has in the last three decades, valued identity markers can shift. Specifically, Greenfield (2009) suggests that as societies become more urban, wealthy, and reliant on technology, cultural values of independence become more heavily emphasized and socialized. Cultural values and norms can be demonstrated online, and can form how adolescents present themselves in online venues and which self-presentation strategies they use. 26 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON

1.2 Self-presentation strategies

The number of impressions people can create for others can be categorized into a smaller number of categories. The original scale developed by Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett, and Tedeschi (1999), identifies 12 basic self-identification strategies. These include behaviors that seek to develop impression management and achieve a target. On the other hand, Jones and Pittman (1982) analyze self- presentation tactics based on five basic factors – exemplification, self-promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, and supplication. In this study, we drew on prior studies and focused on these five self-presentation strategies (Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo, 2004; Lewis and Neighbors, 2005; Warner and Moore, 2004). One of the limitations of these frequency scales is that they are self- report and may not represent actual behaviors. Therefore, we also coded youth profiles.

1.3 Exemplification

Exemplification strategies are behaviors primarily involving the presentation of moral qualities. This strategy aims to present an image of high morals and one’s adaptation of these moral standards. Behaviors involving ideological attachment, expression signaling, self-sacrifice for a sacred purpose, religious beliefs, political views, expressions of charity and philanthropy, or elements involving ambition and discipline can be grouped under this category. Individu- als aim to set certain standards according to which they live their lives. More importantly, regardless of the extent to which they follow their self-set social standards in their individual lives, social networking site users consume sanc- tioned norms and present them as signals to others of their own moral code. Cultural identity and audience characteristics are two crucial factors that shape the presentation of idealized values (Hofstede, 1980; Maltz and Borker, 1982). Exemplification, with its emphasis on moral qualities and ideological attach- ments, may be a behavior especially prevalent among users in Turkey, a pre- dominantly Muslim country that is currently in the process of socio-demographic and cultural transformation. In addition to grappling with developing a stable self-identity, Turkish adolescents may be grappling with their identity as citizens of a nation in flux.

1.4 Self-promotion

People utilize this strategy in order to present themselves as competent and self-sufficient, and earn others’ respect. On the Facebook platform, personal DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 27 information and personal identifiers that are selected to present people as positive are key elements that allow us to measure the extent of self-promotion. Motives and tendencies of self-promotion may vary in different cultures (Heine, Lehman, Markus, and Kitayama, 1999). For instance, modesty may be more highly valued than self-promotion in East Asian compared to Western cultures (Hofstede, 1980). Given that Turkey has been characterized as a more interdependent culture similar to East Asian cultures, self-promotion may appear less among Turkish teens.

1.5 Ingratiation

Ingratiation is defined as a set of behaviors that use compliments or other means to achieve others’ appreciation (Jones and Pittman, 1982). For example, someone who praises a friend’s shirt by saying “what a cool shirt”, is engaging in ingratiation. In this strategy, an individual takes an action that will result in others’ appreciation of himself/herself (Bassett, Cate, and Dabbs, 2002). The major difference between ingratiation and self-promotion is that, in the latter, one builds up oneself rather than another person.

1.6 Intimidation

Intimidation can be defined as a collection of behaviors aimed at presenting oneself as intimidating and dangerous. Through intimidation strategy, individuals aim to acquire social power by presenting themselves as a threat. What matters here is to transform others’ behavior in a preferred direction, rather than being perceived as a good person by others.

1.7 Supplication

Utilizing a supplication strategy, people portray themselves as weak, helpless and needy and try to acquire other’s help (Jones and Pittman, 1982). Being a type of helplessness strategy, examples of this type of behavior include expressions such as “I never changed bulbs before”, or “I am really not good in ironing, do you mind helping me?”

