goffman theory presentation of self

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959)

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

By Jason Taylor

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Performances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Front can be broken down into two broad components:

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

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

Personal Front:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Regions and Region Behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Discrepant Roles

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

The Informer:

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

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

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

Non-persons:

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

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

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

The Shopper:

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

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

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

5. Communication out of Character

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

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

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

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

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

6. The Arts of Impression Management

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

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

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

Summary Conclusion

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

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

Scheff (2003) adds:

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

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

Critical Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Theo Wargo / Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Performance

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

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

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

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

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

Front Stage, Back Stage, and Off Stage

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

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

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

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

The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life – A Summary

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erving Goffman’s Theory of Presentation of Self

by kdkasi | Aug 1, 2023 | Socialization Theory

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

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

Dramaturgy and the Social Stage:

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

Front Stage and Back Stage:

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

Examples of Front Stage and Back Stage Behavior:

Job Interview:

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

Social Media:

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

Impression Management:

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

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

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

By Khushdil Khan Kasi

Share this:

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

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Recent Posts

• Iron Cage Theory By Max Weber
• Evolutionary Theories and Social Transformation
• Which types of research are conducted by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)?
• Major Work of Robert King Merton in Sociology
• Strategies to Harness the Potential of Pakistani Youth
• Culture Exploitation
• The Inevitability of Social Stratification

• Relationships

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life Paperback – June 1, 1959

• Print length 259 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Anchor
• Publication date June 1, 1959
• Dimensions 5.14 x 0.58 x 7.96 inches
• ISBN-10 9780385094023
• ISBN-13 978-0385094023
• See all details

Customers who bought this item also bought

Editorial Reviews

From the publisher, from the inside flap, from the back cover, about the author, product details.

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ 0385094027
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Anchor (June 1, 1959)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 259 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 9780385094023
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0385094023
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.31 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5.14 x 0.58 x 7.96 inches
• #25 in Sociology of Social Theory
• #86 in Cultural Anthropology (Books)
• #201 in Interpersonal Relations (Books)

About the author

Erving goffman.

Erving Goffman was Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania until his death in 1982. He is recognized as one of the world's foremost social theorists and much of his work still remains in print. Among his classic books are The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life; Interaction Ritual; Stigma; Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity; and Frame Analysis. William B. Helmreich is a professor of sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center and City College. He has written Against All Odds, The Enduring Community, Saving Children, and The Things They Say Behind Your Back all available from Transaction.

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 72% 15% 7% 2% 4% 72%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 72% 15% 7% 2% 4% 15%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 72% 15% 7% 2% 4% 7%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 72% 15% 7% 2% 4% 2%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 72% 15% 7% 2% 4% 4%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Customers say

Customers find the book very informative, understandable, and relatable to everyday life. They also say the story is good. However, some find the complexity of the book a waste of time.

AI-generated from the text of customer reviews

Customers find the book very informative, saying it's one of the classics of modern social science. They also say the theory is excellent, and the book is revolutionary. Readers also say it explains a lot about behavior, and is relatable to everyday life. They mention the book accepts the necessary contradictions without overemphasizing them.

"...His own conclusion, in this volume, provides a dense summary of the work and provides hints towards further research." Read more

"...The book is perfect for that use. I feel that it is a valuable contribution to sociology , as well. There are brief reviews on the internet...." Read more

"...Despite these difficult sections, Goffman's style is breezy and interesting enough to make th is book worth reading for a layman...." Read more

"...That makes it a lot of work to read. The theory is excellent but the reading is very dry and slow." Read more

Customers find the book very understandable and relatable to everyday life. They also appreciate the selection of words, the assembly of sentences, and the incessant flow of ideas.

"...The economy and selection of words, the assembly of sentences , the incessant flow of ideas that bring the thesis home, constantly focusing attention..." Read more

"... It immediately makes sense , so it would be illuminating to people new to this sort of thing, and then it keeps on making sense, which is the hard..." Read more

"...Although this book was written in the late 50s, it is very understandable and relative to our everyday life - how we interact with different people..." Read more

"...I was assigned this book in a class and found the reading to be fairly easy ...." Read more

Customers find the story haunting and existential.

"Now 60 yrs after i discovered book it gave me interesting memories ." Read more

"This was a great read. A good story . Yay. Gr8. I just need this for my soc. class. Yes. Ok." Read more

"A haunting and existential read ...." Read more

" Deeply profound work on sociology..." Read more

Customers find the book complex and redundant. They also say it's a waste of time and not academical.

"...written in the old fashioned professor style that is complex and overly academic . That makes it a lot of work to read...." Read more

"...However, the book is misguided . The idea of viewing social interaction as a performance on a stage is unecessary...." Read more

"...literature within the book is great of course, but the quality of the book isn't that great like the title mentions words, letters blanked out and..." Read more

"One of the most boring books I have ever seen...." Read more

Reviews with images

Paperback is missing the first 22 pages

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Self-Presentation Theory

Self-Presentation Theory: Understanding the Art of Impression Management

In the grand theater of life, where every social interaction is a stage and we are both the actors and the audience, self-presentation theory takes center stage. It whispers the secrets of our performances, the subtle art of crafting personas, and the intricate dance between authenticity and impression. As we pull back the curtain on this psychological narrative, we delve into the depths of human behavior, exploring how the masks we wear and the roles we play are not merely acts of deception but profound expressions of our deepest desires to connect, belong, and be understood in the ever-unfolding drama of existence.

Self-presentation theory, originating from the field of social psychology, delves into the intricate ways individuals strategically convey and portray their desired image to others. This theory explores the underlying motivations and cognitive processes governing how people present themselves in social situations, aiming to understand the dynamics of impression management.

Key Definition:

Self-presentation theory refers to the behavior and strategies individuals use to shape the perceptions that others form about them. This theory suggests that individuals strive to convey a favorable impression to others by managing their public image. It encompasses various aspects such as impression management, identity, and social interaction, and is often associated with social psychology and communication studies. According to this theory, individuals may engage in behaviors such as self-disclosure, performance, and conformity to influence how others perceive them.

Origins and Development

The concept of self-presentation theory was initially formulated by sociologist Erving Goffman, in his seminal work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , originally published in 1956. Goffman’s was first to create a specific theory concerning self-presentation, laying the foundation for what is now commonly referred to as impression management. His book became widely known after its publication in the United States in 1959.

Goffman’s theory draws from the imagery of theater to portray the importance of human social interaction. He proposed that in social interactions, individuals perform much like actors on a stage, managing the impressions others form of them by controlling information in various ways. This process involves a “front” where the individual presents themselves in a certain manner, and a “back” where they can step out of their role.

His work has been influential in sociology, social psychology, and anthropology, as it was the first to treat face-to-face interaction as a subject of sociological study. Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis observes a connection between the kinds of acts people put on in their daily life and theatrical performances. The theory has had a lasting impact on our understanding of social behavior and continues to be a significant reference point in studies of social interaction.

Impression Management Strategies

Much of Goffman’s early work suggests that “avoidance of shame is an important, indeed a crucial, motive in virtually all social behavior.” Goffman posits that impression management is typically a greater motivation than rational and instrumental goals. Thomas J. Scheff explains that “one tries to control the impression one makes on others, even others who are not significant to one’s life” ( Scheff, 1997. Kindle location: 4,106 ).

Self-presentation theory encompasses a spectrum of strategies employed by individuals to shape others’ perceptions of them. Impression management strategies in social interaction theory are the various techniques individuals use to influence how others perceive them. Individuals employ these strategies to present themselves in a favorable light. The motivation is to achieve specific goals or maintain certain relationships. Here are some key impression management strategies:

• Self-Promotion : Highlighting one’s own positive qualities, achievements, and skills to be seen as competent and capable.
• Ingratiation : Using flattery or praise to make oneself likable to others, often to gain their favor or approval.
• Exemplification : Demonstrating one’s own moral integrity or dedication to elicit respect and admiration from others.
• Intimidation : Projecting a sense of power or threat to influence others to comply with one’s wishes.
• Supplication : Presenting oneself as weak or needy to elicit sympathy or assistance from others.

These strategies can be assertive, involving active attempts to shape one’s image, or defensive, aimed at protecting one’s image. The choice of strategy depends on the individual’s goals, the context of the interaction, and the nature of the relationship.

The Game of Presentation

In many ways, self-presentation opposes other psychology concepts such as authenticity. We adapt to ur environments, and present ourselves accordingly. We act much different at grandma’s house than we do when out drinking with our friends. Perhaps, authenticity is context dependent. However, we can present ourselves differently in different situations without violating core self-values. The presentations may differ but the self remains unchanged.

Carl Jung mused in reflection of his childhood interactions with his friends that, “I found that they alienated me from myself. When I was with them I became different from the way I was at home.” He continues, “it seemed to me that the change in myself was due to the influence of my schoolfellows, who somehow misled me or compelled me to be different from what I thought I was” ( Jung, 2011 ).

Jonathan Haidt suggests that it is merely game. He wrote, “to win at this game you must present your best possible self to others. You must appear virtuous, whether or not you are, and you must gain the benefits of cooperation whether or not you deserve them.” He continues to warn “but everyone else is playing the same game, so you must also play defense—you must be wary of others’ self-presentations, and of their efforts to claim more for themselves than they deserve” ( Haidt, 2003. Kindle location: 1,361 ).

Healthy and Unhealthy Modes of Self-Presentation

We all self-present, creating images that fit the context. While seeking a partner, we self-present a person who is worthy of investing time in. Only in time, do some of these masks begin to fade. Impression management is essential to build new relationships, get the job, and prevent social rejection. Mahzarin R, Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald wrote, “honesty may be an overrated virtue. If you decided to report all of your flaws to friends and to apply a similar standard of total honesty when talking to others about their shortcomings, you might soon find that you no longer have friends.” they continue, “our daily social lives demand, and generally receive, repeated lubrication with a certain amount of untruthfulness, which keeps the gears of social interaction meshing smoothly” ( Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, pp. 28-29 ).

However, this healthy practice morphs into something sinister when the presented self has nothing to do with the real self. Daniel Goleman refers to individuals that engage in unhealthy deceitful presentations as social chameleons. He wrote, “the social chameleon will seem to be whatever those he is with seem to want. The sign that someone falls into this pattern…is that they make an excellent impression, yet have few stable or satisfying intimate relationships” ( Golman, 2011. Kindle location: 2,519 ).

Goleman explains that “a more healthy pattern, of course, is to balance being true to oneself with social skills, using them with integrity.” He adds, “social chameleons, though, don’t mind in the least saying one thing and doing another, if that will win them social approval” ( Goleman, 2011. Kindle location: 2,523 ).

Situational Influences

The application of self-presentation strategies is contingent upon the social context and the specific goals an individual pursues. In professional settings, individuals may engage in self-promotion to advance their careers, while in personal relationships, they might prioritize authenticity and sincerity. The ubiquity of social media further complicates self-presentation, as individuals navigate the curation of online personas and the management of digital identities.

In the professional realm, the strategic presentation of oneself can play a crucial role in career development and success. This may involve showcasing one’s achievements, skills, and expertise to stand out in a competitive environment. However, it’s important to strike a balance between self-promotion and humility to maintain credibility and foster positive professional relationships.

On the other hand, personal relationships often thrive on genuine connections and authenticity. In these contexts, individuals may choose to present themselves in a sincere manner, emphasizing vulnerability and openness to establish meaningful connections with others. While occasional self-promotion may still occur, the emphasis is more on building trust and rapport.

Social Media and Self-Presentation

The rise of social media has introduced a new layer of complexity to self-presentation. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn offer opportunities for individuals to craft their virtual identities. This process involves selective sharing of information, curation of posts and images, and the management of online interactions. The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between projecting an aspirational image and staying true to one’s authentic self in the digital sphere.

In Goffman’s lengthy comparison between actors and audience suggests that anyone could perform, presenting a certain image. However, he points out that if the actor is a known criminal the audience would not be able to accept their performance, knowing it is a fraud. The actor may enjoy success by going on the road, performing to audiences that are not aware of the actor’s criminal past ( Goffman, 1956, p. 223 ). The internet allows the individual with a shady past to bring their show on the road to an unsuspecting audience who can buy their deceitful performance.

Navigating these diverse self-presentation strategies requires individuals to be mindful of the specific social contexts and their underlying goals. Whether it’s in the professional arena or personal relationships, the nuanced art of self-presentation continues to evolve in the digital age, shaping how individuals perceive and position themselves in the world.

Self-Presentation and Emotional Labor

The intersection of self-presentation theory with emotional labor is a topic of significant interest. Emotional labor pertains to the management of one’s emotions to meet the demands of a particular role or job. Individuals often engage in self-presentation to display appropriate emotions in various settings, leading to a convergence between impression management and emotional regulation. One of the key aspects of this intersection is the impact it has on employee well-being.

Research has shown that the need to regulate emotions in the workplace can lead to emotional exhaustion and burnout. Additionally, there are important implications for organizations, as they have a vested interest in understanding and managing the emotional labor of their employees. Effective programs may enhance employee well-being and improve the quality of service provided to customers. Moreover, the intersection of self-presentation and emotional labor can also be examined through the lens of gender and cultural differences. These examination may highlight the complexities and nuances of this phenomenon in diverse contexts. Understanding this intersection is crucial for creating supportive work environments and fostering healthy, sustainable emotional practices.

See Emotional Labor for more on this topic

Implications and Future Directions

Understanding self-presentation theory has widespread implications, spanning from interpersonal relationships to organizational dynamics. By acknowledging the nuanced strategies individuals employ to shape perceptions, psychologists and practitioners can better grasp human behavior in diverse contexts. Future research may delve into the interplay between self-presentation and cultural factors. In addition, further research may cast light on the psychological effects of sustained impression management on individuals’ well-being.

As individuals, we can understand that we, as well as others, use impression management. Before investing significant resources, we would be wise to try to unmask the presenter and make a decision based on reality rather than expertely presented deceptions.

A List of Practical Implications

Understanding the concepts related to self-presentation theory, such as impression management, self-concept, and social identity, has several practical implications in everyday life:

• Enhanced Social Interactions : By being aware of how we present ourselves, we can navigate social situations more effectively, tailoring our behavior to suit different contexts and relationships.
• Improved Professional Relationships : In the workplace, understanding self-presentation can help in managing professional personas, leading to better workplace dynamics and career advancement.
• Personal Development : Recognizing the strategies we use for impression management can lead to greater self-awareness and personal growth, as we align our external presentation with our internal values.
• Conflict Resolution : Awareness of self-presentation strategies can aid in resolving conflicts by understanding the motivations behind others’ behaviors and addressing the underlying issues.
• Mental Health : Understanding the effort involved in emotional labor and impression management can help in identifying when these efforts are leading to stress or burnout, prompting us to seek support or make changes.
• Authentic Relationships : By balancing self-presentation with authenticity, we can foster deeper and more genuine connections with others.
• Cultural Competence : Recognizing the role of social identity in self-presentation can enhance our sensitivity to cultural differences and improve cross-cultural communication.

Overall, these concepts can empower us to be more intentional in our interactions, leading to more fulfilling and effective communication in our personal and professional lives.

