Preprint of: Fullwood, C., James, B., & Chen-Wilson, J. (2016).

Self-concept clarity and online

self-presentation in adolescents. CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 19(12),
716-720.

Abstract
The Internet may be conceptualised as a social laboratory, providing freedom to experiment
with different presentations of self. Adolescence is an important time in the development of
self-concept, however little is known about how clarity of self-concept relates to online
behaviour. The principal aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that self-concept clarity
would be associated with adolescents’ inclination to experiment with online self-presentation.
148 participants aged 13-18 completed the Self-Concept Clarity Scale, the Facebook Intensity
Scale and the Presentation of Online Self Scale (POSS). Adolescents possessing a less stable
sense of self reported experimenting with online self-presentation more regularly, presenting
an idealised version of the self and a preference for presenting themselves online. Adolescents
with a more stable self-concept reported presenting an online self which was more consistent
with their offline self-presentation. Younger adolescents were more likely to present an
inconsistent self, whereas older adolescents presented themselves more consistently across
different communication contexts. Finally, adolescents who spent more time on Facebook and
had fewer Facebook friends were more likely to present multiple versions of the self whilst
online. The implications of these findings will be discussed in terms of the development of the
self-concept during adolescence and the potential for the online world to facilitate flexible
identity construction and self-presentation.

Introduction

It has long been recognised that the online world affords users greater freedom to experiment

with “the constructions and reconstructions of the self”1 (pg. 80). Scholars generally agree that

the Internet comprises several idiosyncratic features which permit greater flexibility in self-

presentation2,3. These include: the increased potential to interact anonymously, leading to a

virtual environment seemingly safer and easier for self-disclosure; greater control over content

creation and modification, for example users can make more deliberate decisions over which

photos they upload; and more opportunities for asynchronous interaction, meaning that users

can edit messages/content before sending/posting2,3,4,5. These factors are suggested to promote

optimal self-presentation6,7.

1
Although being online undoubtedly provides the freedom to try on different masks and see how

they feel, not all who venture into cyberspace take up these opportunities. Indeed, many

individuals present an online self more or less consistent with their offline self8,9. Research has

identified numerous variables which relate to online self-presentation experimentation,

including loneliness10,11, low levels of social support10, low self-esteem12 and narcissism13.

Certain types of individuals may be more predisposed to experiment with self-presentation

online, perhaps because they wish to compensate for certain shortcomings or because they are

especially motivated to garner desirable impressions2. In this paper, we focus on the role that

self-concept clarity may play in determining one’s inclination to engage in different types of

self-presentation behaviour online. Moreover, we shift our attention to a group who are

associated with possessing a malleable sense of self, namely adolescents.

Self-concept may be defined as “the totality of an individual's thoughts and feelings having

reference to himself as an object”14 (pg. 7). Our self-concept is derived from ruminations and

evaluations about our interactions with others and the world around us and subsequent

perceptions of abilities, identities, characteristics and attributes15. The self-concept is

essentially a collection of beliefs that one possesses about oneself, incorporating past, present

and possible future selves16. Adolescence is a crucial stage in human development and it is

during the transition from childhood to adulthood that developing a clear sense of self and

identity takes centre stage17,18,19. An integrated sense of self is unlikely to have been fully

realised during adolescence, so experimenting with different ways of behaving as an act of self-

discovery is common in adolescents20,21. For many adolescents, moving towards the formation

of a stable and cohesive self may lead to an identity conflict as various potential selves are tried

out and tested22. Adolescents also have to contend with dramatic physiological changes

including sexual maturation, physical growth and cognitive development18.

2
It is clear that establishing a sense of identity and self is an important part of development,

particularly given research findings suggesting that a clear sense of self predicts psychological

adjustment23. Individuals vary in the extent to which their self-concept is ‘‘clearly and

confidently defined, internally consistent, and temporally stable’’ and this has become known

as self-concept clarity24 (p.141). Those with lower self-concept clarity also possess lower self-

esteem, score higher in neuroticism, engage in more self-focused ruminations, and hold less

stable self-descriptions over time. Conversely, those with a more clearly defined sense of self

are less prone to prolonged self-analysis and have higher self-esteem24. Developing a clear and

stable sense of the self would therefore seem to have important ramifications for psychological

wellbeing and social development.