1.8 The current study

Self-presentation strategies and factors that contribute to these strategies have been examined primarily in Western, industrialized nations. However, fewer 28 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON studies have examined how individuals in developing nations with different cultural norms express themselves online. Furthermore, adolescents’ use of self-presentation strategies on social media is important to study because of their implications for identity exploration. Given that teenagers use social media heavily, online self-presentation strategies become important in under- standing contemporary adolescent behavior and identity construction. Addi- tionally, given that adolescence is a period in which self-concepts are in flux, it is important to examine both what teens report they normally do using retro- spective measures and what they actually do in terms of consistent online activity (Gross, 2004). Therefore, in the current study, we examine (a) which self-presentation strategies are reported most frequently by Turkish adolescents, (b) which self- presentation strategies are observed most often on adolescents’ Facebook profiles, and (c) individual factors (e.g., age, gender, amount of self-disclosure, activity level) that determine particular strategy usage. The sense of implied audience present in social networking sites (Marwick and boyd, 2011) may result in different self-presentation strategies that align with mainstream cultural values and religious beliefs. We therefore hypothesize that being in a more interdependent culture similar to East Asian cultures; Turkish adolescents will report higher levels of exemplification and lower levels of self-promotion. We also explore levels of intimidation, ingratiation, and supplication. Al- though the intimidation strategy may be common during adolescence as youth negotiate social status, it may also be less common given beliefs that aggression is inherently antisocial. Additionally, gender norms may affect the self-disclosure and expression of these strategies in online spaces (Haferkamp, Eimler, Papadakis, and Kruck, 2012; Lee et al., 1999; Manago et al., 2008; Mehdizadeh, 2010; Strano, 2008). For example, males may show greater intimidation and females may exhibit greater self-promotion, ingratiation or supplication. Lastly, we explore inconsistencies between attitudes and behaviors in examining self- reported and observed self-presentation strategy usage.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

Snowball sampling is a method in which initially recruited participants are used to recruit other participants. This method was used to reach Turkish adolescents (N = 406) in secondary education who are actively using Face- book.com. First, teachers from different cities were contacted and asked to an- DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 29 nounce the study in their schools. Second, adolescents who consented to the study were asked to share a post about the study to their friends. This combina- tion of teacher recruitment and snowball sampling was used to increase the sample size of the study and reach active social networking site users. Of the participants between the ages of 14 and 18 (Mage = 15.61, SD = 1.16) retained in this study, 16.5 % were 14 years old, 36.9 % were 15 years old, 21.7 % were 16 years old, 17.2% were 17 years old, and 7.6 % were 18 years old. Nearly two thirds (62.2 %) of the participants were male, and 37.8% were female. Place of residence was coded; 76.7 % of the participants were from urban areas (e.g., Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir) and 23.3 % from rural areas of Turkey (e.g., Isparta, Yozgat, Adiyaman).

2.2 Procedure

Data collection was made in accordance with Marmara University Ethical Com- mittee procedures. According to these ethical principles, the flyer and information sheet of the study were published on the researcher’s Facebook account, which was created specifically for the study. In the documents provided, participants were asked to review information about the survey and profile analysis procedures and give consent by adding this account as a friend on Facebook to provide access to their profiles. Once participants added the first author’s Facebook account, they were asked to follow a link to complete an online survey about their background and self-presentation strategy usage, share a post about the study and invite their friends to participate. In order to increase participation in the study, it was announced that two participants would be chosen in a raffle to be given prizes by the researcher. Prizes were two trendy backpacks. Only participants aged 14 to 18 were used for data analysis. Their Facebook profiles and self-presentation scale survey constituted the data used in this paper. This study utilizes two different kinds of research methodologies: quantitative and qualitative analysis.

2.3 Quantitative analysis: Survey measures

Revised Self-Presentation Scale (RSPS). Participants completed a self-presentation scale revised from Lee et al. (1999) that was modified to capture adolescent strategy usage specifically on Facebook on a 5-point scale from 1 = Totally Disagree to5=Totally Agree (see Appendix A). The newly modified items were entered into a confirmatory factor analysis in EQS 6.2 to determine the latent 30 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON structure of the variables in the different strategies. All the items loaded significantly onto the predicted factors, however, fit indices showed a poor fit (χ 2 (128) = 1043.60, CFI = .84, RMSEA = .09). Therefore, a more stringent cutoff was examined such that only factor loadings equal to, or greater than, .60 (“good” to “very good”) were included (Comrey and Lee, 1992; Guadagnoli and Velicer, 1988; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). The resulting model was a satisfac- tory fit (χ2 (125) = 409.85, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .08). Figure 1 shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis. Covariates. Potential covariates such as age, gender, family socioeconomic status, and intensity of internet usage, which have been found in prior research to be related to self-presentation, were examined (e.g., Chen, 2010; Hargittai, 2007; Lewis, Kaufman, and Christakis, 2008; Michikyan et al., 2014). Family income was assessed using an item asking participants to report monthly household income on a scale of lower than 1,500, 1,501–2,500, 2,501–3,500,

Figure 1: Factor loadings from final confirmatory factor analysis model. χ2 (125) = 409.89, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .08. DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 31

3,501–4,500, and above 4,501 Turkish Lira a month. At the time of the study, the average household income was approximately 2,000 Lira (Tuik, 2013). Daily internet usage was assessed on a scale of 0–1 hours, 1–2 hours, 2–4 hours, and 4 hours and above a day.