Associated Psychological Concepts to Self-Presentation Theory

Self-presentation theory is intricately connected to a variety of psychological concepts that help explain the behaviors and motivations behind how individuals present themselves to others. Here are some related concepts:

• Self-Concept : This refers to how people perceive themselves and their awareness of who they are. Self-presentation is often a reflection of one’s self-concept, as individuals attempt to project an image that aligns with their self-perception.
• Impression Management : This is the process by which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them. It involves a variety of strategies to influence others’ perceptions in a way that is favorable to the individual.
• Social Identity : The part of an individual’s self-concept derived from their membership in social groups. Self-presentation can be used to highlight certain aspects of one’s social identity.
• Cognitive Dissonance : This occurs when there is a discrepancy between one’s beliefs and behaviors. Self-presentation strategies may be employed to reduce cognitive dissonance by aligning one’s outward behavior with internal beliefs.
• Role Theory : Suggests that individuals behave in ways that align with the expectations of the social roles they occupy. Self-presentation can be seen as performing the appropriate role in a given context.
• Self-Es teem : The value one places on oneself. Self-presentation can be a means to enhance or protect one’s self-esteem by controlling how others view them.
• Self-Efficacy : One’s belief in their ability to succeed. Through self-presentation, individuals may seek to project confidence and competence to others, thereby reinforcing their own sense of self-efficacy.

These concepts are interrelated and contribute to the understanding of self-presentation theory as a whole, providing insight into the complex nature of social interactions and the motivations behind individuals’ efforts to influence how they are perceived by others.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In essence, self-presentation theory captures the multifaceted nature of human interaction, shedding light on the conscious and subconscious processes governing how individuals present themselves in the social arena. By unraveling the intricacies of impression management, researchers continue to unveil the complexities of human behavior and the underlying motivations that propel our interactions with others.

Last Update: April 29, 2024

Type your email…

References:

Goffman, Erving (1956/ 2021 ). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor

Goleman, Daniel ( 2005 ). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books . Read on Kindle Books.

Haidt, Jonathan ( 2003 ). The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. Basic Books ; 1st edition.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1961/ 2011 ). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Vintage ; Reissue edition.

Banaji, Mahzarin R.; Greenwald, Anthony G. ( 2016 ). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People.  Bantam ; Reprint edition.

Scheff, Thomas J. ( 1997 ). Shame in Social Theory. Editors Lansky, M. R. and Morrison, A. P. In The Widening Scope of Shame. ​ Routledge ; 1st edition.

Resources and Articles

Please visit Psychology Fanatic’s vast selection of articles , definitions and database of referenced books .

* Many of the quotes from books come books I have read cover to cover. I created an extensive library of notes from these books. I make reference to these books when using them to support or add to an article topic. Most of these books I read on a kindle reader. The Kindle location references seen through Psychology Fanatic is how kindle notes saves my highlights.

The peer reviewed article references mostly come from Deepdyve . This is the periodical database that I have subscribe to for nearly a decade. Over the last couple of years, I have added a DOI reference to cited articles for the reader’s convenience and reference.

Thank-you for visiting Psychology Fanatic. Psychology Fanatic represents nearly two decades of work, research, and passion.

Topic Specific Databases:

PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS

Share this:

About the author.

T. Franklin Murphy

Related posts.

Disposable Relationships

We jump from opportunity to opportunity in employment, housing and interests. We shouldn't make also have disposable relationships.

Read More »

Group Dynamics

Group dynamics examine collective behavior, interactions, and processes within groups, shedding light on social influence, cohesion, and decision-making. Its rich history, diverse theories, and applications…

Emotional Sensitivity

Emotional sensitivity encompasses bodily changes, empathy, and the ability to recognize and respond to emotions. It affects individuals differently, impacting behavior, relationships, and personality types.…

Building Love

Love is created from consistent effort. We naturally are attracted but then must engage in the work of building love.

Milgram Experiment

Stanley Milgram's experiments were a series of controversial psychological studies conducted in the 1960s at Yale University. The most well-known of these experiments involved participants…

Overly Positive

Positive psychology has given life to dangerously positive expectations. Overly positive attitudes negatively impact emotional health.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from psychology fanatic.

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

Continue reading

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

GOFFMAN'S PRESENTATION OF SELF THEORY

This paper is a write-up on Goffman's 'Presentation of Self' theory.

Related Papers

saiqa wahab

James J Chriss

Theory & Psychology

Jill Morawski

Anthony Hatzimoysis

Harvard Review of Philosophy

Jonardon Ganeri

kenneth gergen

Philosophical Books

grant gillett

Alexander Kremer

We live in the age of narrative philosophy. This is especially important pertaining to the notion of the self, since it is a result of our personal narratives, in which the combination of self-esteem and self-identity plays a decisive role. After a general survey of these topics, I will show Rorty's particular application of the narrative identity theory both on the individual and the social level. In the second main part I will summarize Shusterman's criticism on Rorty's notion of the self and his own description of that which is rather an internarrative identity theory.

Philip Manning

Erving Goffman\u27s reputation as a cynic stems from his text, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, which portrays the self as a manipulative confidence trickster. However, matters are more complicated than they first appear. There are two versions of the text, one published in 1956, the other in 1959, and Goffman\u27s revisions to the latter quietly challenge the cynicism of the former. Focussing on these revisions makes the text look rather different. Goffman has two voices in The Presentation of Self and the aim of this paper is to allow each to be heard

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Bill Meacham

somdatta bhattacharyya

Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edition

Zsuzsanna Balogh

Philosophy Study

zhongliang cui

Luna Dolezal

Psyccritiques

David Manier

The Journal of Socio-Economics

Ballet Jerome , Damien Bazin

Shaun Gallagher

The Buddha’s Radical Psychology: Explorations

Rodger R Ricketts, Psy.D.

Oxford Handbooks Online

Sociological Perspectives

James Chriss

Gerhard Preyer

Sociological Forum

Andreea Marilena

Sohrab Hadeei

Cognitive Therapy and Research

Hazel Markus

Dmitri Shalin

The Self the Other and Language Dialogue Between Philosophy Psychology and Comparative Education

paul standish

Imprint Academic

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

“Sharing, Not Showing Off”: How BeReal Approaches Authentic Self-Presentation on Social Media Through Its Design

Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the pressures created by social media, such as heightened self-consciousness and the need for extensive self-presentation. In this study, we investigate how BeReal , a social media platform designed to counter some of these pressures, influences adolescents’ self-presentation behaviors. We interviewed 29 users aged 13-18 to understand their experiences with BeReal. We found that BeReal’s design focuses on spontaneous sharing, including randomly timed daily notifications and reciprocal posting, discourages staged posts, encourages careful curation of the audience, and reduces pressure on self-presentation. The space created by BeReal offers benefits such as validating an unfiltered life and reframing social comparison, but its approach to self-presentation is sometimes perceived as limited or unappealing and, at times, even toxic. Drawing on this empirical data, we propose design guidelines for platforms that support authentic self-presentation while fostering reciprocity and expanding beyond spontaneous photo-sharing. These guidelines aim to enable users to portray themselves more comprehensively and accurately, ultimately supporting teens’ developmental needs, particularly in building authentic relationships.

1. Introduction

The prevalence of social isolation has increased dramatically in recent decades. The number of people reporting no confidants for discussing important matters has tripled, while the average person’s social network has shrunk by one-third  (McPherson et al . , 2006 ) . By 2004, nearly 25% of Americans reported having no confidant, up from 10% in 1985  (McPherson et al . , 2006 ) . This decline in social connections is concerning, as relationships significantly impact physical and mental health, longevity, and happiness  (Cacioppo and Cacioppo, 2014 ; House et al . , 1988 ; Cohen, 2004 ) . The 75-year Study of Adult Development found that strong relationships are key to happiness and health  (Waldinger and Schulz, 2016 ) . A 2010 meta-analysis of over 300,000 participants revealed that weak social ties are as harmful to health as alcoholism  (Holt-Lunstad et al . , 2010 ) . For adolescents, the need for trusted interpersonal connections, especially with peers, is even more crucial than for adults  (Erikson, 1994a ; Davis, 2012 ) . With 95% of teens aged 13-17 actively engaging with friends on social media  (noa, 2023 ) , the nature of these social interactions has fundamentally changed. As peer relationships increasingly occur online, it’s essential to evaluate how technology supports teens’ relationship-building.

Social Penetration Theory  (Altman and Taylor, 1973 ) explains that relationships develop through reciprocal and authentic self-disclosure, deepening over time  (Carpenter and Greene, 2015 ) . However, social media often provides what has been termed “empty calories of social interaction”  (Prinstein, 2023 ) . While these interactions may seem to meet adolescents’ developmental needs, they often lack the substance necessary for genuine social benefits. Social media use can in fact exacerbate adolescents’ developmental vulnerabilities, such as heightened sensitivity to social feedback and increased emotional reactivity due to ongoing brain maturation  (Somerville, 2013a ; Steinberg, 2005 ; Falk et al . , 2014 ; Peake et al . , 2013 ; Somerville, 2013b ) . This can hinder the formation of meaningful, supportive relationships. Despite these shortcomings, most teens regularly engage in extensive self-presentation on social media, sharing carefully curated content, an experience that can induce anxiety and distort users’ perceptions of reality  (Aacap, [n. d.] ) .

BeReal is a social media platform designed to address the challenge of fostering genuine relationships online, where authentic interactions are often scarce. BeReal has a specific focus: “ everyday get a notification to share a genuine glimpse into your real life with the people you care most about ” which they believe enables users to “ show your friends who you really are ”  (noa, [n. d.] ) . Though BeReal was launched in 2019, long before the U.S. Surgeon General’s 2023 advisory on social media and youth mental health  (noa, 2023 ) , its design and mission align with the advisory’s recommendation that tech companies “seek to maximize the potential benefits and avoid design features that attempt to maximize time, attention, and engagement”  (noa, 2023 ) .

On BeReal, users receive a notification informing them that they have a brief window of time to capture and share photos of their current activity and appearance, making strategic self-presentation nearly impossible. Consequently, the content shared on BeReal is more likely to be mundane or monotonous than content shared on other platforms. Yet, the app has become increasingly popular since early 2022, especially with youth  (cycles and Text, [n. d.] ) . According to a 2023 Pew Research Report, BeReal usage among teens is comparable to that of Reddit or Twitch  (Anderson et al . , 2023 ) . But regardless of the fate of the BeReal platform, it serves as a useful case study in designing to encourage authentic self-presentation. Self-presentation can build close relationships (when it is genuine) or provoke anxiety (when it is artificial). Thus, there is great value in creating spaces that encourage the former.

To the best of our knowledge, BeReal is the first major social media platform that explicitly purports to encourage authentic self-presentation. We sought to understand:

RQ1: How, if at all, does the design of BeReal influence users’ self-presentation on the platform?

RQ2: How do teens feel about self-presentation on BeReal?

To answer these questions, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 BeReal users aged 13 to 18, asking about their general experiences with BeReal. We found that BeReal’s features and affordances are effective in encouraging users to share casual, uncurated snapshots of their daily lives. Features such as randomly timed daily notifications encourage authentic self-presentation via unstaged, unfiltered photo-sharing, and design elements like reciprocal posting encourage users to curate their audience, thereby allowing their self-presentation process to be less intentional or controlled. The participants saw many benefits of such designs. They especially appreciated that BeReal nudged users to collectively share more casual and less curated content, a change they said they sought on social media. However, some participants also felt that their ability to present themselves accurately and intentionally was too limited, and they explained that unfiltered photos taken at unplanned times are just one way of giving others insight into their lives. Others said that BeReal’s explicit prioritization of “authenticity” in self-presentation sometimes led to toxic competition and judgment about which users are truly being authentic.

In this paper, we provide empirical evidence of BeReal’s success in encouraging adolescent users to present themselves authentically. This serves as a proof of concept that design can significantly influence self-presentation. We also document the limitations of BeReal’s approach and outline design recommendations for creating a platform that encourages developmentally supportive online self-presentation for adolescents, such as scaffolding reciprocal sharing. Based on our findings, we introduce the Social Media Self-Presentation Matrix (SMSM). Grounded in theories on self-presentation goals and processes  (Schlenker, 2003 ) , this matrix presents ways that social media design can support different self-presentation strategies. It does so through four facets of self-presentation, spanning axes from Automatic to Controlled and from Self-Enhancing to Self-Expressive. Using the matrix, we highlight an untapped design opportunity to support Controlled and Self-Expressive self-presentation, which could offer an alternative way for social media platforms to achieve the goals initially intended by BeReal. Further, we propose a design agenda to support better relationship-building online based on authenticity for teens on social media. We hope this work will encourage designers and researchers to more comprehensively support authentic exchanges in teen peer-relationship-building on social media, addressing a developmental need that is currently unmet.

2. Related Work

2.1. adolescents and the developmental significance of authentic self-disclosure.

Forming close, trusting relationships is fundamental to people’s sense of meaning, happiness, and long-term well-being  (Argyle, 2013 ) . For adolescents, this intrinsic need for trusted interpersonal connections, particularly with peers, is even more pronounced than it is for adults  (Erikson, 1994b ; Davis, 2012 ) . As described by the Social Penetration Theory (SPT)  (Altman and Taylor, 1973 ) , interpersonal relationships develop from initial, surface-level interactions to deeper, more intimate connections through a gradual process of self-disclosure. The breadth and depth of these disclosures increase as the relationship strengthens and matures. Also central to this progression is the norm of reciprocity, which posits that mutual exchange is fundamental to these evolving relationships.

For self-disclosure to effectively enhance intimacy and trust in relationships, it must be authentic. Authenticity—the characteristic of being aligned with one’s intrinsic cues rather than being influenced by external expectations or pressures  (Peets and Hodges, 2018 ) —ensures that the information shared truly represents the individual’s self, fostering genuine connections and understanding between people  (Laurenceau et al . , 1998 ; Peets and Hodges, 2018 ) . Expressing their authentic selves and receiving acknowledgment and affirmation from peers is crucial for individuals, particularly adolescents, to develop a clear and coherent self-concept  (Gardner, 2013 ) . The formation of a coherent identity, rooted in an authentic self that is recognized and validated by one’s social circle, is fundamental to adolescent development  (Erikson, 1994a ) . Research has shown that authenticity in self-disclosure is associated with life satisfaction  (Bailey et al . , 2020 ) , particularly among girls, linking authenticity to self-esteem and overall well-being  (Impett et al . , 2008 ) . Furthermore, a higher degree of authenticity in self-disclosing communication is connected to enhanced self-perceptions, reduced feelings of isolation in school, and greater satisfaction in relationships among adolescents  (Peets and Hodges, 2018 ) .

In recent years, particularly exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent physical distancing measures, adolescents have increasingly turned to social media for social connection  (Hamilton et al . , 2022 ; Pitt et al . , 2021 ) . As of 2022, nearly all teenagers aged 13-17 (95%) own a smartphone or access the internet (97%), with nearly half (46%) using the internet “almost constantly”  (Vogels et al . , 2022 ) . Previous studies have identified that the primary motivation behind teens’ use of digital media is to maintain connections with existing friends  (Ito, 2013 ; Boyd, 2008a ; Davis, 2012 ) . Given the critical role of online platforms in adolescent lives and the value placed on authenticity in their relationships, it is understandable that modern teenagers actively seek exchanges of authentic self-disclosure on social media and broader media contexts  (Darr and Doss, 2022 ; Stephanie Rivas-Lara Becky Pham Jasmine Baten Annie Meyers Yalda T. Uhls, 2022 ) . Further, the significantly reduced social cues on online platforms heighten uncertainty, making self-disclosure especially crucial for (adolescent) users to understand each other and strengthen their connections  (Schlosser, 2020 ; Tidwell and Walther, 2002 ) . This underscores the importance of examining how technology can support or undermine the development and maintenance of these relationships, with a particular focus on the reciprocal exchange of authentic self-disclosure throughout the stages of social penetration.