The online world and social media in particular, provide young people with a ‘tool’ to try out

different presentations of the self and to see how others react to them. Receiving approval (for

example in the form of ‘likes’) may serve to authenticate a particular presentation of self, which

may then be incorporated into one’s offline identity25. No study to date has examined the role

that self-concept clarity may play in shaping how young people present themselves online.

Therefore, the primary aim of the current study was to test whether self-concept clarity could

predict various types of online self-presentation behaviour in adolescents. We hypothesise that

adolescents with a less stable sense of self will be more likely to experiment with their online

self-presentation and present an idealised version of the self. Further, we expect those in late

adolescence to have a more stable self-concept and to present an online self more consistent

with the offline self. Additionally, as Facebook has the largest membership base of all social

media platforms, we expected it to be the principal environment in which adolescents engage

in online identity experiments. For this reason, we wanted to see if one’s level of attachment

3
to and engagement with Facebook would be associated with self-presentation behaviour;

however a lack of previous research relating to these factors prevented the formulation of any

specific predictions.

Method

Participants

148 participants (60 males; 88 females) were recruited from schools in the West Midlands area

of the U.K. The mean age was 15.50 years (standard deviation 1.87), ranging from 13 to 18

years.

Materials

The Self-Concept Clarity Scale is a 12-item scale which assesses “the extent to which self-

beliefs are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent and stable”24 (pg. 141). All

questions are on a 5-point Likert scale (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’) and the

questionnaire has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .86)24. Examples of items

include ‘my beliefs about myself often conflict with one another’ and ‘in general I have a clear

sense of who I am and what I am’. The Facebook Intensity Scale26 includes behavioural items

(i.e. hours per day on Facebook and total number of Friends) as well as attitudinal items which

assess the individuals’ relationship with the site (i.e. how important Facebook is to them).

Response categories on the attitudinal items (Facebook Intensity) ranged from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Response categories on hours per day were presented on an

ordinal scale with 6 categories ranging from ‘0-1 hours’ to ‘6+ hours’. Response categories on

number of friends were presented on an ordinal scale with 5 categories ranging from ‘0-200’

to ‘800+’. The scale is reported to have good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .83).

The initial item pool for the Presentation of Online Self Scale (POSS), developed for this study,

4
contained 24 items and participants rated on a 5-point Likert scale (from ‘strongly disagree’ to

‘strongly agree’) the extent to which each item accurately described how they felt about their

online self-presentation behaviours. Drawing on available research and theory2,3,4,6, items were

selected for the initial pool to tap into the different ways in which people may experiment with

self-presentation online (e.g. by presenting an idealised version of self, a false version of self

or experimenting with multiple self presentations simultaneously).

The initial item pool of 24 for the POSS was subjected to exploratory factor analysis with

varimax rotation to determine the factor structure. Factor loadings of .4 or greater were deemed

statistically significant, so only these loadings were kept27.

Table 1: Factor loadings and internal reliability for the POSS

1 2 3 4

Factor 1: Ideal self

I feel more comfortable behaving how I want to online .721
I can show my best qualities online .712
Being online allows me to express myself .674
The way I present myself online differs significantly from real life .660
Communicating online allows me to say the things I can’t say offline .640
I like going online because it allows me to be a different .608
I feel I can be my ideal self-online .527
I can escape from myself online .514
I can talk to people who wouldn’t usually talk to me in the real world .430

Factor 2: Multiple selves

I very often act out different personas in certain online spaces .809
I regularly use different personas online .771
I enjoy acting out different identities online .703
Being online allows me to create a new identity .673
I am a different person depending on which online space I’m in .636

Factor 3: Consistent self

I feel my personality online is the real me .693
I feel I am the same person in the cyber world that I am in the real world .640
I am always my true self online .636
I can’t really be myself online -.635

Factor 4: Online presentation preference

I find it easier to communicate in face to face contexts -.759
I find it difficult to be myself in the real world .688
I prefer being online than offline .594

Cronbach’s alpha .862 .847 .621 .715

5
The final factor structure of the POSS accounted for 53.99% of the variance. Assumptions of

sphericity (χ² = 1455.32; p<0.001) and sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.864) were

met. The final factor structure comprising of 21 items, can be seen in Table 1, including factor

labels and Cronbach’s alphas. The 4 factors were: 1) ‘ideal self’ which relates to the extent to

which individuals present an idealised version of the self online, 2) ‘multiple selves’ describes

the extent to which individuals present different versions of the self across online

environments, 3) ‘consistent self’ relates to the extent to which an individual’s offline and

online self-presentation are analogous, and 4) ‘online presentation preference’ describes the

extent to which individuals prefer presenting themselves online.