2.4 Qualitative analysis: Content analysis

Coders reached participants’ Facebook accounts by using the researcher’s Face- book account, the one that was created specifically for the study. In the content analysis of profiles, a two-week time period was standardized across profiles in order to analyze the average expressions of adolescents. The reason for this two-week time period is that the Facebook profiles are continuous and can go many years back. In order to be consistent in the analyses of profiles, we chose to determine a fixed time period of two weeks to capture an aggregate of adolescent experiences as has been done in prior diary studies (Bolger, Davis, and Rafaeli, 2003; Fuligni, Yip, and Tseng, 2002). A coding table (Appendix B) was created for all visual materials, expressions, status updates, comments and posts on the profile pages of participants in accordance with the self-presentation strategies discussed above. Only participants’ posts were coded, others’ posts on the participants’ timeline were not coded. Posts that were related to our 5 strategies were coded; other posts were not added to the analysis. If an expression or post fit into a self-presentation strategy, the coders marked a value of “1” in their table. When coders did not encounter any expressions for a certain self-presentation strategy, they entered the value “0”. Then tables were compared, profiles which were rated differently by the coders were removed from the analysis (of 513 profiles collected, 107 were removed to produce 406 profiles that were completely agreed upon by both coders). Table 1 shows the percentage of participants who expressed any one of the strategies. The total number of each strategy was then summed for each profile. Codes of self-disclosure in profiles and posts were entered into an explora- tory factor analysis with varimax rotation and revealed that expressions of locale (i.e., presence of zip code, neighborhood, city/town, hometown, address), interests (i.e., number of listed music, books, TV shows, movies, games, hobbies, and groups) and activities (i.e., number of likes, comments, written posts, visual posts, and status updates) loaded into different factors (> .35). Conse- quently, a composite of the sum of locale, interests and activities was created. Additionally, the number of religious descriptors (e.g., Muslim vs. Muslim, Ala- wite) and the number of friends were counted. Coded values over three

32 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON Supplication .07 .02 –.02 –.02

** ** * * Intimidation .13 .41 .11 –.07 –.04

* ** ** ** Ingratiation .03.11 .03.24 .07 –.12

** ** ** ** Exemplification .09 .00 .07 –.01 .07 .05 .03.05 .01 –.02.06 .05 .09 –.01 .11

** ** ** ** SSSupplication RSPS .15 .20 .66

* ** ** SSIntimidation RSPS .10 .13 .61

** ** ** SSIngratiation RSPS .15 .08 .09 .13 .29

** ** ** SSSelf-Promotion RSPS

– .67 SSExemplification RSPS –.05 .11* .07 .06 .03 .15

** ubro Friends of Number .10 –.04 .16 .00 –.06.16 .01 –.03 –.02 –.05 .21

** * ** DLocale SD .15 .12

ip .02 .03 –.10 .00 –.06 –.03 –.04 –.02 .01 .09 –.09

* ** * DActivity SD .12

DInterests SD Religion .01 .05 .00 .08 –.07 –.04 .06 –.02 .02 .08 .20

al nentUsage Internet Daily

aiyIncome Family

SD Mean Correlations of study variables. Friends Promotion net Usage plification Income Table 1: AgeFamilyDaily Inter- –.03Religion .20 –SD Interests .10SD Activity .07 –SD –.05 Locale .12 .02No. of .00 .15 RSPS Exem- –RSPS Self- .12 – .12* .15 – .08 .12* – –.08 .02 .03 –.02 .09 .01 – .17 –.01 .00 .16 – .12* .31 .05 .10* .05 .00 .17 DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 33 .04 –.01 –.06 – * ** ** – –.01 – .27 .04 .04 .13 –.01 .04 .12* .00 – –.08 –.14 ** ** .73 – .03 –.01 .06 .04 ** – .73 – .63 < .001. p ** RSPS indicates self-report Revised Self-Presentation Scale. DS indicates self-disclosure. < .05. p tiation cation dation RSPS Ingra- RSPS Intimi- RSPS Suppli- cation Exemplifi- Ingratiation Intimidation Supplication Note: Levels of self-promotion from* the content analysis were too low and lacked enough variance for analysis and thus were subsequently removed. 34 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON standard deviations from the mean were removed to reduce the effect of outliers and positive skew of the data.

2.5 Analysis plan

After collecting and coding the data, correlational analyses examined the relationships between self-reported self-presentation strategies from the scale (RSPS) and self-presentation strategies used in Facebook (content analysis). Additionally, we assessed the relationships between these strategies, socio- demographic covariates (age, gender, urban/rural) and profile characteristics (e.g., amount of information about locale, interests, activities, religion, number of Facebook friends). Hierarchical regression models were then used to predict self-presentation strategies used in Facebook. In Step 1, we controlled for demographic factors (gender, age and place of residence). In Step 2, we examined how profile characteristics were associated with strategy use. Variables that were significantly correlated with the content analysis of strategies were entered into the models to examine if they held over and above demographic variables. Gender was effect-coded where male = –1 and female = 1. City of residence was coded as rural = –1 and urban = 1.