2.2. Authentic Self-Disclosure and Self-Presentation

Given that self-disclosure, especially in online contexts, involves extensive interpersonal interactions, it can be likened to a performance  (Goffman, 2016 ) or an exhibition  (Hogan, 2010 ) that symbolically communicate information about oneself to others  (Blumer, 1986 ) . As a result, self-presentation becomes an inherent part of this process. Self- disclosure is defined as “verbally communicating personal information about the self to another person”   (Forgas, 2011 ) (p. 449), and reflects communicating a factual representation of oneself, regardless of its effect on one’s public image. In contrast, self- presentation is defined as “the goal-directed activity of controlling information to influence the impressions formed by an audience about the self”   (Schlenker and Wowra, 2003 ) (p. 871). Thus, self-disclosure typically aligns with authenticity, whereas self-presentation may suggest a lack of authenticity. However, these two are not mutually exclusive  (Johnson, 1981 ) ; revealing true aspects of oneself can still be compatible with self-presentation, as such revelations can also support a favorable public persona  (Schlosser, 2020 ) . We adopt the view in this paper that self-presentation is a strategic form of self-disclosure that predominates on social media, where users, acting as performers, anticipate positive outcomes from their disclosures.

Although self-presentation is often perceived as strategic gamesmanship, this view does not capture its full complexity  (Schlenker, 2003 ) . In reality, self-presentation can be deeply “authentic,” as in, it typically involves a portrayal that is somewhat enhanced and idealized, yet genuinely believed by the person presenting it  (Brown, 2014 ; Greenwald and Breckler, 1985 ; Williams and Gilovich, 2008 ) . Self-presentation often aims for accurate self-portrayal  (Baumeister, 1982 ; Cheek and Hogan, 1983 ; Leary, 2019 ; Schlenker, 1980 ; Schlenker and Pontari, 2000 ) . This approach may serve several purposes: to ensure others perceive one in a manner that elicits respect and treatment congruent with one’s identity; to receive affirming feedback that addresses personal uncertainties; and to embody the principle that “honesty is the best policy,” fostering a sense of authenticity while mitigating risks associated with deception. Furthermore, intentional self-presentation does not inherently signify inauthenticity; Schlenker  (Schlenker, 2003 ) uses the analogy of how a skilled lecturer meticulously crafts their presentation to effectively convey genuine and significant information to their audience. This stands in stark contrast to a disorganized lecturer whose lack of preparation may come across as insincere or self-absorbed. Similarly, the careful arrangement of personal information may better reflect an authentic self-depiction as perceived by the individual)  (Schlenker and Pontari, 2000 ) . In other words, presenting accurate information requires as much skill in self-presentation as presenting inaccurate information if it is to achieve the intended effect on the audience.

Authentic self-presentation can manifest through either automatic or controlled cognitive processes. Automatic processes are those which 1) occur without conscious awareness, 2) require minimal cognitive effort, 3) do not require conscious monitoring, and 4) are initiated involuntarily without outside triggers  (Schlenker, 2003 ; Bargh, 1996 ) . In such instances, self-presentation scripts may be triggered automatically by specific aspects of the audience or the context, with the individual often unaware of how deeply they are influenced by the social environment and their interpersonal objectives  (Jones, 1990 ; Schlenker, 1980 , 1985 ; Schlenker and Wowra, 2003 ; Tetlock and Manstead, 1985 ) . Automatic self-presentation is most common in familiar environments among close acquaintances or friends, where individuals feel a sense of security and positive regard (e.g., while relaxing at home with closer friends)  (Tyler, 2012 ; Schlenker, 2003 ) . Self-presentation is also more likely to be automatic when it aligns with one’s established self-image and personality traits  (Schlenker, 2003 ) . Conversely, self-presentation often involves controlled processes in situations where the stakes or the audience are significant or where the individual is unsure about the impression they wish to project  (Schlenker et al . , 1996 ; Schlenker and Pontari, 2000 ) . Under such conditions, individuals tend to deliberately focus on the impression they are making, meticulously planning and rehearsing their behavior  (Tice et al . , 1995 ; Schlenker et al . , 1996 ) . The caveat of having to deviate from their automatic mode of self-presentation is that individuals may need to exert more cognitive effort, which can detract from their performance or quality of life  (Vohs et al . , 2005 ; Schlenker, 2003 ) .

2.3. Challenges with Authentic Self-Presentation Online

While authentic self-presentation is highly valued, particularly among teenagers, it can be particularly challenging to achieve on social media. One characteristic of computer-mediated communication (CMC) that makes it more conducive to self-presentation than face-to-face (F2F) interactions is its asynchronicity  (Schlosser, 2020 ) . In contrast to the often messy, unscripted, and spontaneous nature of F2F communication, social media allows for more controlled exchanges due to the ability to reflect, edit, and revise messages  (Turkle, 2016 ) . Though self-presentation can also be spontaneous  (Schlenker and Wowra, 2003 ) , self-presentation is often a complex process, reflecting a dynamic interplay between the self and the audience within a specific social context  (Schlenker, 2003 ) . It involves not only expressing oneself but also responding to situational pressures and conforming to the identity expectations of others  (Schlenker et al . , 1996 ) . It embodies aspects of an individual’s self-concept, personality, social roles, and perceptions of audience preferences. Consequently, people often leverage the asynchronicity of CMC to craft their self-presentation online  (Vazire and Gosling, 2004 ) carefully.

Online communication also differs from F2F interactions because it typically involves broadcasting messages to many people simultaneously rather than engaging in one-on-one exchanges  (Schlosser, 2020 ) . This broadcasting nature of social media interacts with adolescent characteristics in ways that significantly complicate self-presentation. Adolescents typically experience a heightened sense of self-consciousness relative to adults or younger children, leading to feelings of being under constant scrutiny, a phenomenon referred to as the imaginary audience   (Elkind, 1967 ) . This feeling is amplified in online environments where audiences are typically larger and less transparent than in offline scenarios  (Zheng et al . , 2019 ) . Moreover, adolescents’ imagined audience on social media, defined as “ the mental conceptualization of the people with whom [they] are communicating “  (Litt, 2012 ) , encompasses individuals from diverse contexts such as family and school, mirroring the complex layers of audiences they engage with on these platforms. This sense of context collapse   (Boyd, 2008b ) prompts adolescents to employ self-presentation strategies in online environments to manage the tensions that arise  (Marwick and Boyd, 2011 ; Boyd, 2008a ; Tao and Ellison, 2023 ; Vitak, 2012 ) . These strategies often involve sharing the “lowest common denominator”   (Hogan, 2010 ) : content that is universally deemed appropriate by all groups within the imagined audience  (Hogan, 2010 ; Ullman, 1987 ) . Consequently, relationship-building processes are also affected, as the breadth, depth, and reciprocity of authentic self-disclosure become restricted, and users disclose only superficial aspects of themselves  (Hogan, 2010 ) or disengage entirely from sharing  (Hargittai and Walejko, 2008 ) .

The third distinguishing factor of many social media sites from F2F communication is the publicly visible and quantifiable nature of audience feedback, such as “Likes” and comments. The opportunity to present oneself on social media opens up new avenues for identity development, including experimenting with self-presentation and expression  (Weinstein and Davis, 2017 ) . However, online self-disclosure often involves risks and harms  (Barta and Andalibi, 2021 ; Schlosser, 2020 ) , and adolescents, particularly those who are sensitive to rejection and self-presentation  (Yau and Reich, 2019 ) , justifiably feel more cautious about self-disclosure  (Ryan and Ryan, 2019 ) . The heightened self-consciousness often drives adolescents to present themselves favorably online to maintain their social standing  (Yau and Reich, 2019 ; Haimson et al . , 2021 ; Hamilton et al . , 2022 ) . This leads to a tension between authenticity and self-presentation online known as the “online authenticity paradox”   (Haimson et al . , 2021 ) : people aim for authenticity in their personal life and online presentation, but doing so necessitates sharing negative experiences. Sharing these experiences requires vulnerability, which can either be risky or beneficial  (Barta and Andalibi, 2021 ) . Explicitly investing effort in communication  (Kelly et al . , 2017 ) may be helpful, but interactions on current social media that revolve around “Likes” often fail to provide the necessary support to make users feel safe in those interactions  (Canady, 2023 ) .

Collectively, this line of work suggests a need for online spaces that support adolescent peer interactions in ways that are developmentally sensitive, i.e., providing support for authentic self-disclosure that leads to relationship development. Yet, research suggests that, currently, social media platforms instead prey upon the fears that adolescents experience, such as those stemming from their heightened sense of self-consciousness  (Bukowski et al . , 1998 ) . For example, photo sharing, a prevalent form of communication on social media platforms, can exacerbate self-presentation concerns  (Yau and Reich, 2019 ; Zhao et al . , 2008 ) . The perception of attractiveness is often central to adolescents’ self-concept and self-esteem, particularly among girls. These social media sites, with their visually oriented nature, the capability to carefully curate and manipulate visual images, and the existence of a peer audience that provides reinforcing feedback  (Choukas-Bradley et al . , 2020 ) , often promote social comparison. This comparison is made with meticulously selected and edited photos of peers, celebrities, and “influencers”  (Fardouly et al . , 2017 ) , leading to unhealthy social comparisons and an amplified emphasis on self-presentation. Furthermore, social media platforms frequently place a higher emphasis on metrics such as time on site and return visits than on the quality of relationships. This approach further encourages users to display carefully curated content for approval and partake in continuous social comparisons.

2.4. Online Authenticity and Technology Design

While certain affordances  (Evans et al . , 2017 ; Treem and Leonardi, 2013 ; DeVito et al . , 2017 ) of online communication—like asynchronicity, editability, visualness, and publicness—encourage manicured self-presentation, other affordances can promote authentic self-disclosure. Platforms and features such as Snapchat, Instagram Story, and BeReal support ephemeral sharing, which despite potential context loss  (Cavalcanti et al . , 2017 ) , grants users greater control over their narrative and privacy  (DeVito et al . , 2017 ) . Ephemeral posts reduce self-consciousness, encourage casual and authentic exchanges  (Bayer et al . , 2016 ; Choi et al . , 2020 ; Kreling et al . , 2021 ; Xu et al . , 2016 ; Chiu and Yuan, 2021 ) , and enable deeper interactions, playful interactions, and private engagements  (Phua et al . , 2017 ; Choi et al . , 2020 ; Chiu and Yuan, 2021 ; Xu et al . , 2016 ) .

Besides ephemerality, the perceived degree of audience control and the (smaller) size of the network also support authenticity. Users often set aside online spaces for closer relationships, fostering authentic interactions within intimate friend circles  (Vaterlaus et al . , 2016 ; Piwek and Joinson, 2016 ; Kreling et al . , 2021 ; Chiu and Yuan, 2021 ; Taber and Whittaker, 2020 ; Huang and Vitak, 2022 ) . Finsta (i.e., “Fake Instagram,” or secondary Instagram accounts) users, for example, “reconfigure”   (Xiao et al . , 2020 ) Instagram to establish smaller, more intimate environments, enabling the sharing of unfiltered and emotionally expressive content  (Xiao et al . , 2020 ) . While this active audience management can be demanding, it effectively promotes authenticity on social media  (Xiao et al . , 2020 ) . Furthermore, pseudonymity, which can be found on platforms such as Tumblr, can foster a greater sense of trust among users and with the platform itself. This affordance has been shown to promote online authenticity, particularly benefiting marginalized individuals who seek safe spaces for genuine self-expression and disclosure  (DeVito et al . , 2018 ; Davis, 2023 ; Barta and Andalibi, 2021 ; Schaadhardt et al . , 2023 ) .

Previous studies in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) have also sought to explore new ways of supporting relationship-building and authentic self-disclosure online. For instance, an analysis by Stepanova et al.  (Stepanova et al . , 2022 ) investigated the design of 50 artifacts aimed at promoting “genuine” feelings of connection in technologically driven systems. Their research identified nine design strategies that enable genuine connection, with affective self-disclosure being the most pertinent to our study. Numerous systems employing this approach have leveraged biofeedback sharing (e.g., signaling physiological activity such as heart rate and its associated emotion to a partner) in dyadic communication settings  (Qin et al . , 2021 ; Mentis et al . , 2014 ; Liu et al . , 2021 , 2019 ; Gervais et al . , 2016 ; Frey et al . , 2018 ) . Alternative strategies were catered to broader connections beyond peer relationships, such as linking with the unity of humanity  (Howell et al . , 2019 ) , engaging with strangers  (Mitchell and Boer, 2017 ) , or maintaining distant relationships  (Robinson et al . , 2020 ) . In addition, a substantial body of research exists that examines how technology can facilitate self-disclosure and relationship enhancement through the use of situational conversation prompts. For instance, Zheng et al.  (Zheng et al . , 2021 ) developed PocketBot, a chatbot that nudges users to resume, enliven, and deepen conversations. However, research in this area has primarily focused on using conversational prompts to support relationships with strangers  (Hu, 2022 ) .

Finally, several studies have explored BeReal from authenticity and/or relationship angles  (Vanhoffelen et al . , 2023 ; Tirocchi, 2023 ; Bulchand-Gidumal, 2024 ; Snyder, 2024 ; Maddox, 2023 ) . First, Tirocchi  (Tirocchi, 2023 ) discusses how BeReal’s authenticity aligns with the values of users aged between 20 and 23, showing that young people’s media choices, including BeReal, reflect a desire for authenticity. Maddox  (Maddox, 2023 ) highlights how BeReal diverges from performance-based authenticity by emphasizing the promotion of “authenticity-as-realness” through spontaneity. The authors note how the app’s “panopticism” and self-monitoring are what enable users to put realness before performance, a culture not seen previously on other social media platforms. Taylor  (Taylor, 2023 ) analyzed BeReal’s designs, finding that they encourage users to engage with “sporadic” authenticity. On the other hand, Snyder  (Snyder, 2024 ) critiqued BeReal’s claim to authenticity by examining its user experience and rules that enforce an “always-on mentality,” arguing that this approach increases the need for external curation instead of promoting true self-expression. Finally, Reddy and Kumar  (Reddy and Kumar, 2024 ) explored how BeReal’s design features shaped what constitutes “authenticity,” finding that BeReal’s affordances align more with “extemporaneous interaction” than “comprehensive self-presentation.” Despite extensive research on BeReal and online authenticity, there remains a limited understanding of how BeReal’s design aligns with adolescent developmental needs, particularly regarding self-presentation strategies and relationship-building on social media. Our study fills this gap by analyzing BeReal’s approach beyond affordances, examining how its design cultivates specific cultural norms and expectations of authenticity that resonate with teens’ heightened sensitivity to peer perceptions. We also explore how these factors contribute to both engagement and potential toxicity in self-presentation practices.