Procedure

After permission had been gained from schools, consent was sought from each participant

depending on their age. For participants younger than 16, consent was obtained from parents

or schools in the place of the parents. Assent from the younger participants was also obtained

on the day of the survey taking place. Consent was sought directly from participants older than

16. Participants were presented with a questionnaire booklet consisting of the Self-Concept

Clarity Scale24, Facebook Intensity Scale26 and Presentation of Online Self Scale (POSS).

Questionnaires were completed in semi-private settings within the educational institutes from

which participants were recruited. Participants therefore completed the questionnaires in large

groups, but under the supervision of teachers and under exam conditions. The entire pack took

approximately twenty minutes to complete. Participants were fully debriefed with regard to the

aims of the study upon completion.

Results

6
 Correlations

Several of the factors in the POSS were significantly inter-correlated. ‘Ideal self’ correlated

positively with ‘multiple selves’ (r = .644, p<.001) and ‘online presentation preference’ (r =

.589, p<.001). A positive association was found between ‘multiple selves’ and ‘online

presentation preference’ (r = .455, p<.001). ‘Consistent self’ was negatively associated with

‘online presentation preference’ (r = -.210, p<.05). Additionally, there was a significant

positive relationship between self-concept clarity and number of Facebook friends (r = .162,

p<0.05). There was no significant relationship between age and self-concept clarity (r = .100,

p = .223). See table 2 displaying inter-correlations between all of the variables.

Table 2: Correlation coefficients (Pearson Correlations) and summary statistics for all variables (means and
standard deviations in brackets)

Mean (SD) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(1) Age 15.50 (1.87) 1.00
(2) Self-concept clarity 2.81 (0.68) .100 1.00
(3) Facebook Intensity 2.77 (1.05) -.070 -.069 1.00
(4) Facebook Friends 2.37 (1.25) -.098 .162* .281** 1.00
(5) Facebook Hours 2.12 (1.36) -.145 .035 .590** .437** 1.00
(6) Ideal Self 2.88 (0.79) -.094 -.371** .248** -.063 .177* 1.00
(7) Multiple Selves 2.18 (0.80) -.062 -.325** .116* -.106 .198* .644** 1.00
(8) Consistent Self 3.40 (0.69) .156 .255** .173* .153 .225** -.089 -.142 1.00
(9) Online Preference 2.70 (0.88) -.182* -.420** .215** -.068 .166* .589** .455** -.210** 1.00
* <0.05, ** <0.01

Four 2-stage hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with ideal self, multiple selves,

consistent self and online presentation preference as the separate dependent variables. To

control for Age, Facebook Intensity, Facebook hours and Facebook friends, these variables

were entered at stage one. Self-concept clarity was entered at stage two.

Ideal self

7
At stage one, Facebook intensity and Facebook friends contributed significantly to the

regression model (F (4, 145) = 3.834, p < 0.01) and accounted for 9.6% of the variance

(adjusted R2 = .071) for ‘ideal self’. Introducing Self-concept clarity explained an additional

10.9% of the variance (R2 = .205; adjusted R2 = .177) and this change was significant (F (5,

144) = 7.426, p < 0.01). When all five independent variables were included at stage 2, only

Self-concept clarity (Beta = -.395, t = -4.45, p<0.01) was a significant predictor of ‘ideal self’.

Multiple selves

At stage one, Facebook hours and Facebook friends contributed significantly to the regression

model (F (4, 145) = 3.671, p < 0.01) and accounted for 9.2% of the variance (adjusted R2 =

.067) for ‘multiple selves’. Introducing Self-concept clarity explained an additional 8.6% of

the variance (R2 =.178; adjusted R2 = .149) and this change was significant (F (5, 144) = 6.235,

p < 0.01). When all five independent variables were included at stage 2, Facebook Hours (Beta

= .156, t = 2.63, p<0.01), Facebook Friends (Beta = -.120, t = -2.17, p<0.05) and Self-concept

clarity (Beta = -.354, t = -3.88, p<0.01) were significant predictors of ‘multiple selves’.

Consistent self

At stage one, Age contributed significantly to the regression model (F (4, 145) = 3.745, p <

0.01) and accounted for 9.4% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .069) for ‘consistent self’.