Table 2: Regression models predicting coded strategies used in Facebook.

Exemplification Ingratiation Intimidation Supplication B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)

Step 1 Intercept 1.07 (.09)** .50 (.07)** .68 (.07)** .02 (.01)* Age .21 (.07)** –.15 (.06)* –.07 (.06) .00 (.01) Gender –.31 (.08)** –.01 (.06) .09 (.06) .01 (.01)* Urban/Rural .18 (.09)* .06 (.07) –.14 (.07) .00 (.01) Step 2 Daily Int. Use Religion .21 (.07)** SD Interests .14 (.07)* .08 (.05) .08 (.05) SD Activity .32 (.09)** .24 (.06)** .51 (.06)** SD Locale Number of Friends .08 (.06) .11 (.06)*

Note: Gender was effect-coded such that males were coded –1 and females were coded 1. Rural was coded as –1 and urban as 1. SD indicates self-disclosure. *p < .05. **p < .01. DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 35

3 Results

3.1 Which strategies do Turkish adolescents report using most frequently?

Figure 1 shows that, of the strategies self-reported in the RSPS, Turkish adolescents reported using exemplification most frequently, followed by ingratiation, and self-promotion. They were least likely to endorse using intimidation. Males were more likely than females to adopt ingratiation (t(389) = 4.34, p < .001), self- promotion (t(387) = 3.12, p = .002), and supplication (t(390) = 2.84, p = .005). There were no gender differences in exemplification (t(396) = 1.80, p = .073) and intimidation (t(389) = 1.68, p = .095). There were no urban/rural differences in other self-reported RSPS strategy use (ts(391–398) = –1.44–.17, ns). Table 1 shows that these self-reported strategies were not significantly correlated with age.

3.2 Which strategies are observed most frequently on Turkish adolescent profiles?

Figure 2 shows the results from the content analysis of the adolescents’ Facebook profiles. Similar to the RSPS results, exemplification is the most frequently used self-presentation strategy followed by ingratiation and intimidation strategies. Less than 3 % of profiles exhibited supplication or self- promotion. Below are specific examples translated from Turkish in the content analysis: Exemplification. Examples of exemplification were found in 55.5 % of profiles and included comments such as: “It’s better to die as a freedom fighter than to live as a slave” (15-year-old male from acity) and “Hey you adolescent retards! How the heck do you deny your history and origins? I am so ashamed of you. When did you abandon all your morals, values, your religion” (16-year- old female from a rural town). Self-promotion. On the Facebook platform, personal information and personal identifiers that were used to create a positive impression were coded as self-promotion. However, only 1.2 % of profiles contained self-promoting comments. Examples: “So how do I know so much stuff at such a young age? I love being lectured by my elders and apply [it] to my life” (14-year-old, urban female). “Hmm, weird thing; I am good at both geometry and history” (15-year- old, urban male). 36 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON

Figure 2: Self-reported RSPS frequency of strategies.

Figure 3: Percentage of profiles that were coded as containing each of the self-presentation strategies.

Ingratiation. Positive comments about others, self-deprecation, expressions of positive humor, smileys, and over-courteous actions were coded as ingratiation and appeared in 31.2 % of profiles. Examples of this include: “Hey boss, your profile pic is so rad!” (17-year-old, urban male) and “Dude, I am so happy you are in my life, so happy I got to know you. If I was too cold with you from time to time, I actually couldn’t really act cold with you. And hey please don’t be cold with me you idiot, it takes such a toll to make it right to you. Why don’t you help with this math exam as well? You know, I only get it when you, no one else, help me with it. Oh btw, I so crave chocolate right now” (16-year-old, urban female). DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 37

Intimidation. Expressions of intimidation that are utilized in participants’ Facebook profiles. Examples appeared in 28.3 % of profiles: “Ali, you bastard, my opinions of you will never change” (18-year-old, urban male) and “You retarded pig, you signed in again after I signed out, didn’t you ?” (16-year-old, urban female). Supplication. Expressions of supplication that are utilized in participants’ Facebook wall activities such as comments, status updates, etc. Examples from the 2.9 % of teens who exhibited supplicative comments: “Hey, how do we send mass SMSs? ☺” (15-year-old, urban female). “Please like this for the sake of God and his prophet” (15-year-old, urban male). Although the use of supplication strategy is statistically rare, examples we quote on this strategy refer to a common use of the strategy in daily life. In the first example, there is a direct request for help, and in the second example, the participant uses a daily form of supplication in Turkish culture, which is “for the sake of God and his prophet”.