3. Background

Table with descriptions of BeReal’s key features as of December, 2022. Design Description Image Daily notifications at random times Once at any moment of each day, the app sends out a notification with the message, “Time to BeReal. 2 min left to capture a BeReal and see what your friends are up to!” Figure 1 a Two-minute posting window Clicking on the daily notification initiates a two-minute countdown or an upward counting of how late the post is, shown above the camera Figure 1 b & c Retake counter Users can view the number of times any photo, including a friend’s photo, was retaken before it was posted Figure 1 d Ephemerality BeReal posts, comments, and reactions remain visible to other users until the subsequent notification is sent on the following day, indicating that another post is due, while the posters themselves retain continuous access. Front and back photoshoot All BeReal posts require that users capture images from both the front and rear camera almost at the same time Figure 1 e & f No filter The in-the-moment pictures taken on BeReal cannot be modified, and no filters are available. Users are not able to choose past images from photo albums either. Photo feedback After the first photo is taken with either the front or back camera, users wait for the second photo to be taken with the opposite camera. During this interval, the platform provides feedback on the initial image. The feedback exerts subtle pressure encouraging users to show their face and smile, for example, “Don’t move and smiiiile,” and “Wait, wait, wait, now smile.” Figure 1 g Realmojis Realmojis enable users to respond to posts with a photo of their own instead of a standard “like” or “heart.” There are six options: thumbs up, happy face, surprised face, heart eyes, crying while laughing, and a lightning bolt. The first five, or “pre-made” (P18) Realmojis, utilize stored photos that users have taken at some point to represent each of these five emotions. The lightning bolt is an “Instant Realmoji” that requires a new photo each time. Figure 1 h & i Reciprocal posting Users on BeReal can only view other people’s posts if they have contributed their content for the day Figure 1 j Chronological feed Unlike most mainstream social media platforms, BeReal’s feeds are strictly chronological. Consequently, users see posts from all their BeReal friends, regardless of how frequently they interact or their relationship strength. Friend count hidden BeReal does not highlight the number of friends a user has. Users cannot see the friend count of others. Concerning their own friend count, they will see how many friends they have until they surpass 50 friends, at which point their friend count will be displayed as “50+.” Friction for adding new friends The platform explicitly promotes the intentional addition of friends with statements such as “On BeReal connect with your close friends” or “Add your real friends on BeReal” beneath the friend request button. Unlike other platforms, which make numerous friend suggestions, BeReal only syncs local phone contacts and does not allow user searches. Figure 1 k

BeReal incorporates several design elements that funnel users towards creating a space for sharing unfiltered photos with a closer circle of friends. For instance, BeReal users receive daily notifications that encourage frequent, low-stakes posting. These notifications are sent at random times each day, as determined by the system, prompting users to post photos from both their front and back cameras within a two-minute window. Although users can postpone their response to the notification and post at a later time, such posts are tagged as “late.” Notifications about these “late” posts are sent to other users, and the delay in posting is highlighted above the post, e.g., “14 hr late.” The number of retakes is also visible to friends. While taking the photo, users are nudged to show their faces with prompts like “Your friends will definitely prefer to see your face!” and “Umm, anybody here?” Users can react to posts with “Realmojis,” emojis created from photos of their own facial expressions. These two-photo posts are called “BeReals,” and users are unable to view others’ posts until they have shared their own BeReal, and posts in feeds are displayed in chronological order. BeReal does not feature like counts or friend/follower counts. While users can see their own number of friends, any number exceeding 50 is simply displayed as “50+.” The platform also explicitly promotes adding “real friends” on BeReal. A detailed overview of these features, as of December 2022, when the study interviews were conducted, is presented in Table 1 .

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 current BeReal users. All participants had used BeReal for at least one week, had at least one friend on the platform, and had posted at least three posts. Interviews were conducted over a period of two months, with 14 interviews taking place at the end of December 2022 and an additional 15 at the end of January 2023. The procedure was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB).

4.1. Participants and Recruitment

We used a combination of convenience and snowball sampling to recruit participants. Initial recruitment efforts involved reaching out to any known BeReal users aged between 13 and 18, as well as contacting the university’s research participation pool to seek potential participants. Three participants were recruited from this effort. Participants were offered an additional $10 incentive for recruiting friends who met the study’s inclusion criteria. Three additional participants were recruited this way. To reach a broader audience, we posted ads on Instagram and Facebook targeting 13-18-year-olds residing in the United States. A total of 195 individuals responded and completed a screener survey. From this pool, 46 respondents met our inclusion criteria. We scheduled and conducted interviews with 29 of these respondents on a first-come, first-served basis.

The mean age of the participants was 15.6 years (SD=1.54), with 22 (75.9%) identifying as girls, 6 (20.7%) as boys, and one (3.4%) as non-binary. The participants’ self-described racial/ethnic breakdown included 11 (37.9%) White/Caucasian, 9 (31%) Asian, 3 (10.3%) African American, 2 (6.9%) Hispanic, 1 (3.4%) Asian/White, 1 (3.4%) Hispanic/White, and 1 (3.4%) Asian/African. On average, participants reported having used BeReal for 5 months (mean=4.8 months, sd=1.7 months) at the time of the interview, excluding two novice users who had used BeReal for less than one month. To denote novice users with less than one month of experience with BeReal, add an “n” suffix to their participant name (e.g., “P10” as “P10n”). Approximately 58% of BeReal users in the U.S. identify as women  (Curry, 2022 ) . We do not have the racial or ethnic data for the overall population of BeReal users. The full list of participant information is available in Table 2 .

Table with information on the participant ID, age, gender, ethnicity, time since BeReal install, and number of friends on BeReal PID Age Gender Ethnicity Time since BeReal install No. of friends on BeReal P01 14 Boy White/Caucasian 3 months 30 P02 13 Girl White/Caucasian 2 months 22 P03 14 Girl White/Caucasian 3 months 20 P04 17 Girl White/Caucasian 5 months 25-30 P05 13 Girl African American 2 months 20-25 P06 16 Girl White/Caucasian 3 months 50+ P07 17 Girl White/Caucasian 4 months 50+ (150)** P08n 17 Non-binary White/Caucasian 1 week 1 P09 16 Girl Asian/Asian American 5 months 50+ P10n 18 Girl African American 1 week 8 P11 17 Boy White/Caucasian 6 months 50+ (70-80) P12 17 Girl African American 4 months 50+ (70) P13 14 Boy White/Caucasian 4 months 20-30 P14 16 Girl Asian/Asian American 4 months 20 P15 15 Girl Asian/Asian American 4 months 30 P16 13 Girl Asian/White 5 months 3 P17 15 Girl White/Caucasian 6 months 30 P18 15 Girl Asian/Asian American 6 months 15 P19 17 Boy Hispanic 7 months 20-40 P20 18 Boy White/Caucasian 7 months 50 P21 17 Girl Asian/Asian American 5 months 30-50 P22 15 Boy Hispanic 4 months 10-15 P23 16 Girl Asian/Asian American 6 months 50+ P24 16 Girl Hispanic/White 8 months 50 P25 17 Girl Asian/Asian American 8 months 70 P26 15 Girl Hispanic 5 months 50+ (100+) P27 13 Girl Asian/Asian American 6 months 50+ P28 15 Girl Asian/African 5 months 15 P29 17 Girl Asian/Asian American 2 months 10

Notes: Novice users are denoted with (n). Numbers in brackets (N) for 50+ friends is the participants’ estimate of the number of friends they have.

4.2. Procedure

One member of the research team conducted 29 semi-structured Zoom interviews. The interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. Participants received an Amazon gift card worth US$20 as a thank-you for their time. The interview prompts probed 1) participants’ general experiences with using BeReal, 2) their engagement with other social media platforms, 3) their motivations for using BeReal, 4) how they engage with its features, and 5) their perceptions of online authenticity (see Appendix A for the complete interview protocol).

4.3. Data Analysis

We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis  (Braun and Clarke, 2019 ) of the 29 interview transcripts. We chose this method of analysis as it is a structured yet flexible approach that is effective at generating a nuanced view of the data, aligns with a constructionist paradigm, and is not tied to a pre-existing theoretical framework, which is appropriate for this exploratory work. We began the analysis with open coding in three phases over the course of 2.5 weeks. In the first phase, the first author performed line-by-line coding of the transcripts. Codes during this phase were descriptive and close to the data, for instance, “weaponizing authenticity,” “tech empowerment,” and “casual, low-pressure.” In the second phase, all five members of the research team individually coded the same transcripts line-by-line using the Delve Tool  (del, [n. d.] ) . The aim of this phase was to scrutinize the data as closely and comprehensively as possible. The third phase involved synthesizing the codes from the first two phases to construct higher-level themes. The five authors used the Miro Board  (mir, [n. d.] ) tool for affinity diagramming to visually group related codes into potential themes. The first author then synthesized these potential themes into a single set of proposed themes. Examples of such themes included “features and affordances that encourage or discourage inauthenticity,” “cultures and norms of authenticity on BeReal,” and “adolescents’ interactions with the features and culture of authenticity.”

Over the next two months, the research team met every 1-2 weeks to discuss, refine, and iterate on the codes and the constructed themes. At the end of these iterations, we had a finalized codebook with 43 refined codes, which were grouped into four overarching themes. After finalizing the codebook, four authors, excluding the first author, divided the 29 transcripts among themselves and coded different transcripts. The first author coded all of the transcripts. This process ensured that at least two members of the research team reviewed each transcript. Once all transcripts were coded, the authors who coded the same transcripts met to discuss and resolve any coding disagreements.

4.4. Ethical Considerations and Researchers’ Positionality

As academic researchers focusing on teen social media behaviors, particularly their use of the BeReal app, we recognize our positionalities as adults with limited firsthand experience of the current social media landscape as it is lived and navigated by teenagers. No one on the research team has been an active user of BeReal, and our engagement is limited to only two friends on the platform. This distance from the research subject(s), both in terms of generational gap and practical experience, fundamentally shapes our approach to this research.

From the outset, we positioned ourselves not as experts but as learners, genuinely curious about the nuanced ways in which teenagers engage with social media platforms like BeReal. We approached our participants with openness, explicitly communicating our lack of affiliation with BeReal and emphasizing that honest, authentic responses were invaluable to our understanding. By framing ourselves as outsiders looking to be educated, we hoped to mitigate any power dynamics inherent in the researcher-participant relationship and encourage a more forthright sharing of experiences.

The ethical considerations in conducting research with minors on sensitive topics such as social media behavior were paramount throughout our study. We obtained both written and verbal consent from all participants 1 1 1 Consent from their parents was waived due to the practicality of recruiting. , providing options for anonymity and comfort, such as turning off cameras during interviews. Our communications, especially when seeking clarifications via email, were crafted with care to be clear, respectful, and mindful of the participants’ privacy and well-being.

The perspectives that participants shared with us suggest that our approach succeeded in yielding rich, authentic perspectives. Teens shared critical reflections on the norms of BeReal, admissions of judgment towards others, expressions of self-consciousness, and deviations from expected engagement patterns.

5.1. How BeReal’s Design Encourages Authentic Self-Presentation

“I feel like not showing your face …that’s one of the parts of what BeReal’s used for. They use their front-facing camera and the back-facing camera…[and have] little prompts that pop up saying ‘smile’ and whatnot. It just implies that you should show your face, and then next photo is showing what you’re doing right now…Same thing with the reaction emojis, that you react with your face, and if you’re just not showing your face on the platform, it just defeats the purpose of that front and back camera being used and the reaction emojis being used.” - P22

For the most part, participants did not join BeReal because they were seeking a platform that promotes authentic self-presentation. Instead, participants said they joined for social reasons, saying things like, “all my friends were on it” (P03) or “my friend told me to” (P09). Others were intrigued by the platform after coming across it on Instagram or TikTok. However, participants shared that once they became BeReal users, the platform’s features influenced their self-presentation and led them to share frequently and “authentically” (specifically, to post unfiltered, unstaged photos of themselves). Participants identified four key ways that BeReal’s design promotes authentic self-presentation: 1) discouraging staged posts, 2) relieving posting pressure, 3) encouraging interactions with smaller social circles, and 4) maintaining a simple, mission-focused app design. We describe each of these in more detail below.

5.1.1. Designs that discourage staging.

BeReal has many features not present on other social media platforms that explicitly discourage users from staging their photos. First, the random timing of notifications deters staged posts. As P22 said, “I think it’s just the whole concept of the app, BeReal—it randomly going off. It’s supposed to catch you off guard.” They explained that the two-minute posting window encourages spontaneous posts, saying things like, “you don’t have time to get ready or to make yourself look good …nobody can stage something in two minutes” (P25). Similarly, P03 commented, “You can’t really fake it because it’s like a two-minute thing.” Separately, participants explained that the retake counter further discourages staging by creating subtle pressure to minimize retakes. They said things like, “People didn’t want other people to think that they were retaking all their photos and stuff” (P26). If a face is not detected in the frame, the platform will nudge the user to show themselves, with messages like “Your friends will definitely prefer to see your face!” and “Umm, anybody here?” As P13 shared, “When you take the photo and it just puts, like, the text up on the screen like, like ‘great smile’ or whatever, or like if you take an all-black photo it says like, ‘where are you?’ so …it gives you a good impression of [what BeReal is about] just based on those kind of little details.”

Participants explained that these features funnel them into very specific self-presentation choices. Some participants shared that they retake photos only when their “eyes are closed” or they “accidentally put [their] finger in the camera” (P11), not due to self-consciousness. They also said they avoid posting blank images, aiming to “always [have] something there” (P26), because blank posts “defeat the whole point” (P20). They said they try to post as soon as they receive a notification because waiting to post renders it “kind of pointless” (P04). They described the way BeReal encourages reciprocity and mutual sharing, saying, “You can’t see anyone else’s BeReal until you post yours for the day,” likening it to an “exchange” (P04). Given this context, posting a blank photo—withholding a piece of their lives—while being able to view others’ posts seemed like “cheating” (P13), “hypocritical” (P13), and “not fair” (P17) to some participants. Further, posting blank photos was seen as undermining or defeating the “point” (P15) or “purpose” of the app (P22). Participants said that when they see others post blank photos, their reactions range from mild disappointment to more pronounced disapproval. Collectively, participants made clear that BeReal’s features communicate specific expectations for how they should engage with the platform. These designed expectations lead them to post unstaged photos and expect other users to do the same.

5.1.2. Designs that take pressure off posting.

Unlike most mainstream social media platforms, where sharing edited and curated content is the norm, BeReal’s designs allow users to share photos without the pressure to curate their posts by making sharing more low-stakes. For example, participants described the app-defined cadence of the daily posting by saying, “I think it does feel different just because I’m doing it so frequently, and because it has this connotation of, ‘okay, this doesn’t matter”’ (P24). Ephemerality further lowers the stakes for engaging with others. P16 shared: “I don’t feel as pressured to make it look super nice because it’s like it’ll just be away in 24 hours.” Moreover, the effort Realmojis demand and their ephemeral nature reduce the pressure to collect them. Unlike other platforms where “Likes” signify social status, on BeReal, they do not carry much weight. As P15 put it, “There’s like no ‘Likes’…I don’t think people usually really compare [the number of Realmojis they received].”

The effect of these features is that even compared to other casual online spaces like Snapchat, Instagram Close Friend Stories, and Finsta  (Xiao et al . , 2020 ) , participants found BeReal to be less crafted, unlike other platforms where users put more effort into curating their content. P18 shared that they post photos on BeReal that they would not share on their Finsta because they are “just too boring.” P04 stated that Close Friends Stories were also considered more curated than BeReal posts, as they are primarily used for sharing funny or noteworthy personal events. Because all users share whenever “the app tells [them] to do so” (P25), users feel comfortable posting the “least exciting parts” (P27) of their day. P23 clarified the effect of the frequent, low-fidelity posting on BeReal stating, “[on other social media platforms] you have a purpose in posting these [posts]. BeReal, you’re not supposed to have a purpose in posting. You’re just posting just because of a random notification, throughout the whole day, would just tell you to post. There isn’t that intent behind it.” One participant used the analogy that BeReal “feels a lot like a Polaroid,” whereas Instagram “would be a picture hung on your walls—perfect and made to show off” (P29).

5.1.3. Designs that encourage audience curation.

Context collapse inevitably leads to curated self-presentation, and BeReal attempted to address this phenomenon by encouraging users to curate their audience instead of their posts. Specifically, BeReal’s features encourage engagement with closer acquaintances and friends. This approach makes it easier for users to post casual, daily content without the fear of judgment, fostering an environment that promotes casual sharing rather than curated self-presentation. By enforcing reciprocity, the platform encourages users to limit their BeReal circles to those with whom they feel comfortable sharing their daily lives. As a result, users typically have fewer friends on BeReal than they do on other platforms. P04 explained that they add only the people they “talk to regularly or that someone that I would want to stay in touch with” because they wish to feel “comfortable with [friends] seeing parts of [their lives] that are personal.” Also, according to P10, scrolling through posts from less familiar friends on BeReal can become “overwhelming and just sort of boring.” Therefore, users tend to curate their friends, adding only those “that they care about seeing what they’re doing every single day” (P04). Moreover, by hiding friend counts, BeReal discourages popularity contests that can hinder authentic sharing. P04 explained: “On BeReal there’s definitely the least amount of pressure because nobody can see how many friends someone else has. Like, I don’t even know how many friends I have exactly…the number really doesn’t matter so you can have as few or as many as you want.” Overall, participants expressed that their friend lists on BeReal, in general, are “pretty much invite-only” (P22).