Introducing Self-concept clarity explained an additional 5.1% of the variance (R2 =.145;

adjusted R2 = .116) and this change was significant (F (5, 144) = 4.892, p < 0.01). When all

five independent variables were included at stage 2, Age (Beta = .061, t = 2.13, p<0.05) and

Self-concept clarity (Beta = .234, t = 2.95, p<0.01) were significant predictors of ‘consistent

self’.

8
Online presentation preference

At stage one, Age and Facebook Friends contributed significantly to the regression model (F

(4, 145) = 4.157, p < 0.01) and accounted for 10.3% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .078) for

‘online presentation preference’. Introducing Self-concept clarity explained an additional 14%

of the variance (R2 =.243; adjusted R2 = .216) and this change was significant (F (5, 144) =

9.225, p < 0.01). When all five independent variables were included at stage 2, only Self-

concept clarity (Beta = -.496, t = -5.15, p<0.01) was a significant predictor of ‘online

presentation preference’.

Discussion

From this exploratory study, the role of self-concept clarity in explaining different online self-

presentations can be clearly seen in the added variance accounted for in the hierarchical

regression models (5.1%-14%). This role is particularly noticeable in ones preference for

online self-presentation, with lower self-concept clarity predicting a preference to present

online rather than offline. Additionally, adolescents who possessed a less stable self-concept

were more likely to report presenting an ideal self, made more diverse self-presentations and

presented an online self which was inconsistent with their offline self. These findings echo the

observation that adolescents perceive social media as a ‘tool’ to try out and test different

presentations of the self25.

In exploring the link between self-concept clarity and the different ways in which adolescents

experiment with their online self-presentation, we offer a number of tentative explanations. An

adolescent who can provide a coherent answer to the question ‘who am I?’ should, in theory,

feel little desire to test out the presentation of alternative possible selves, as ultimately he/she

will have a strong sense of who they are and may feel more confident presenting this version

9
of the self both on- and off-line24. The adolescent with low self-concept clarity on the other

hand may wish to present different versions of the self as an act of self-discovery as they work

towards understanding who they are and finding a self that they are comfortable with25.

Alternatively, considering that those with low self-concept clarity have also been reported to

possess lower self-esteem24, it may be that these individuals are less satisfied with themselves

and are therefore more prone to exploring alternative identities.

One possible explanation for why adolescents with low self-concept clarity may be happier

presenting themselves online could be because they are provided with a much greater degree

of flexibility in self-presentation options and will therefore not be constrained in the same way

that they might be offline2,3. The presentation of an ‘ideal self’ may also be perceived as a

default self-presentation position by some individuals with low self-concept clarity. It could be

argued that when we are not quite sure how we would like others to perceive us, the most

sensible option might be to opt for a type of self-presentation which is going to win favours

with others and boost our popularity across the board. Indeed, only under exceptional

circumstances are we likely to deliberately engage in impression management tactics which

would garner unfavourable responses28.

There was also some suggestion that those adolescents who spent increased amounts of time

on Facebook and who had fewer Facebook friends, combined with low self-concept clarity,

were more likely to present multiple versions of the self online. It may be that testing out

different presentations of the self online is an activity which requires a greater time investment

than what the average user would normally expend. Alternatively, receiving praise and

validation from others might be particularly appealing to those who have a less stable and clear

self-concept, leading them to spend increased amounts of time in environments where they can

10
achieve this. Additionally, having fewer Facebook friends might either suggest that those with

low self-concept clarity have more difficulty making friends generally11, or that getting away

with presenting multiple, inconsistent versions of the self would be easier to achieve when

there are fewer individuals who could potentially pick you up on these incongruous variations.

However as these are speculative ideas, additional research is needed to further explore the

nature of this relationship.

Older adolescents were more likely to have consistent presentations of self between their off-

and on-line interactions which may suggest that they are closer to attaining a clearer sense of

self than the younger adolescents17,24. However, the fact that there was no straightforward

relationship between age and self-concept clarity would possibly warrant an alternative

explanation. Future research may benefit from a more longitudinal approach in order to more

precisely test how experimentations with self-presentation online feed into the development of

the self-concept or vice versa across the adolescent period.