3.3 Which individual characteristics predict observed self-presentation strategies used?

As shown in Table 1, correlational analyses indicated that content-coded exemplification strategy use was positively associated with age, specificity of religious descriptives, Facebook interests and activities, and negatively associated with content-coded intimidation strategies. Content-coded ingratiation strategy use was negatively related to age but positively related to content-coded intimidation, Facebook interests, activities, and number of friends. In addition to associations with other content-coded strategies, content-coded intimidation strategy use positively associated with Facebook interests, activities, number of friends and RSPS self-promotion, ingratiation and intimidation strategy use. Content-coded supplication use was low and not related to other strategies. Levels and variation in content-coded self-promotion were similarly low so that no correlational analyses were possible. However, daily internet use, Facebook disclosure of locale and interests, and number of friends were correlated with self-reported self-promotion use. As shown in Table 2, when sociodemographic variables (gender, urban/ rural, and age) were controlled for, providing information about religion and Facebook self-disclosure of interests and activities predicted content-coded exemplification strategy use. When socio-demographics were controlled for, Face- book self-disclosure of activities, number of Facebook friends, and content- coded ingratiation strategy use remained significantly associated with content- 38 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON coded intimidation strategy use. Lastly, only Facebook self-disclosure of activities predicted content-coded ingratiation strategy use over and above socio- demographics.