These features, which encourage audience curation, result in BeReal being described as “friendly” (P26), “cozy” , “home-like” (P16), and “communal” (P04). P18 noted, “very few people will see my BeReal…it feels like there’s less pressure.” Participants also said that the BeReal experience made them “feel connected” (P28) to other users and appreciated the platform’s focus on updates from close friends that felt like “check-ins” (P14). Participants described BeReal as a “judgment-free” (P16) environment that feels like a “safe, close space” (P29) fostered by a carefully curated audience as a defining characteristic that sets BeReal apart from other social media platforms.

5.1.4. Designs that focus on a single purpose.

As of December 2022, BeReal maintained a minimalist interface design, featuring only elements that serve its single purpose of sharing candid photos. This minimalism clarifies BeReal’s mission of authentic sharing with the users. For instance, participants viewed the act of retaking a photo as somewhat discordant with the platform’s mission and explained: “the point of BeReal is like you take one photo and you’re done” (P07).

P15 emphasized the platform’s focused mission, suggesting that expanding BeReal’s feature set could dilute its essence: “For BeReal, I feel like it’s the type of social media that’s a bit more hard to expand because expanding it, I feel like they would have to give up the whole point of BeReal. It’s hard to have both, where it’s a very authentic app, and have people creating content because they want others to view it.” Adding more features to BeReal would make it less distinct from other social media platforms. For example, P09 shared that “if you were to take multiple pictures, it would kind of become Instagram.” P23 echoed this sentiment, saying that “Instagram is complicated because there’s edits” and that BeReal is “supposed to be plain, simple, minimalistic.” P22 felt that Instagram’s additional features create “social hierarchy” but explained that on BeReal “there’s not a whole lot …to be judgmental of.”

The simplicity of BeReal not only makes its purpose clear to users but also sets the platform apart from features like TikTok Now  (TikTok, 2022 ) , which, despite its striking resemblance to BeReal, is perceived differently because it is integrated into TikTok’s broader functionality. For example, P25 expressed that “I feel like most people know TikToks as those short 15-second videos, whereas BeReal’s its own thing. And so to merge [Now into TikTok] just feels a little bit more awkward and then more clunky, and then it just doesn’t feel as real as BeReal.” Also, P24 shared that the audience in each app is different; “TikTok has more functions, and I guess that you can’t really curate the friends that you interact with on TikTok as much as you can with BeReal.” TikTok Now is a part of TikTok, which to the participants has “always been a general video sharing app” and “it’s the same concept as BeReal but …they don’t talk as much about like being real, that’s not really their focus the same way that it is with the BeReal app” (P08n).

5.2. The Perceived Benefits of BeReal’s Design

5.2.1. validating an unfiltered life.

Most participants expressed appreciation for BeReal’s mission to promote more authentic self-presentation. For example, P12 stated that it is “hard to like, eliminate that kind of idea of everyone and wanting to always appear like perfect and put together, but I think BeReal is doing a good job at trying to like begin and combat adding that type of thing.” P02 reflected on the impact of the authenticity norm on BeReal, noting a shift in how they view social comparisons: “There’s a lot of girls in my grade who I follow. And, like, at school, they present themselves as these confident …always feeling fabulous …and then seeing them in bed eating snacks, watching Netflix, and you’re like they’re a normal human being …they aren’t perfect all the time.” This brings out a sense of “normalcy” to unfiltered sharing as P28 succinctly put it, and offers a view of “their daily life rather than their glamorized events” (P25).

The contrast between the parts of themselves that people share on BeReal versus Instagram was particularly striking to participants. For example, P24 observed that BeReal is “breaking down the walls that Instagram has put up since it was launched. You’re seeing people at their best, and you’re seeing people edited. BeReal is trying to get people to understand that that’s not real.” This aligns with P06’s assessment, who shared that “all I see of them on Instagram is like traveling” and that they find it “refreshing” that on BeReal, they can see their friends “staying at home” (P06). P24 further explained: “If Instagram is a room of people at their best moment with heavy editing, BeReal is trying to get people at their worst moment with no chance of editing. BeReal is anti-Instagram, and Instagram is just people trying to show off their best selves.”

Participants viewed BeReal’s emphasis on an unfiltered life as indicative of a broader potential shift in social media culture. For example, P25 described BeReal as “trying to bridge that gap between social media and real-life” by “bring[ing] more intimacy into the social media world,” and they enjoyed being a part of “a collective effort to like destigmatize like having unfiltered moments.” Further, P08 expressed the platform’s mission as “hopeful and inspiring …it was created to help teach people that like you don’t need to stress all the time about social media and being cool and like the way that people perceive you. It’s okay to be your real self.” P24 expressed appreciation for BeReal’s new take on social media by acknowledging how BeReal reduces the pressure, workload, and stress that come with posting on other platforms, stating “There’s so many people that overthink it and give just an Instagram post too much value and platforms like BeReal are it doesn’t matter. It’s just an app …That lightheartedness is really valuable in terms of social media.”

5.2.2. Motivating positive changes

A few participants also said that using BeReal encouraged them to be the person they aspire to portray online. For example, P02 stated: “I’ll feel guilty if I am not, like, not getting out of bed or if like, my BeReal notification comes along and I’m still in bed or something, but most of the time it’s, like, it’s nice like when I’m doing something productive, and then my BeReal comes along, and I’m like, ‘oh cool I get to be doing something interesting while I take my BeReal.”’ Rather than feeling overwhelmed by this, P02 stated that they feel “motivated” and that they want to be productive when their BeReal comes along. P24 echoed this perspective by saying that looking back through their BeReal posts served as “a little mirror” to them.

Moreover, many expressed that, despite initial self-consciousness over seemingly mundane or unflattering posts, BeReal has empowered them to embrace and share their genuine selves. For example, P11 shared that they “kind of like to lean into the discomfort because it feels more honest.” P18 shared similar sentiments about overcoming self-consciousness, stating, “Well, I think about how it is important to be realistic on social media, and I think about how most people who see it wouldn’t really care that much …, so I try to just ignore it and press ‘post’ and be casual about it.” P02 echoed this sentiment, saying that “BeReal allows you to be authentic and kind of share what you’re going through. In an open way and like you’re supposed to be vulnerable, maybe, or you’re supposed to be your true self. So I think BeReal in some ways is healthy for people.”

Participants also observed that on BeReal they felt less anxiety about others’ perceptions and spent less time engaging in social comparison than they do on other platforms. P23 recognized the app’s focus on reducing the anxiety generated by metrics such as “Likes,” “I don’t really get that many reactions either, but I don’t really care, so that’s the point of the app. I shouldn’t really care for what people are seeing or thinking about me when I’m posting it. That’s the point.” Furthermore, several participants noted that the changes they experienced on the app were self-directed, attributing this to the platform’s enjoyable and casual design, as highlighted by one participant who described it as “fun” (P06). For example, P04 shared, “I don’t think I’ve ever felt, like, forced …I feel like the whole idea is kind of, you’re not judging people, like, it’s not meant to be like that. It’s really just for fun, and you’re only on there if you want to be on there.”

5.2.3. Combatting toxicity with simplicity

BeReal’s straightforward design, with its focus on authentic photo sharing, significantly reduces toxicity levels compared to platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok. The minimal use of comments on BeReal—often the breeding grounds for toxicity on other platforms—was seen by participants as a key factor contributing to a healthier environment. P20 shared: “People can be pretty rude on other social platforms. But on BeReal, it’s not like Twitter where it’s like you can talk to anybody anytime. You have to find the person, you have to friend them. You have to engage on their posts to be able to contact them. It’s not as loose as maybe Snapchat or Instagram or Twitter.”

Many participants also appreciated that, unlike other social media platforms, BeReal’s minimalist design does not promote prolonged usage. As P13 shared: “when I’m looking through it, there’s never really anything negative …I don’t feel sucked into it …I don’t feel I never get on the app and I’m like, oh God I’m going to be on here for another hour or even ten minutes really. I just know it’s something I can open and close without like being like, oh one more post, one more video or whatever.” This view also suggests that BeReal’s simplified, chronological algorithm-based feed empowers users with greater control over how and how long they engage with the app’s content.

5.3. The Perceived Downsides of BeReal’s Design

Although BeReal has successfully nudged users toward an authenticity norm that mitigates many existing issues associated with mainstream social media platforms, participants raised two shortcomings of BeReal, specifically that it could be both toxic and boring.

5.3.1. Creating artificial pressure to post

Participants shared that they often feel pressured to be authentic, sometimes even against their will. As P25 shared, “I definitely feel like I am forced …And so I get curious, and then I end up posting anyways to see what’s going on.” The level of pressure that unfiltered selfies caused varied across participants, where some experienced “sometimes there are times where I don’t have makeup on or I don’t look my best and stuff because I was at the gym or something, and so it makes me feel a little stressed out,” for example. P19 also illustrated this issue, stating, “You just get so demotivated from feeling like you have to be real, where you’re just like, ‘Well, I don’t even want to touch the app at all.”’ Several features, like the lack of filters, retake count, “late post” label, public display of reactions, and the implicit pressure to keep up with posting on a daily basis, were identified as stress triggers.

A few participants felt that while the authenticity norm on BeReal carries significance, the application of BeReal’s “rules” (P27) should prioritize user comfort. As P29 explained: “I think some people are very obsessed with the idea of keeping things real, keeping things authentic…But to me, I think that it’s okay. I think it’s okay to be a little bit less authentic online. Only for reasons though, if you have a reason for it, I think that it’s okay.” They believed it acceptable to deviate from BeReal’s norms to avoid personal discomfort. P09 explained: “If I’m self-conscious about it, I won’t post about it, and I’ll just post about something else.” Similarly, P16 expressed that when they were not in the mood, they would simply point the camera “to my ceiling and then one is at the desk.” The need for positive self-presentation was a particular cause of discomfort. P25 reflected: “I still have the pressure of trying to make myself look cooler on BeReal. So if I’m just sitting alone, just chilling, watching TikToks, I usually don’t post BeReal until I’m out [of] my bed or doing something else at least.”

5.3.2. Inciting new forms of toxicity

Despite its intentions, BeReal’s simplicity and focus on everyday moments inadvertently fostered new avenues for toxicity, with users sometimes judging each other’s content as “uninteresting” (P16), “underwhelming” (P19), and “boring” (P26), either expressing these judgments directly to their friends or confidentially with us during the study interviews. While participants were divided over whether the uninteresting nature of the posts stemmed from the posts themselves or the individuals creating them, some participants perceived that the lack of engaging content was more directly associated with the users. For instance, P27 remarked, “Some posts show people just lying in bed. I think, ‘That doesn’t seem fun.’ If they do this every day, it appears they have no exciting point in their day.”

Anticipating or encountering such judgments led some participants to feel an amplified fear of negative judgment when posting on BeReal, which usually involved more vulnerability than posts on other social media platforms in general. As P05 noted, “People could make fun of your true self.” This led some participants to “just walk outside and take a picture” (P29). The participant further explained, “Even if they don’t necessarily go out, they wait and just leave the house a bit, open the door, take a picture, and then just walk back inside.” P20 further pointed out the sometimes paradoxical nature of the authenticity norm on BeReal: “People might judge you negatively because they compare you to the people who aren’t authentic.” Since it is possible that not everyone embraces BeReal’s “authenticity” to the same extent, being authentic could sometimes lead to negative consequences. P25 shared a candid example: “I know for me, we all glamorize those super social party raves type of people who hang out, …Whereas I feel like when I try to be authentic, it’s like I don’t do that and usually it’s just me at home watching my shows. And so, it definitely conflicts with what society expects versus what I want to do with my life.”

Another particularly salient issue arises when users begin to critique each other’s level of authenticity. P17, for instance, overheard a friend remarking, “Oh, look, they just retook their BeReal 12 times,” while P12 shared a similar story about a conversation her sister had over the phone: “Oh my gosh this person retook their BeReal like several this many times, and I only did it this many times can you believe it?” This observation was not isolated, and participants P02, P06, P11, and P20 noted similar interactions.

5.3.3. An underwhelming user experience

BeReal’s focus on authenticity ironically leads to a dull and monotonous user experience. As P19 noted, the platform’s norms around authenticity, combined with specific posting times and limited features, feels overbearing.” Such strict structure and time constraints contribute to repetitiveness and boredom. This renders the overall user experience underwhelming” (P19) for some participants. Some users also viewed BeReal’s popularity as temporary, sharing It’s one of those fads, in a sense” (P19), and observing, I think BeReal kind of died, and it was just a fad” (P26). BeReal’s single-minded focus on authenticity cultivates an “underwhelming” user experience that pushes users away from the platform.

5.4. BeReal’s Potential and Limitations to Support Relationship-Building

Participants also reflected on the extent to which BeReal’s encouragement to share unstaged photos at unexpected times might enable relationship-building (or fail to do so). We examined these reflections from the perspective of Social Penetration Theory  (Altman and Taylor, 1973 ) and reported on teens’ thoughts about BeReal’s potential for increasing the breadth and depth of self-disclosure.

5.4.1. Enabling casual relationship building

Participants noted how BeReal provides insights into the daily lives of friends, offering a more intimate view of moments they might not otherwise share. P21 gave an example: “I can see things that I normally wouldn’t have known about [my friends]. My friend the other day, I didn’t know this, but she got boba at the most random time …it gives me a new insight into what people do in their lives when I’m not with them, so that’s why I can appreciate it.” In this way, BeReal can support relationship building by broadening users’ perspectives about others.

Many of our participants also expressed that BeReal is a valuable tool for maintaining connections and staying in touch with their friends. They specifically valued the ability to catch a glimpse of the day-to-day activities of friends who live far away. P04 shared: “I get to see, like, a little bit of my, some of my friends’ days that I wouldn’t see otherwise because they don’t live in [city name] they live in other places …I wouldn’t normally see a picture of them at school or something like that, but it’s kind of, it’s kind of nice to see …a little glimpse into people’s lives.”

5.4.2. Limited potential for deepening relationships

Many of our participants reflected that they want to share different facets of themselves online, suggesting a lack of nuance in the kinds of self-disclosure that BeReal makes possible. They found it limiting that on BeReal they are not able to share “[their] energetic style or [their] talkative style” (P28), that they “like listening to K-pop” (P09), “a screenshot…of a game [they’re] playing or a song [they’re] listening to” (P16), and “thoughts of the day or whatever you’re doing” (P14), for example. They wanted to be able to share “anything from like my camera roll that I took like maybe like ten minutes ago” (P03), or just “a lot of things” (P15) that they would share or see on their social media, Finsta in particular.

Our participants also shared that what they post on BeReal is “very surface level” (P15) since it is “just a photo” (P05), implying that depth of self-disclosure is also lacking. They expressed that they are not able to share their emotions (P02, P16), personality (P18), values (P27), and political beliefs (P06, P15) as they do on other platforms such as Instagram (P06, P09, P18), Snapchat (P09), or Twitter (P02). They also confirmed that the lack of varied forms of exchange makes it harder for them to learn more about and feel closer to other users on BeReal than on other platforms where deeper self-disclosure happens. P16, for example, shared: “I think you can’t really communicate your emotions that easily through [BeReal], which to me is a pretty important part of getting to know somebody, what kind of things they’re going through.” Such limitations led participants to suggest BeReal adopt other forms of content-sharing, including live photos or text posts.