Overall, the results from this investigation provide evidence to support the notion that self-

concept clarity is a good predictor of an adolescent’s inclination to engage in self-presentation

experiments whilst online. A more fluid approach to self-presentation may be particularly

appealing to an individual whose sense of self is not clear and well defined as it permits them

to try out different self-presentations in an attempt to resolve identity crises and work towards

the discovery of a coherent self-concept. However, it is worth recognising some of the

limitations of this research, including the use of self-report measures which required

participants to reflect accurately on their current and previous online behaviour. In addition,

the sample was limited in size and scope to adolescents living in the UK. Future research

endeavours may focus on examining the construct validity of the POSS, for example by

11
correlating it with established constructs that may be related to self-presentation

experimentation (e.g. the self-monitoring scale29). In addition, it may be enlightening to

examine gender differences in self-presentation behaviour across different platforms. For

example, with teenage boys gaming may present more opportunities for multiple self

presentations than social media platforms. Finally, it would be worthwhile replicating the study

with adults to test if self-concept clarity is also related to online self-presentation

experimentation in a non-adolescent sample.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Divya Narda for help with scoring and data entry.

References

1. Turkle S. (1995) Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
2. Fullwood C. (2015) The role of personality in online self-presentation. In Attrill A, ed.
Cyberpsychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 9-28.
3. Valkenburg PI, Schouten AP, Peter J. Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet.
New Media and Society 2005, 7(3): 383-402.
4. McKenna KYA, Green AS, Gleeson MJ. Relationship formation on the Internet:
What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues 2002, 58: 9-32.
5. Suler J. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology, Social Networking and
Behavior 2004, 7(3): 321-326.
6. Walther JB. Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 1996, 23: 3-43.
7. Walther, JB, Parks M. (2002) Cues filtered out, cues filtered in. In Knapp ML and Daly
JA, eds. Handbook of interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.
529-563.
8. Back MD, Stopfer JM, Vazire S, Gaddis S, Schmukle SC, Egloff B, Gosling SD.
Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealisation. Psychological
Science 2010, 21(3): 372-374.
9. Gosling SD, Augustine AA, Vazire S, Holtzman N, Gaddis S. Manifestations of
personality in online social networks: self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and

12
 observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking
2011, 14(9): 483-488.
10. Leung L. Loneliness, social support, and preference for online social interaction: The
mediating effects of identity experimentation online among children and
adolescents. Chinese Journal of Communication 2011, 4(4): 381–399.
11. Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Adolescents' identity experiments on the Internet:
Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research
2008, 35(2): 208-231.
12. Zywica J, Danowski J. The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and
social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook and offline popularity from
sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic
networks. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 2008, 14(1): 1-34.
13. Mehdizadeh S. Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 2010, 13: 357-364.
14. Rosenberg, M. (1979) Conceiving the self. NY: Basic
15. Gecas V. The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology 1982, 8: 1-33.
16. Markus H, Nurius P. Possible selves. American Psychologist 1986, 41(9): 954–969.
17. Brinthaupt TM, Lipka RP. (2002) Understanding early adolescent self and identity:
Applications and interventions. Albany: State University of New York Press.
18. Coleman J. (2011) The nature of adolescence (4th Edition). London: Routledge.
19. Harter S. (1999) The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York:
Guilford Press.
20. Coleman J. Introduction: Digital technologies in the lives of young people. Oxford
Review of Education 2012, 38(1): 1-8.
21. Strasburger VC, Wilson BJ, Jordan AB (2014) Children and adolescents: Unique
audiences. Children, Adolescents, and the Media. U.S.A: Sage Publications, pp. 11-19.
22. Baumeister RF, Shapiro JP, Tice DM. Two kinds of identity crisis. Journal of
Personality 1985, 53: 407-424.
23. Bigler, M., Neimeyer, G. J., & Brown, E. (2001). The divided self revisited: Effects of
self-concept clarity and self-concept differentiation on psychological adjustment.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 396-415.
24. Campbell JD, Trapnell PD, Heine SJ, Katz IM, Lavallee LF, Lehman DR. Self-concept
clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 1996, 70(1): 141-156.
25. Manago AM, Graham MB, Greenfield PM, Salimkhan G. Self-presentation and gender
on Myspace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2008, 29(6): 446-458.
26. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital
and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication 2007, 12(4): 1143-1168.
27. Field AP (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd edition). London: Sage.
28. Leary MR. (1995) Self-presentation, impression management and interpersonal
behaviour. Madison, Wisconsin; Brown and Benchmark.
29. Lennox RD, Wolfe RN. Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 1984, 46, 1349-1364.

13