4 Discussion

Overall, our findings showed some consistency in levels of self-reported and observed strategy use in profiles, with exemplification being the most utilized self-presentation strategy. However, levels of self-reported endorsement of strategies were often not related to content-coded strategy use, suggesting that they may capture differences in adolescent attitudes compared to behaviors. Addi- tionally, we found some age and gender differences in strategy use, but specificity in religion and interests was uniquely associated with exemplification, and the number of Facebook friends was uniquely related to intimidation. Although Turkey is a majority Muslim nation, it has religious and cultural diversity and has experienced great sociopolitical and socio-demographic change. Perhaps in line with the importance of religion in the national identity, instances of exemplification (self-presentation of morals and values) were positively related to the specificity of religious affiliations provided. Although the study participants may not follow strict moral codes in their private lives, on the public platform of Facebook, they may use these strategies to conform to these cultural codes. However, the sense of implied audience present in many social networking sites like Facebook (Marwick and boyd, 2011; Papacharissi, 2011) may also lead to greater exemplification use in general. As effective acts of identity construction discussed in prior research (Kramer and Winter, 2008; Manago et al., 2008), disclosing more information about interests and being active in posting pictures and comments predicted higher use of exemplification. These findings highlight the importance of self-exploration and the desire within online platforms to construct identities that conform to desirable social and cultural roles (Papacharissi, 2011), particularly during adolescence (Erik- son, 1968; Goffman, 1959). Similarly to prior research with similar Facebook self-presentation measures in Hong Kong and China (Huang, 2014; Wong, 2012), we found relatively high levels of self-reported as well as behavioral ingratiation compared with other strategies, such as supplication and self-promotion, and that greater profile activity (posting pictures, comments) was associated with higher levels of ingratiation. Although Wong (2012) did not assess exemplification and surveyed college students in Hong Kong and Huang (2014) did not assess the full range of strategies as assessed here among Chinese adolescents, these studies and DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 39 the present results highlight the importance of ingratiation in social bonding. It is easy to see how ingratiation-coded comments like “I am so happy you are in my life, so happy I got to know you” can promote positive interactions and the maintenance of relationships. It is not surprising that ingratiation would be a more frequent strategy given that one of the primary motivations for Face- book use is to build and maintain relationships (Tosun, 2012). Together, these findings emphasize how young people share and exchange with close others in public, online spaces in ways that reinforce social connections and display kinship. Intimidation was the only strategy to be associated with a greater number of Facebook friends over and above socio-demographic differences. These results seem to suggest that intimidation may be used as a tool to garner a greater number of Facebook ‘friends’ or that popularity provides the social capital and confidence that bolsters the use of threats among youth (e.g., Juvonen, Graham, and Schuster, 2003). Although we found lower levels of self-reported intimidation relative to the other strategies, we also found higher levels of observed instances of intimidation in youth’s profiles relative to the other strategies. Additionally, intimidation was the only strategy where we found a correlation between self-reported levels. One potential explanation for this discrepancy may be that although adolescents endorse intimidation strategies (self-report), they overestimate their actual use of the strategy (content analysis) in the face of an audience of other Turkish youth who may endorse less aggressive strategies in conflicts as have been found in other more interdependent cultures (Gudykunst and Lee, 2002). In this study, we also found limited supplication and self-promotion use. Prior research suggests that social networking site users are less likely to endorse using supplication because of negative implications (Bolino and Turnley, 2003; Paulhus and Trapnell, 2008). For example, supplication strategy use can lead to attributions of laziness and incompetence (Jones and Pittman, 1982). Similarly, self-promotion strategy use may be associated with attributions of conceit and arrogance in general (Jones and Pittman, 1982). For example, in a similar study of Facebook profiles, Mehdizadeh (2010) found that higher self- promotional content was associated with higher levels of narcissism and lower self-esteem. Low levels of self-promotion may also stem from the fact that self- promotion is utilized in the initial creation of the Facebook profile (when users report their work and education, places lived, basic information, relationships, and life events), but less in the continuous posts on the Facebook wall that was the focus of the content analysis. On the other hand, results from the self-presentation scale and prior research (Mehdizadeh, 2010) suggest that adolescents do engage in self-promo- 40 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON tion. Correlational analyses suggest that those who report greater self-promotion strategy use also report higher internet usage, intimidation strategy usage, number of Facebook friends and provide more information about Facebook interests and location. This may reflect a difference in what each of our methods was capturing. It is possible that self-reports of self-promotion items capture values that are perceived to align with social networking sites (a tool for promoting oneself). In contrast, our content analysis may be capturing an explicit type of self-promotion (e.g., bragging) and this may appear less in interdependent cultures that value greater modesty (Kurman, 2002). The coding method used in this study to capture observed self-promotional content within a two-week period may have yielded different results from prior work which used self-reported ratings of self-promotional Facebook content on a Likert scale (Mehdizadeh, 2010). Our findings on self-presentation strategy usage corroborate with some of the findings on gender differences of Lee et al. (1999), who found higher adop- tion of ingratiation and intimidation among male compared to female college university freshman students in the US. However, in this study, we found either greater endorsement among male teenagers in self-reported ingratiation, self- promotion and supplication. This discrepancy may be due to sample differences as we focused on adolescent strategy usage. Prior studies also suggest that females may use social networking sites in different ways, posting more and reporting using the site more for friendship maintenance than males (Hargittai, 2007; Lewis et al., 2008; Michikyan et al., 2014). In this study, we have examined how information disclosure can be an effective tool for self-presentation and identity construction among Turkish adolescents. While we did try to capture the different ways Turkish youth expressed themselves and managed their online personas, the findings are correlational, and it remains for future studies to establish how different strategy usage may affect one another and the number of friends. Additionally, while we contextualize our findings within cultural values and contemporary events in Turkey, we cannot make comparisons with adolescents from other cultural backgrounds. Future cross-cultural studies should examine if the self-presentation strategy results found here are specific to Turkish adolescents, teenagers in transitioning societies, or adolescents universally. However, this study does contribute to the literature by providing a comparison of reported and behavioral Facebook usage as well as a cross-sectional account of how adolescents in the specific context of Turkey may be personalizing their media content, and using it to create an online presence and identity in line with cultural expectations. DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 41

Acknowledgments: This project has been supported by the Scientific and Techno- logical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) grant B.14.2.TBT.0.06.01-219-84.

References

Aricak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N., & Memmedov, C. 2008. Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 11(3), 253–261. Bassett, J. F., Cate, K. L., & Dabbs, J. M. 2002. Individual differences in self-presentation style: Driving an automobile and meeting a stranger. Self and Identity 1(3), 281–288. Baumeister, R. F. 1982. A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 91, 3–26. Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. 2003. Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Review of Psychology 54, 579–616. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2003. More than one-way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management 29(2), 141–160. Ceyhan, E. 2008. Internet addiction as a risk factor of adolescent’s mental health. Çocuk ve Gençlik Ruh Sağlığı Dergisi 15(2), 109–116. Chen, Y. K. 2010. Examining the presentation of self in popular blogs: A cultural perspective. Chinese Journal of Communication 3(1) 28–41. Comrey, A. L., Lee, H. B. 1992. A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. 2004. A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal Of Research in Marketing 21(3) 241–263. Dominick, J. R. 1999. Who do you think you are? Personal home pages and self-presentation on the World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76(4), 646– 658. Duggan, M., & Smith, A. 2013. Social media update 2013. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved December 9, 2016 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/ social-media-update-2013/. Erdoǧan, Y. 2008. Exploring the relationships among internet usage, internet attitudes and loneliness of Turkish adolescents. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 2(2), 11–20. Erikson, E. H. 1963. Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton. Erikson, E. H. 1968. Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton. Fuligni, A. J., Yip, T., & Tseng, V. 2002. The impact of family obligation on the daily behavior and psychological well-being of Chinese American adolescents. Child Development 73, 306–318. Gezgin, U. B. 2013. Facebook in Turkey in 2012: Facebook on printed media. Paper prepared for 2nd International Conference on Language, Medias and Culture – ICLMC 2013, 16–17 March 2013, Macau, pp. 12–16. Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 42 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON

Greenfield, P. M. 2009. Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology 45(2), 401–418. Greenfield, P. M., & Subrahmanyam, K. 2003. Online discourse in a teen chatroom: New codes and new modes of coherence in a visual medium. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 24, 713–738. Gross, E. F. 2004. Adolescent internet use: What we expect, what teens report. Applied Developmental Psychology 25(6), 633–649. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. 1988. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin 103, 265–275. Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. 2002. Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 25–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gulnar, B., Balcı, S., & Çakır, V. 2010. Motivations of Facebook, You Tube and similar web sites users. Bilig 54, 161–184. Haferkamp, N., Eimler, S. C., Papadakis, A., & Kruck, J. V. 2012. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15(2), 91–98. Hargittai, E. 2007. Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1), 276–297. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 1999. Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review 106(4), 766–794. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Huang, H. 2014. Self-presentation tactics in social media. Paper presented at the 2014 International Conference on Social Science: Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Chengdu, China. Paris: Atlantis Press. doi:10.2991/icss- 14.2014.76 International Telecommunication Union. 2013a. The world in 2013: ICT facts and figures. Retrieved May 2014 from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ ICTFactsFigures2013-e.pdf. International Telecommunication Union. 2013b. Percentage of individuals using the Internet 2000–2012. Retrieved May 2014 from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/ stat/default.aspx. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. 1982. Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Juvonen, J., Graham S., & Schuster, M. 2003. Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, weak, and troubled. Pediatrics 112(6), 1231–1237. Kayri, M., & Gunuc, S. 2010. An analysis of some variables affecting the internet dependency level of Turkish adolescents by using decision tree methods. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eǧitim Bilimleri / Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 10(4), 2487– 2500. Kramer, N.C., & Winter, S. 2008. Impression Management 2.0. The relationship of self- esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology 20(3), 106–116. Kurman, J. 2002. Measured cross-cultural differences in self-enhancement and the sensitivity of the self-enhancement measure to the modesty response. Cross-Cultural Research 36(1), 73–95. DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 43

Leary, M. R. 1996. Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. 1990. Impression management: A literature review and two- component model. Psychological Bulletin 107, 34–47. Lee, S., Quigley, B. M., Nesler, M. S., Corbett, A. B., & Tedeschi, J. T. 1999. Development of a self-presentation tactics scale. Personality and Individual Differences 26(4), 701–722. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. 2010. Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1–37. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., & Christakis, N. 2008. The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(1), 79–100. Lewis, M., & Neighbors, C. 2005. Self-determination and the use of self-presentation strategies. The Journal of Social Psychology 154(4), 469–489. Madden, M. 2013. Teens haven’t abandoned Facebook (yet). Retrieved May 2014 from http:// www.pewinternet.org/2013/08/15/teens-havent-abandoned-facebook-yet/. Maltz, D. J., & Borker, R. A. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumpertz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 195–216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Manago, A., Graham, M., Greenfield, P. M., & Salimkhan, G. 2008. Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29, 446–458. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society 13(1), 114–133. Mehdizadeh, S. 2010. Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13(4), 357–364. Michikyan, M., Dennis, J., & Subrahmanyam, K. 2014. Can you guess who I am? Real, ideal, and false self-presentation on Facebook among emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood 33, 179–183. doi:10.1177/2167696814532442 Papacharissi, Z. 2011. A networked self. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 304–318). New York: Routledge. Paulhus, D. L., & Trapnell, P. D. 2008. Self-presentation on personality scales: An agency- communion framework. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 492–517). New York: Guilford Press. Pew Research Internet Project. 2014. Teens fact sheet. Retrieved May 2013 from http:// www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/teens-fact-sheet. Qui, L., Lin, H., & Leung, A. K.-Y. 2012. Cultural differences and switching of in-group sharing behavior between an American (Facebook) and a Chinese (Renren) social networking site. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44(1), 106–121. Rainie, L., Lenhart, A., & Smith, A. 2012. The tone of life on social networking sites. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved July 16, 2012 from http:// www.pewInternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/ Pew_Social%20networking%20climate%202.9.12.pdf. Strano, M. M. 2008. User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychological Research in Cyberspace 2(2). Stutzman, F., Capra, R., & Thompson, J. 2011. Factors mediating disclosure in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior 27(1), 590–598. 44 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON

Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P. M., & Tynes, B. 2004. Constructing sexuality and identity in an online teen chat room. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 25(6), 651– 666. Subrahmanyam, K., Šmahel, D., & Greenﬁeld, P. M. 2006. Connecting developmental processes to the internet: Identity presentation and sexual exploration in online teen chatrooms. Developmental Psychology 42, 1–12. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 2007. Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Tahiroglu, A. Y., Gonca G. C., Uzel, M., Ozcan, N., & Avci, A. 2008. Internet use among Turkish adolescents. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 11(5), 537–543. Topcu, Y., Erdur-Baker, O., & Capa-Aydin, Y. 2008. Examination of cyberbullying experiences among Turkish students from different school types. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 11(6), 643–648 Tosun, L. P. 2012. Motives for Facebook use and expressing “true self” on the internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1510–1517. Tufekci, Z. 2008. Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28(1), 20–36. Tuik. 2013. Turkish Statistical Institution, Haber Bulteni, Sayi 13594. Retrieved June 22, 2015 from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=13594. Warner, S., & Moore, S. 2004. Excuses, excuses: Self-handicapping in an Australian adolescent sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33(4), 271–281. Wong, W. K. W. 2012. FACES on FACEBOOK: A study of self-presentation and social support on Facebook. Discovery-SS Student E-Journal 1, 184–214.

Appendix A

Revised Self-Presentation Scale

Exemplification: 1. On Facebook I try to set an example for others to follow. 2. I try to serve as a model on Facebook for how a person should behave. 3. On Facebook I try to get others to act in the same positive way I do. 4. I try to induce imitation by others by serving as a positive example on Face- book. 5. On Facebook I act in ways I think others should act in.

Self-promotion: 6. I tell people about my positive accomplishments on Facebook. 7. On Facebook I tell people when I do well at tasks others find difficult. 8. When I succeed at a task, I emphasize to others on Facebook how important the task was. DE GRUYTER MOUTON Self-presentation strategies in Turkey 45

9. On Facebook, I point out the positive things I do which other people fail to notice. 10. I exaggerate the value of my accomplishments on Facebook. 11. On Facebook, in telling others about things that I own, I also tell them of their value. 12. On Facebook I do correct people who underestimate the value of gifts that I give to them.

Ingratiation: 13. When I want something, I try to look good on Facebook. 14. On Facebook, I tell others about my positive qualities. 15. On Facebook, I use flattery to win the favor of others. 16. On Facebook, I compliment people to get them on my side. 17. I express the same attitudes as others on Facebook, so they will accept me. 18. On Facebook I express opinions that other people will like. 19. I do favors for people on Facebook in order to get them to like me. 20. On Facebook I help others so they will help me.

Intimidation: 21. I intimidate others on Facebook. 22. On Facebook I behave in ways that make other people afraid of me. 23. I do things on Facebook to make people afraid of me so that they will do what I want. 24. On Facebook I show my size and strength to influence people when I need to. 25. I threaten others on Facebook when I think it will help me get what I want from them.

Supplication: 26. On Facebook I ask others to help me. 27. On Facebook I tell others they are stronger or more competent than me in order to get others to do things for me. 28. On Facebook I lead others to believe that I cannot do something in order to get help. 29. On Facebook I use my weakness to get sympathy from others. 46 Nevfel Boz and Shu-Sha Angie Guan DE GRUYTER MOUTON

Appendix B

Coding procedure

Exemplification: – Presenting an image of high morals and one’s adaptation of these moral standards – Posts about ideological attachment, expressions signaling self-sacrifice – Expression of religious belief or political views or charity and philanthropy – Posts about ambition and discipline or personal dedication

Self-promotion: – Pointing out skills or abilities in order to be seen as competent – Presenting themselves as competent and self-sufficient – Selfie pictures – Expressions of school achievements

Ingratiation: – Using flattery or favors in order to be seen as likeable – Behaviors that use compliments, positive comments about others – Attempting to convince others of the attractiveness of personal qualities – Self-deprecation, talking oneself down – Expressions of positive humor, smileys, and over-courteous actions

Intimidation: – Presenting oneself as intimidating and dangerous – Aiming to acquire social power by presenting oneself as a threat – Punishing others, thus creating fear so as to be seen as powerful – Swearing or bullying

Supplication: – Portraying oneself as weak, helpless and needy – Trying to acquire other’s help – Advertising shortcomings or weaknesses