5.4.3. An inability to share with specific others

Though BeReal encourages users to curate their audience, it was difficult for some of our participants to draw that boundary given their offline social dynamics. As Social Penetration Theory  (Altman and Taylor, 1973 ) explains, people build relationships by disclosing intentionally within the context of a specific relationship. Users’ inability to target who they shared with exacerbated their feeling of intrusion or overwhelmed with making BeReal posts. For example, P17 shared, “I’m in high school, and so a lot of it is just people in my grade that I wouldn’t necessarily trust. …So there have been times where I’ve retaken my BeReal, because I didn’t like the way I looked in a photo. Which I think is not the point or what they originally intended, but I think that in the social situation, like high school is, I feel like that it was bound to happen in a way. And I know people that’ll retake their BeReals 10 times just to get the right angle.” They further emphasized the limits of sharing “authentic” content if they are not close with their BeReal friends, stating, “In my opinion, I think no one is really going to see the authentic you but yourself, or maybe someone you’re really close with, like a partner or a really close friend or really close family member. Because everyone around you isn’t going to be able to see you truly unless they know you really well.”

Similarly, some participants perceived unfiltered photo-sharing to be relatively high-stakes and intimate. For example, P25, who called themself a “homebody,” expressed that they do not want other people to see that they “stay at home all the time.” Such feelings of intrusion were especially evident when participants had friends on BeReal with whom they were not very close. For example, P18 shared, “I do also worry about what I look like, because there’s people that I’m not that close with, that I’m friends with on there, so I care about what I look like, and I cut off my face if I feel like I look bummy.”

5.4.4. Coerced self-disclosure cannot enable relationship building

Some participants explained that for self-disclosure to be authentic, it must be voluntary and comfortable for the individual. P29 expressed, “the most important thing is that someone has to be comfortable with [sharing]” and that “if you’re uncomfortable with something, then you’re not being real, per se,” suggesting self-motivation as a prerequisite for authenticity. P19 also shared that BeReal is “technically authentic, but at a price.” They elaborated, “I guess I could call it real, but at the same time, I feel like there’s much more just that isn’t worth it. You get self-conscious, feel the need to do it, you feel like you have to do it.”

Our participants emphasized that the authenticity of self-disclosure hinges on the user’s intentions. As P19 exemplified, even staged social media photos can be “perfectly authentic” if the user consciously acknowledges their staging. Conversely, an ‘in-the-moment’ BeReal with no staging can be considered inauthentic if the disclosure lacks self-motivation or intentionality. Contrary to perceptions equating staging with inauthenticity, participants viewed the intentional sharing of personally significant content as authentic. P29, for example, reflected: “If you are holding a post and you choose to post later…I think to me [that] is authentic. That shows that this was something important to you…I think it has to mean something to you first, to be authentic.” Conversely, BeReal posts shared without curation were perceived as lacking the depth of self-disclosure necessary for meaningful social connection.

5.5. Adolescents’ Conclusions about BeReal

5.5.1. bound to fail.

Some participants expressed cynicism about the potential for BeReal to achieve its mission of encouraging authentic self-presentation, explaining that the platform cannot escape the fact that on any social media platform, users will seek approval and present overly positive versions of themselves. For example, P17 shared, “Yes, people are showing themselves kind of unedited, but I think also it was kind of bound to fail in some ways. No matter what, people are going to want to impress other people. No matter what, people are going to want to have other people see them look good.” They added “I think any social media platform, no matter what it is, it’s never going to be the authentic …because …if you’re looking for someone else’s approval, that’s not being authentic,” suggesting that authenticity and social media are fundamentally incompatible. P25 shared a related perspective that online self-disclosure should be approached with caution, stating, “yeah, it is promoting authenticity, but you still have to remind yourself that this is still online, and so your digital footprint is still there, and everything you post will still be there, and people will see that. So don’t get too sucked in. Don’t glamorize it too much because it’s still something that’s on the phone and something. It’s still considered a social media.”

Some of our participants also asserted that motivations to preserve private experiences precede self-disclosure on social media platforms. P25 captured this sentiment, saying that displaying everything on social media, including mundane activities like “enjoying a cup of fruit by yourself” , can cause users to “lose a lot of the special aspects” of their lives. They shared additional insight: “I feel like if we’re too authentic on social media, it takes away the beauty of being connected in real life. If everybody knows what you’re doing all the time, then there’s no real privacy or connection between the people who see you every day because your every day is already on there too.” P20 also pointed out that certain aspects of life should be kept private, stating, “you’re not going to post your entire life on social media unless you’re a vlogger or an influencer. But even then, you still have parts where you don’t want to show other people.”

5.5.2. Overly prescriptive

Some participants outright rejected the idea that they should adhere to BeReal’s prompts, viewing them as either unnecessary pressure or misaligned with their social media usage. P14 epitomized this perspective, stating that BeReal serves primarily as “pure entertainment” and that people use the platform as an “excuse to take a photo and share it.” P25 went a step further, expressing clear discomfort with an overly serious approach to the app’s rules, stating, “If someone…need[s] to do a couple retakes within the two minutes, who gives a crap? Even if it’s not real, but I think everybody’s just taking it too seriously.”

Participants reported various ways to circumvent the platform’s intended use. For example, they can choose to delay taking photos or retake them multiple times. This flexibility allowed unconvinced users to disregard BeReal’s norms entirely, justifying their decision to stage or delay posts for curated self-presentation. P09 illustrated this attitude: “Personally, I kind of ignore the fact that they tell me to be more real and I kind of just take a photo whenever I feel like .” P05 echoed this sentiment, stating: “I feel the same as like Instagram because, like, you could honestly post whenever you wanted.”

5.5.3. Nevertheless, a welcome change

Despite criticisms, the consensus among participants was that BeReal’s initiative to foster authenticity is “a great thing” (P22)—a positive departure from the norm of other broadcast social media platforms. For example, P06 stated that they appreciated that BeReal “wants to give authenticity” to its users because “it’s never been done before and so it’s something different to see and …experience.” P29 also shared that they like the “ overall message of what [BeReal is] trying to do” as they feel that BeReal “encourages people to not fall into social media’s expectations for what they should and shouldn’t do, or how their life should and shouldn’t be.” P02 went further, suggesting that “it would be amazing if those apps [i.e., Instagram], or maybe popular people on those apps, would start trends where you were more authentic. So when you got your BeReal, your BeReal notification you would also post something on Instagram to show like vulnerability on all social media apps.” For those who felt dissatisfied with BeReal’s take on “authenticity,” they felt that BeReal is “less inauthentic” (P10n) at the very least, and that it is “the most authentic photo version of yourself” given BeReal photos cannot be edited.

6. Discussion

Peer relationships play a crucial role in adolescent development, and reciprocal and authentic self-disclosure is necessary for these relationships to develop. Despite the significant role of social media in facilitating such adolescent peer interactions, its capacity to support authentic self-disclosure is often compromised, for example, by context collapse and the pressures of self-presentation. This study examines BeReal, an app distinguished by its focus on fostering reciprocal, authentic self-presentation.

Our research examines BeReal’s design in supporting authentic self-presentation on social media and assesses its alignment with the developmental and self-presentation needs of teens. Here, we (1) introduce the Social Media Self-Presentation Matrix (SMSM, see Figure 2 ), a conceptual model of the forms that self-presentation can take, (2) discuss the implications of social media design based on the matrix, and (3) propose design recommendations for authentic sharing on social media derived from our study findings.

6.1. The Social Media Self-Presentation Matrix (SMSM)

A 2x2 matrix with two types of self-presentation goals on the horizontal axis: “Self-Enhancing” (i.e., strategic social maneuvering goal) and “Self-Expressive” (i.e., accurate self-portrayal goal). On the vertical axis, we categorize the cognitive process of self-presentation as either “Automatic” (i.e., without conscious awareness, with minimal cognitive effort) or “Controlled” (i.e., deliberate, planned). The quadrant of Controlled and Self-Enhancing self-presentation is exemplified by the general strategy of highly manicured self-presentation on broadcasted social media platforms like Instagram. BeReal is intended to fall under the Automatic, Self-Expressive quadrant. We identify a design opportunity for social media platforms to move toward the Controlled, Self-Expressive quadrant. This quadrant would represent a more realistic approach toward authenticity, considering the intricacies of social media interactions, such as privacy issues, and the developmental characteristics of teens, such as heightened self-consciousness. We anticipate that a shift toward this quadrant could, in the long run, lead users or platform norms toward Automatic, Self-Expressive self-presentation, which is what BeReal aims to achieve.

6.1.1. Evaluating BeReal’s Design Support for Self-Presentation Using the SMSM

Drawing on theories of self-presentation  (Schlenker, 2003 ) , we identify two axes for describing self-presentation on social media. The first axis, Automatic vs. Controlled , captures the cognitive processes that drive self-presentation. The second axis, Self-Enhancing vs. Self-Expressive , captures the goals of self-presentation. Combining these axes, we create a matrix that describes four modes of self-presentation strategies potentially dictating social media platform designs (see Figure 2 ). We use this matrix to evaluate BeReal’s design in supporting authentic self-presentation and suggest alternative ways for achieving BeReal’s design goals.

Social media platforms generally promote a Controlled, Self-Enhancing mode of self-presentation, but BeReal has attempted to shift towards a more Automatic, Self-Expressive model. This effort has been partially successful due to several design choices, such as but not limited to: randomly timed notifications that discourage staged sharing, daily ephemeral posting that reduces posting pressure, hidden follower counts that support audience curation, and a minimalist design that underscores the platform’s single-minded focus on extemporaneous, unfiltered photo-sharing. These elements collectively foster user behaviors differ from those on platforms like Instagram, and these differences were largely welcomed by users.

However, challenges remain. For example, users have reported feeling new kinds of pressure and discomfort, leading to doubts about the feasibility of authentic self-presentation in social media contexts. Despite BeReal’s efforts, some users felt the platform did not support their relationship-building needs, finding it difficult to present themselves accurately through the constrained format of an uncurated, unfiltered photo.

6.1.2. Challenges and Considerations for Achieving Automatic, Self-Expressive Self-Presentation on Social Media

A closer examination of self-presentation theory, as discussed in Section 2 , may clarify the mismatch between BeReal’s ideal and the reality experienced by teens. BeReal aimed to transition users’ general self-presentation strategies from a Controlled, Self-Enhancing model to an Automatic, Self-Expressive one. Achieving this shift requires several conditions, such as a familiar and supportive audience group, minimal discrepancy between one’s self-concept and presented self, adequate skills and resources for accurate self-presentation, and low stakes in general, which would then allow for a more Automatic approach.

However, several factors make this shift challenging. Some users have large friend groups that included people they do not fully trust, making Automatic self-presentation unrealistic. Some people feel more self-conscious because the platform encourages them to reveal aspects of their lives they usually prefer to keep private, such as their limited social interactions. Further, BeReal restricts users to a single, unfiltered photo at a randomly assigned time with a two-minute window. This demands significant skill for accurate representation relative to self-presentation on other platforms with no such constraints. Furthermore, the general negativity in the perception of social media exemplified by privacy concerns tends to guide self-presentation behavior in a more Controlled direction rather than an Automatic one.

Most importantly, self-presentation on social media is inherently guided by external validation and cues, demanding a high level of maturity to balance personal and inner concerns with the outer ones effectively—a level of sophistication that may be beyond what can typically be expected of teenagers  (Schlenker, 2003 ) . Indeed, we observed instances where BeReal’s design features inadvertently prompted adolescents to overlook their internal cues about whether to disclose or withhold, at times pressuring them to share when they would prefer not to.

These observations suggest that transitioning from Controlled, Self-Enhancing self-presentation to Automatic, Self-Expressive self-presentation is not straightforward due to inherent challenges. Social media inherently involves broader social interactions than F2F interactions, meaning that even with a smaller friend group, the audience is larger, making Automatic self-presentation difficult. Additionally, the prevalence of self-enhancement on social media platforms in general makes Self-Enhancing self-presentation the default strategy. However, Automatic self-presentation processes typically emerge in routine situations that are frequently encountered. Therefore, encouraging Self-Expressive self-presentation on social media requires creating opportunities for more Controlled processes to coexist, allowing users to navigate the complex dynamics of online social interactions more deliberately and effectively.

6.2. Design Recommendations to Support Authentic Self-Presentation Online

Informed by data derived from our study and the SMSM, we propose design recommendations for fostering authentic self-presentation on social media.

Support “accurate” self-presentation. As seen in Section 2 , self-presentation can be driven by truthful motives, such as the desire to ensure others see them as they truly are. However, accurate self-presentation often requires skill and deliberation. Therefore, providing users with the time and opportunities for this is a crucial aspect of authentic self-presentation on social media. For example, platforms could offer daily prompts or missions that encourage authentic reflection and sharing, allowing users to explore the breadth and depth of self-disclosure. Providing more varied modes of expression can additionally facilitate the Automatic aspects of self-presentation, particularly when it enables self-presentation that aligns with consistent self-images and personality traits.

Provide air cover for audience management. Creating a safe space is essential for facilitating Automatic self-presentation. While automatic processes may seem less relevant to authenticity on social media, it is important to recognize that Controlled self-presentations require significant effort and can be mentally exhausting, potentially leading to self-regulation challenges. This exhaustion not only increases problematic social media use but may also diminish users’ effectiveness in managing their subsequent self-presentation, such as oversharing. By protecting the cognitive resources of users, particularly children, we can enhance their capacity for more accurate and authentic self-presentation.

Scaffold reciprocal sharing. According to SPT, mutual disclosure is an essential component of social penetration progression. However, lurking behaviors are prevalent on many mainstream social media platforms. To normalize reciprocity and foster deeper social interactions at an individual or community level, designers might consider introducing mechanisms to minimize the vulnerability associated with initiating online engagement. As reported by our participants, daily post notifications acted as a support mechanism for posting and relieved the pressure associated with voluntary sharing on social media. Thus, strategies such as daily reflection prompts might also serve to diminish the vulnerability associated with initiating disclosures and encourage more users to reciprocate self-disclosure.

Prevent weaponized authenticity. Participants said that authenticity norms turned toxic when the platform pressured them to over-disclose or enable users to shame one another, police one another, or compete to be the most authentic. Through intentional design decisions, platforms can encourage candid sharing without making an idol of it. For example, a platform might avoid quantifying authenticity by choosing not to display the number of times a photo was retaken.

It is important to note that while self-disclosure is generally desirable for social penetration, pursuing it online could introduce potential risks or unforeseen consequences not typically present in offline settings. Younger users, especially those with problematic smartphone use  (Davis et al . , 2023 ) are even more likely to disclose beyond what may deemed the appropriate level of self-disclosure. Therefore, when designing to expand the breadth, depth, or frequency of online self-disclosure, it is essential to anticipate potential harmful outcomes to users, such as online harassment or impersonation. Designers should rigorously test their designs with a diverse user group to ensure no targeted group faces heightened risk, implement robust privacy and security measures on the platforms (e.g., disabling screenshots), and possibly guide users to understand and reflect on their desired level of self-disclosure and/or social penetration online.

6.3. Limitations and Future Work

Our study has several limitations. The first is that our participant sample includes significantly more people identifying as girls than as boys or non-binary. Further, BeReal introduced many new features since our data collection: (1) the integration of Spotify, where the cover art of the song or podcast a BeReal user is listening to will appear in the bottom right corner of their post, (2) a bonus BeReal where BeReal allows users to post an additional two BeReals throughout the day—but only if they post their first during the allotted two-minute window, (3) branded accounts (e.g., Adidas, Notion), and (4) “Groups” which resemble group chats, to name a few. Perceptions of platform norms have likely to have changed with the introduction of the new features. It would be useful for future work to explore how this extra disclosure and extra element of gamification support or undermine healthy and desired forms of authentic self-presentation or create further privacy concerns or pressure.

Future studies might also consider exploring methods to support more comprehensive authentic sharing integral to adolescent relationship-building. Specifically, while BeReal’s design indeed offers a new approach to social media—encouraging users to share more authentically—our study’s participants highlighted that the platform focuses primarily on one facet of self-disclosure: transparent photo sharing. They also mentioned the presence of potentially harmful, undesired, or incomplete forms of “authentic” self-presentation on BeReal. As a result, there remains a need for future research to explore novel designs that could cultivate different modes of sharing that transcend a single form of self-disclosure or self-presentation on social media, moving towards, for example, more intimate self-disclosure or deliberate self-presentation that our participants expressed a desire for.

7. Conclusion

In this paper, we explore the impact of design on promoting authenticity in social media. We conducted a qualitative interview study with 29 teen participants who use BeReal, a social media platform created to reduce self-presentation pressures and perceived lack of authenticity that arise from excessive content curation and strategic self-presentation. Our findings demonstrate that the affordances of BeReal effectively generate a space for authentic self-presentation, where users share their unfiltered lives and engage in relatively little social comparison. However, we also find that transparent photo sharing is only a single facet of our teen participants’ understanding of authentic self-presentation, and young people are eager for online spaces that allow them to share more than just the details of their day. This study contributes to the important discourse about the influence of social media on teen relationship-building and presents a framework and design guidance for developing platforms that support the different relationship and self-presentation needs of the youth.

Acknowledgements.

• noa ([n. d.]) [n. d.]. BeReal. Your friends for real. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bereal-your-friends-for-real/id1459645446 . Accessed: 2023-7-11.
• del ([n. d.]) [n. d.]. Qualitative Data Analysis Software. https://delvetool.com/ . Accessed: 2023-7-15.
• mir ([n. d.]) [n. d.]. The Visual Collaboration Platform for Every Team. https://miro.com/ . Accessed: 2023-7-18.
• noa (2023) 2023. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory . Technical Report.
• Aacap ([n. d.]) Aacap. [n. d.]. Social Media and Teens. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Social-Media-and-Teens-100.aspx . Accessed: 2023-7-17.
• Altman and Taylor (1973) Irwin Altman and Dalmas A Taylor. 1973. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Anderson et al . (2023) Monica Anderson, Michelle Faverio, and Jeffrey Gottfried. 2023. Teens, social media and technology 2023. Pew Res Cent (2023).
• Argyle (2013) Michael Argyle. 2013. The psychology of happiness . Routledge.
• Bailey et al . (2020) Erica R Bailey, Sandra C Matz, Wu Youyou, and Sheena S Iyengar. 2020. Authentic self-expression on social media is associated with greater subjective well-being. Nat. Commun. 11, 1 (Oct. 2020), 4889.
• Bargh (1996) John A Bargh. 1996. Automaticity in social psychology. (1996).
• Barta and Andalibi (2021) Kristen Barta and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Constructing Authenticity on TikTok: Social Norms and Social Support on the “Fun” Platform. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, Cscw2 (Oct. 2021), 1–29.
• Baumeister (1982) Roy F. Baumeister. 1982. A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 91 (1982), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.3 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
• Bayer et al . (2016) Joseph B Bayer, Nicole B Ellison, Sarita Y Schoenebeck, and Emily B Falk. 2016. Sharing the small moments: ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Inf. Commun. Soc. 19, 7 (July 2016), 956–977.
• Blumer (1986) Herbert Blumer. 1986. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Univ of California Press.
• Boyd (2008a) Danah Boyd. 2008a. Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning . unknown, 1–26.
• Boyd (2008b) Danah Michele Boyd. 2008b. Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics.
• Braun and Clarke (2019) Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597.
• Brown (2014) Jonathon Brown. 2014. The self . Psychology Press.
• Bukowski et al . (1998) William M Bukowski, Andrew F Newcomb, and Willard W Hartup. 1998. The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence . Cambridge University Press.
• Bulchand-Gidumal (2024) Jacques Bulchand-Gidumal. 2024. The case of BeReal and spontaneous online social networks and their impact on tourism: research agenda. Curr. Issues Tourism 27, 1 (Jan. 2024), 7–11.
• Cacioppo and Cacioppo (2014) John T Cacioppo and Stephanie Cacioppo. 2014. Social relationships and health: The toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Social and personality psychology compass 8, 2 (2014), 58–72.
• Canady (2023) Valerie A Canady. 2023. APA calls for improved social media messaging to parents, teens. Mental Health Weekly 33, 8 (2023), 7–8.
• Carpenter and Greene (2015) Amanda Carpenter and Kathryn Greene. 2015. Social Penetration Theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (1 ed.), Charles R Berger, Michael E Roloff, Steve R Wilson, James Price Dillard, John Caughlin, and Denise Solomon (Eds.). Wiley, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic160
• Cavalcanti et al . (2017) Luiz Henrique C B Cavalcanti, Alita Pinto, Jed R Brubaker, and Lynn S Dombrowski. 2017. Media, Meaning, and Context Loss in Ephemeral Communication Platforms: A Qualitative Investigation on Snapchat. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . Acm, Portland Oregon USA, 1934–1945.
• Cheek and Hogan (1983) Jonathan M Cheek and Robert Hogan. 1983. Self-concepts, self-presentations, and moral judgments. Psychological perspectives on the self 2 (1983), 249–273.
• Chiu and Yuan (2021) Hsuen Chi Chiu and Chien Wen (tina) Yuan. 2021. To Last Long or to Fade Away: Investigating Users’ Instagram Post and Story Practices. In Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . Acm, Virtual Event USA, 32–35.
• Choi et al . (2020) Sukyoung Choi, Dmitri Williams, and Hyeok Kim. 2020. A snap of your true self: How self-presentation and temporal affordance influence self-concept on social media. New Media & Society (Nov. 2020), 146144482097719.
• Choukas-Bradley et al . (2020) Sophia Choukas-Bradley, Jacqueline Nesi, Laura Widman, and Brian M Galla. 2020. The Appearance-Related Social Media Consciousness Scale: Development and validation with adolescents. Body Image 33 (June 2020), 164–174.
• Cohen (2004) Sheldon Cohen. 2004. Social relationships and health. American psychologist 59, 8 (2004), 676.
• Curry (2022) David Curry. 2022. BeReal Revenue and Usage Statistics (2023). https://www.businessofapps.com/data/bereal-statistics/ . Accessed: 2023-7-12.
• cycles and Text ([n. d.]) This text provides general information Statista assumes no liability for the information given being complete or correct Due to varying update cycles and Statistics Can Display More up-to-Date Data Than Referenced in the Text. [n. d.]. Topic: BeReal. https://www.statista.com/topics/10096/bereal/
• Darr and Doss (2022) Christopher R Darr and Erin F Doss. 2022. The Fake One is the Real One: Finstas, Authenticity, and Context Collapse in Teen Friend Groups. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 27, 4 (July 2022), zmac009.
• Davis (2012) Katie Davis. 2012. Friendship 2.0: adolescents’ experiences of belonging and self-disclosure online. J. Adolesc. 35, 6 (Dec. 2012), 1527–1536.
• Davis (2023) Katie Davis. 2023. Technology’s child: digital media’s role in the ages and stages of growing up . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Davis et al . (2023) Katie Davis, Petr Slovak, Rotem Landesman, Caroline Pitt, Abdullatif Ghajar, Jessica Lee Schleider, Saba Kawas, Andrea Guadalupe Perez Portillo, and Nicole S Kuhn. 2023. Supporting Teens’ Intentional Social Media Use Through Interaction Design: An exploratory proof-of-concept study. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Chicago, IL, USA) (Idc ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 322–334.
• DeVito et al . (2017) Michael A DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Jeffery T Hancock. 2017. Platforms, People, and Perception: Using Affordances to Understand Self-Presentation on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . Acm, Portland Oregon USA, 740–754.
• DeVito et al . (2018) Michael A DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2018. ’Too Gay for Facebook’: Presenting LGBTQ+ Identity Throughout the Personal Social Media Ecosystem. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, Cscw (Nov. 2018), 1–23.
• Elkind (1967) D Elkind. 1967. Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Dev. 38, 4 (Dec. 1967), 1025–1034.
• Erikson (1994a) Erik H. Erikson. 1994a. Identity: Youth and Crisis . W. W. Norton & Company. Google-Books-ID: nGqc6JxV0aQC.
• Erikson (1994b) Erik H Erikson. 1994b. Identity: Youth and Crisis . W. W. Norton & Company.
• Evans et al . (2017) Sandra K Evans, Katy E Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W Treem. 2017. Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research: EXPLICATING AFFORDANCES. J Comput-Mediat Comm 22, 1 (2017), 35–52.
• Falk et al . (2014) Ph.D Falk, Emily B., M.A Cascio, Christopher N., Ph.D Brook O’Donnell, Matthew, Ph.D Carp, Joshua, Francis J Tinney, Ph.D Bingham, C. Raymond, Ph.D Shope, Jean T., Ph.D Ouimet, Marie Claude, Ph.D Pradhan, Anuj K., and Ed.D Simons-Morton, Bruce G. 2014. Neural Responses to Exclusion Predict Susceptibility to Social Influence. Journal of adolescent health 54, 5 (2014), S22–s31.
• Fardouly et al . (2017) Jasmine Fardouly, Rebecca T. Pinkus, and Lenny R. Vartanian. 2017. The impact of appearance comparisons made through social media, traditional media, and in person in women’s everyday lives. Body image 20 (2017), 31–39.
• Forgas (2011) Joseph P Forgas. 2011. Affective influences on self-disclosure: Mood effects on the intimacy and reciprocity of disclosing personal information. Journal of personality and social psychology 100, 3 (2011), 449.
• Frey et al . (2018) Jérémy Frey, May Grabli, Ronit Slyper, and Jessica Cauchard. 2018. Breeze: Sharing Biofeedback through Wearable Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems (Chi ’18) . Acm, Ithaca, 1–12.
• Gardner (2013) Howard Gardner. 2013. The app generation : how today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world.
• Gervais et al . (2016) Renaud Gervais, Jérémy Frey, Alexis Gay, Fabien Lotte, and Martin Hachet. 2016. TOBE: Tangible Out-of-Body Experience. In Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (Tei ’16) . Acm, Ithaca, 227–235.
• Goffman (2016) Erving Goffman. 2016. The presentation of self in everyday life. In Social Theory Re-Wired . Routledge, 482–493.
• Greenwald and Breckler (1985) Anthony G Greenwald and Steven J Breckler. 1985. To whom is the self presented. The self and social life 126 (1985), 145.
• Haimson et al . (2021) Oliver L Haimson, Tianxiao Liu, Ben Zefeng Zhang, and Shanley Corvite. 2021. The Online Authenticity Paradox: What Being “Authentic” on Social Media Means, and Barriers to Achieving It. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, Cscw2 (Oct. 2021), 1–18.
• Hamilton et al . (2022) Jessica L Hamilton, Jacqueline Nesi, and Sophia Choukas-Bradley. 2022. Reexamining Social Media and Socioemotional Well-Being Among Adolescents Through the Lens of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Theoretical Review and Directions for Future Research. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 3 (May 2022), 662–679.
• Hargittai and Walejko (2008) Eszter Hargittai and Gina Walejko. 2008. The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Community and Society 11, 2 (2008), 239–256.
• Hogan (2010) Bernie Hogan. 2010. The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 30, 6 (2010), 377–386.
• Holt-Lunstad et al . (2010) Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Timothy B Smith, and J Bradley Layton. 2010. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS medicine 7, 7 (2010), e1000316.
• House et al . (1988) James S House, Karl R Landis, and Debra Umberson. 1988. Social relationships and health. Science 241, 4865 (1988), 540–545.
• Howell et al . (2019) Noura Howell, Greg Niemeyer, and Kimiko Ryokai. 2019. Life-Affirming Biosensing in Public: Sounding Heartbeats on a Red Bench. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (Chi ’19, Paper 680) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16.
• Hu (2022) Cindy Hsinyu Hu. 2022. Self-Disclosure for Early Relationship Development through Situated Prompts in Opportunistic Collective Experiences. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts . Acm, New Orleans LA USA, 1–5.
• Huang and Vitak (2022) Xiaoyun Huang and Jessica Vitak. 2022. “Finsta gets all my bad pictures”: Instagram Users’ Self-Presentation Across Finsta and Rinsta Accounts. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, Cscw1 (March 2022), 1–25.
• Impett et al . (2008) Emily A Impett, Lynn Sorsoli, Deborah Schooler, James M Henson, and Deborah L Tolman. 2008. Girls’ relationship authenticity and self-esteem across adolescence. Dev. Psychol. 44, 3 (2008), 722–733.
• Ito (2013) Mizuko Ito. 2013. Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media . The MIT press.
• Johnson (1981) John A Johnson. 1981. The” self-disclosure” and” self-presentation” views of item response dynamics and personality scale validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40, 4 (1981), 761.
• Jones (1990) Edward E Jones. 1990. Interpersonal perception. WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
• Kelly et al . (2017) Ryan Kelly, Daniel Gooch, Bhagyashree Patil, and Leon Watts. 2017. Demanding by Design: Supporting Effortful Communication Practices in Close Personal Relationships. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . Acm, Portland Oregon USA, 70–83.
• Kreling et al . (2021) Rebekka Kreling, Adrian Meier, and Leonard Reinecke. 2021. Feeling authentic on social media: Subjective authenticity across Instagram Stories and Posts . preprint. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jz3wm
• Laurenceau et al . (1998) J Laurenceau, L F Barrett, and P Pietromonaco. 1998. Intimacy as an interpersonal process: the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 5 (May 1998), 1238–1251.
• Leary (2019) Mark R Leary. 2019. Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior . Routledge.
• Litt (2012) Eden Litt. 2012. Knock, Knock. Who’s There? The Imagined Audience. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 56, 3 (July 2012), 330–345.
• Liu et al . (2019) Fannie Liu, Mario Esparza, Maria Pavlovskaia, Geoff Kaufman, Laura Dabbish, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2019. Animo: Sharing Biosignals on a Smartwatch for Lightweight Social Connection. Proceedings of ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies 3, 1 (2019), 1–19.
• Liu et al . (2021) Fannie Liu, Chunjong Park, Yu Jiang Tham, Tsung-Yu Tsai, Laura Dabbish, Geoff Kaufman, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2021. Significant Otter: Understanding the Role of Biosignals in Communication. In arXiv.org . Cornell University Library, arXiv.org, Ithaca.
• Maddox (2023) Jessica Maddox. 2023. More real, or just more surveillance? Panopticism and shifting authenticity paradigms in BeReal. Convergence 29, 5 (Oct. 2023), 1183–1198.
• Marwick and Boyd (2011) Alice E Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13, 1 (2011), 114–133.
• McPherson et al . (2006) Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E Brashears. 2006. Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American sociological review 71, 3 (2006), 353–375.
• Mentis et al . (2014) Helena M Mentis, Jarmo Laaksolahti, and Kristina Höök. 2014. My Self and You: Tension in Bodily Sharing of Experience. ACM transactions on computer-human interaction 21, 4 (2014), 1–26.
• Mitchell and Boer (2017) Robb Mitchell and Laurens Boer. 2017. Move Closer: Towards Design Patterns To Support Initiating Social Encounters. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (Chi Ea ’17) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2781–2787.
• Peake et al . (2013) Shannon J. Peake, Thomas J. Dishion, Elizabeth A. Stormshak, William E. Moore, and Jennifer H. Pfeifer. 2013. Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making. NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) 82 (2013), 23–34.
• Peets and Hodges (2018) Kätlin Peets and Ernest V E Hodges. 2018. Authenticity in friendships and well-being in adolescence. Soc. Dev. 27, 1 (2018), 140–153.
• Phua et al . (2017) Joe Phua, Seunga Venus Jin, and Jihoon (Jay) Kim. 2017. Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior 72 (July 2017), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041
• Pitt et al . (2021) Caroline Pitt, Ari Hock, Leila Zelnick, and Katie Davis. 2021. The kids are/not/sort of all right. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14.
• Piwek and Joinson (2016) Lukasz Piwek and Adam Joinson. 2016. “What do they snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service. Computers in Human Behavior 54 (Jan. 2016), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.026
• Prinstein (2023) Mitch Prinstein. 2023. Written Testimony . Technical Report. American Psychological Association (APA).
• Qin et al . (2021) Chao Ying Qin, Jun-Ho Choi, Marios Constantinides, Luca Maria Aiello, and Daniele Quercia. 2021. Having a Heart Time? A Wearable-based Biofeedback System. In 22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Oldenburg, Germany) (MobileHCI ’20, Article 29) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4.
• Reddy and Kumar (2024) Ananya Reddy and Priya C Kumar. 2024. ‘A Teaspoon of Authenticity’: Exploring How Young Adults BeReal on Social Media. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24, Article 907) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642690
• Robinson et al . (2020) Raquel Breejon Robinson, Elizabeth Reid, James Collin Fey, Ansgar E Depping, Katherine Isbister, and Regan L Mandryk. 2020. Designing and Evaluating ’In the Same Boat’, A Game of Embodied Synchronization for Enhancing Social Play. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (Chi ’20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14.
• Ryan and Ryan (2019) William S. Ryan and Richard M. Ryan. 2019. Toward a Social Psychology of Authenticity: Exploring Within-Person Variation in Autonomy, Congruence, and Genuineness Using Self-Determination Theory. Review of General Psychology 23, 1 (March 2019), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000162
• Schaadhardt et al . (2023) Anastasia Schaadhardt, Cory Gennari Pratt, Yue Fu, and Wanda Pratt. 2023. “Laughing so I don’t cry”: How TikTok users employ humor and compassion to connect around psychiatric hospitalization. (2023).
• Schlenker (1980) Barry R Schlenker. 1980. Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations (Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA) (1980).
• Schlenker (1985) Barry R Schlenker. 1985. Identity and self-identification. The self and social life 65, 1 (1985), 99–106.
• Schlenker (2003) Barry R Schlenker. 2003. Self-presentation. Handbook of self and identity 2 (2003), 542–570.
• Schlenker et al . (1996) Barry R Schlenker, Thomas W Britt, and John Pennington. 1996. Impression regulation and management: Highlights of a theory of self-identification. (1996).
• Schlenker and Pontari (2000) Barry R Schlenker and Beth A Pontari. 2000. The strategic control of information: Impression management and self-presentation in daily life. (2000).
• Schlenker and Wowra (2003) Barry R Schlenker and Scott A Wowra. 2003. Carryover effects of feeling socially transparent or impenetrable on strategic self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 5 (2003), 871.
• Schlosser (2020) Ann E Schlosser. 2020. Self-disclosure versus self-presentation on social media. Curr Opin Psychol 31 (Feb. 2020), 1–6.
• Snyder (2024) Sarah J Snyder. 2024. Always-on authenticity: Challenging the BeReal ideal of “being real”. Media Cult. Soc. 46, 2 (March 2024), 404–413.
• Somerville (2013a) Leah H Somerville. 2013a. Special issue on the teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 2 (April 2013), 121–127.
• Somerville (2013b) Leah H. Somerville. 2013b. The Teenage Brain: Sensitivity to Social Evaluation. Current directions in psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society 22, 2 (2013), 121–127.
• Steinberg (2005) Laurence Steinberg. 2005. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 2 (Feb. 2005), 69–74.
• Stepanova et al . (2022) Ekaterina R Stepanova, John Desnoyers-Stewart, Kristina Höök, and Bernhard E Riecke. 2022. Strategies for Fostering a Genuine Feeling of Connection in Technologically Mediated Systems. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Acm, New Orleans LA USA, 1–26.
• Stephanie Rivas-Lara Becky Pham Jasmine Baten Annie Meyers Yalda T. Uhls (2022) Stephanie Rivas-Lara Becky Pham Jasmine Baten Annie Meyers Yalda T. Uhls. 2022. CSS TEENS & SCREENS 2022 #Authenticity . Technical Report Center for Scholars and Storytellers. Ucla.
• Taber and Whittaker (2020) Lee Taber and Steve Whittaker. 2020. “On Finsta, I can say ’Hail Satan”’: Being Authentic but Disagreeable on Instagram. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Acm, Honolulu HI USA, 1–14.
• Tao and Ellison (2023) Michelle Tao and Nicole B Ellison. 2023. “It’s Your Finsta at the End of the Day . . . Kind of”: Understanding Emerging Adults’ Self-Presentational Changes on Secondary Accounts. Social Media + Society 9, 1 (Jan. 2023), 20563051231152812.
• Taylor (2023) Zari A Taylor. 2023. Everyone Stop What You’re Doing and BeReal: Live Networked Publics and Authenticity on BeReal. Social Media + Society 9, 4 (Oct. 2023), 20563051231216959.
• Tetlock and Manstead (1985) Philip E Tetlock and Antony S Manstead. 1985. Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological review 92, 1 (1985), 59.
• Tice et al . (1995) Dianne M Tice, Jennifer L Butler, Mark B Muraven, and Arlene M Stillwell. 1995. When modesty prevails: Differential favorability of self-presentation to friends and strangers. Journal of personality and social psychology 69, 6 (1995), 1120.
• Tidwell and Walther (2002) Lisa Collins Tidwell and Joseph B Walther. 2002. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human communication research 28, 3 (2002), 317–348.
• TikTok (2022) TikTok. 2022. Introducing more ways to create and connect with TikTok Now. https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/introducing-tiktok-now . Accessed: 2024-8-25.
• Tirocchi (2023) Simona Tirocchi. 2023. Generation Z, values, and media: from influencers to BeReal, between visibility and authenticity. Front Sociol 8 (2023), 1304093.
• Treem and Leonardi (2013) Jeffrey W Treem and Paul M Leonardi. 2013. Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Annals of the International Communication Association 36, 1 (2013), 143–189.
• Turkle (2016) Sherry Turkle. 2016. Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age . Penguin.
• Tyler (2012) James M Tyler. 2012. Triggering self-presentation efforts outside of people’s conscious awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38, 5 (2012), 619–627.
• Ullman (1987) Chana Ullman. 1987. From Sincerity to Authenticity: Adolescents’ Views of the “True Self”. J. Pers. 55, 4 (1987), 583–595.
• Vanhoffelen et al . (2023) Gaëlle Vanhoffelen, Lara Schreurs, Anneleen Meeus, Nele Janssens, Kathleen Beullens, and Laura Vandenbosch. 2023. BeReal, Be Happy? Examining the relationships between authentic self-presentations on BeReal and adolescents’ self-esteem. New Media & Society (Nov. 2023), 14614448231207783.
• Vaterlaus et al . (2016) J. Mitchell Vaterlaus, Kathryn Barnett, Cesia Roche, and Jimmy A. Young. 2016. “Snapchat is more personal”: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 62 (Sept. 2016), 594–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.029
• Vazire and Gosling (2004) Simine Vazire and Samuel D Gosling. 2004. e-Perceptions: personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of personality and social psychology 87, 1 (2004), 123.
• Vitak (2012) Jessica Vitak. 2012. The Impact of Context Collapse and Privacy on Social Network Site Disclosures. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 56, 4 (2012), 451–470.
• Vogels et al . (2022) Emily A Vogels, Risa Gelles-Watnick, and Navid Massarat. 2022. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/ . Accessed: 2023-7-7.
• Vohs et al . (2005) Kathleen D Vohs, Roy F Baumeister, and Natalie J Ciarocco. 2005. Self-regulation and self-presentation: regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of personality and social psychology 88, 4 (2005), 632.
• Waldinger and Schulz (2016) Robert J Waldinger and Marc S Schulz. 2016. The long reach of nurturing family environments: Links with midlife emotion-regulatory styles and late-life security in intimate relationships. Psychological science 27, 11 (2016), 1443–1450.
• Weinstein and Davis (2017) Emily Weinstein and Katie Davis. 2017. Identity Development in the Digital Age: An Eriksonian Perspective. In Identity, Sexuality, and Relationships among Emerging Adults in the Digital Age . IGI Global, 1–17.
• Williams and Gilovich (2008) Elanor F Williams and Thomas Gilovich. 2008. Do people really believe they are above average? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, 4 (2008), 1121–1128.
• Xiao et al . (2020) Sijia Xiao, Danaë Metaxa, Joon Sung Park, Karrie Karahalios, and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. Random, Messy, Funny, Raw: Finstas as Intimate Reconfigurations of Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Acm, Honolulu HI USA, 1–13.
• Xu et al . (2016) Bin Xu, Pamara Chang, Christopher L. Welker, Natalya N. Bazarova, and Dan Cosley. 2016. Automatic Archiving versus Default Deletion: What Snapchat Tells Us About Ephemerality in Design. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing . Acm, San Francisco California USA, 1662–1675. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819948
• Yau and Reich (2019) Joanna C Yau and Stephanie M Reich. 2019. “It’s Just a Lot of Work”: Adolescents’ Self-Presentation Norms and Practices on Facebook and Instagram. J. Res. Adolesc. 29, 1 (2019), 196–209.
• Zhao et al . (2008) Shanyang Zhao, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin. 2008. Identity Construction on Facebook: Digital Empowerment in Anchored Relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (09 2008), 1816–1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012
• Zheng et al . (2019) Dong Zheng, Xiao-Li Ni, and Yi-Jun Luo. 2019. Selfie Posting on Social Networking Sites and Female Adolescents’ Self-Objectification: The Moderating Role of Imaginary Audience Ideation. Sex Roles 80, 5 (March 2019), 325–331.
• Zheng et al . (2021) Qingxiao Zheng, Daniela M Markazi, Yiliu Tang, and Yun Huang. 2021. “PocketBot Is Like a Knock-On-the-Door!”: Designing a Chatbot to Support Long-Distance Relationships. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, Cscw2 (Oct. 2021), 1–28.

Appendix A Interview Protocol

<0 greetings>(5).

Thank you so much for joining me today! Hi, I’m xx, I am a researcher from xx, and I am studying what adolescents and young adults mean by “being real” on social media.

Today we’re going to talk about your experiences with using BeReal, and what you like or dislike about it.

The interview will last no longer than an hour, and we will make sure that none of the information that you share in this interview will be shared with anyone in a personally identifiable way.

Please remember that you should feel free to decline to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable with it.

I wanted to take a moment to ask if you have read the consent agreement and if you have any questions about the consent form?

Great. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this interview during or after our interview, please feel free to email me through the contact information on the consent form.

I don’t work for BeReal, so you don’t need to try to advocate for BeReal if you don’t.

Before we start our interview, do I have your permission to record this interview? The audio may be used in a research paper, but the video will not.

Stop interview.

Great, I’ve just started recording. Today is [date] and I’m talking to [participant ID].

Can you confirm that you have agreed to participate and to be recorded?

<1 Rapport / Apprehension>(10)

How long have you been using BeReal, and how often do(did) you use it?

How did you learn about the platform and why did you decide to use it?

How many friends do you think people typically have on BeReal?

How close are you with your BeReal friends?

How did you select the friends that you added on BeReal?

Do you have friends on BeReal that you don’t really trust?

What’s a typical post that you post(ed) on BeReal? Is there an example that you’re okay with sharing?

How would you describe a typical post that your friends post on BeReal?

Which social media platforms, besides BeReal, do you use or have used before? Which ones did you use most frequently?

What are some of the most fulfilling and the most stressful moments that you experience on each platform?

How is BeReal different from Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok in terms of its vibe?

What are some biggest differences among each community?

How about Instagram and Snapchat?

What are some reasons that people wouldn’t post on TikTok Now but would post on BeReal?

<2 Exploration>(10)

Do you feel that you’re getting to know your friends better through interactions on BeReal? In what ways?

Which features have you noticed that you think the BeReal creators introduced to encourage people to be more real?

BeReal says that it wants people to be more real online. What’s your impression of that goal?

Do you think BeReal is doing a good job of making a more authentic social media platform? To what extent?

What are some things they can improve on?

Do you ever feel like you’re being forced to be authentic on BeReal because of all the restrictions?

Do you ever hack their system, for example, by waiting on a notification until you’re ready to post, or do you know that your friends do that?

Is it okay or not okay to bend the rules on BeReal? Why?

What are some moments that you experience toxicity on BeReal, if there are any?

Do you ever feel self-conscious about the things you post on BeReal?

If you do, how do you or do you not overcome that?

Have you ever thought that someone else’s post is boring or that someone else’s life seems boring, seeing what they post on BeReal?

What advice would you give to someone who feels self-conscious on BeReal? For example if they are concerned that people will find their posts to be boring or inappropriate?

Was body image issue ever a concern for you or the people you know on BeReal?

Can you give me metaphors?

Do people seem to compare themselves with other people on BeReal? In terms of # of likes, # of friends, what they do on a daily basis, etc.

What’s a cringe post on BeReal? Like that’s weird why would you post that here?

Why do you feel that that is cringy?

Have you heard of any younger/older people that are like 13–15 (16–18) having different views about this? Are they different from the views that friends of your age have?

<3 Co-operative>(15)

Have you ever experienced times when you felt differently about other social media platforms because of your experiences on BeReal?

e.g.) they’re really fake, it feels more wrong to post things there

e.g.) they allow a lot of freedom to post, they are more fun and interesting

Does posting on BeReal feel different from posting on other social media? How?

If there is anything that you would post only on BeReal and not on any other social media, what would it be?

Why is it that on BeReal you can post those things?

What are some things about yourself that are not conveyed well on BeReal?

In your opinion, how would you define authenticity or being real? Why is it important or not important to you?

In your opinion, is authenticity on social media a good thing? Is more authenticity the better?

Are authenticity online and authenticity in daily lives different?

Do you want to experience more authenticity online than what you’re currently experiencing (on BeReal)?

In what context do you feel like you’re the most authentic? At home? On TikTok? At school? With friends?

Can you give an example of a time when you felt like you were being true to yourself?

(if the answer above is offline) What about on online platforms?

Can you think of any backlash or rejection for being authentic on social media?

Do you ever feel any pressure to conform to societal expectations on social media? Does that ever conflict with your efforts to be yourself on social media?

How do you stay authentic to your values and beliefs when faced with peer pressure or temptation?

What’s your impression of the company?

Let’s say you can change current social media in any way possible, from the audience, the design, the features, and everything. What would you like to change the most and why?

When you’re trying to be authentic online, do you find photos to be more effective or text? Temporary vs permanent posts? Larger vs closer groups of friends?

How does BeReal handle privacy and security compared to other platforms you use?

How does BeReal’s content moderation compare to other platforms you use?

Does that affect your view of the platform or the company?

Will having advertisements on BeReal affect how you like BeReal?

<4 Concluding>(5)

How would you describe your BeReal experience using three adjectives? Why did you choose [words]?

If you could change two things about BeReal, what would they be? The design, the features, the people, anything you can think of.

What would make you stop using BeReal? When would you decide to stop using it?