I Introduction
All the world’s a stage. And all the men and women merely players: They have
their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.
--Shakespeare , As You Like It, 2/7
Shakespeare gave the Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman one of the most
powerful sociological concepts: All the world is a stage, and we are actors playing our
parts. We are in effect reading from scripts, and frequently improvising when we
forget our lines. This insight is developed in Goffman’s (1959) book The Presentation
of Self in Everyday Life, which remains one of the classic texts of symbolic
10
interactionism.
The features of online communities, such as interactivity, asynchronous
communication, and human-centred design provide people with a new type of
community where individuals can interact with each other everywhere and all the
time, but only if they keep connected. In addition, the popularity of social networking
sites (SNSs), such as Facebook, Twitter, and Weibo means that identity may not be
completely fluid because real-world relationships define online community members,
decreasing the effect of anonymity. Gross and Acquisti (2005) stated that Facebook
members tend to share more about their real selves by updating their statuses.
Within this new type of inter-personal interaction, a great deal of research
20
shows that the asynchronous and controllable method of communicating on SNSs
creates huge possibilities for impression management so that SNS members can
present their ideal selves via disclosure of certain social cues (Altheide, 2000;
Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Ellison, Heino & Gibbs, 2006; Friedlander, 2011;
1
Gosling, Gaddis & Vazire, 2007). Identity presentation on SNSs centres on the user's
profile, which becomes a stage where users can make semi-public or public selfpresentations.
Goffman’s (1959) theories of identity and social performance can be adopted
to interpret the phenomena of online self-presentation (Hogan, 2010; Kaplan &
Haenlein, 2010; Oksaman & Tutianinen, 2004; Papacharissi, 2009; Pempek,
30
Yermolayeva & Calvert, 2009; Schau & Gilly, 2003). Goffman’s thesis is that selfpresentation is an intentional and tangible component of identity. Social actors engage
in complex intraself negotiation to project a desired impression.
Although the phenomena of online self-presentation are well addressed, there
are not many studies discussing the cultural differences present (Wilson, Gosling &
Graham, 2012). For example, Chinese culture engages in collectivism more than
Western countries (for example America and Europe) which are more individualistic.
Whether this affects SNSs users’ behaviour and the level of representation on social
networking sites is seldom touched upon.
To be specific, some concepts show that Chinese personalities and
40
characteristics are distinct from Western ones. For example, ‘Context-Oriented
style’(Hsu, 1985), ‘Social-Oriented style’ (Yang, 1981), ‘Collectivism’ (Triandis,
1988), and ‘Interdependant-oriented style’ (Marcus & Kitayama, 1991) all emphasise
that in the Chinese cultural context, people generally face group pressure and tend to
care about each other’s opinions because they believe that being is collectively
objective and not individually objective. This value also affects how people represent
themselves in public, so it is generally believed people that are from collective
cultures tend to present only their positive side to the public (Triandis, 1988).
2
In addition, some research has pointed out that people tend to represent their
authentic self instead of inaccurate or enhanced information on Facebook because the
50
majority of friendships are from their offline life (Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2007;
Lampe, Ellison & Steinfield, 2006; Pempek, Yermolayeva & Calvert, 2009). However,
Hofstede (2001) proposed “collectivism-individualism” to describe a general cultural
distinction between West and East. Some features of collectivism, such as caring
about others’ assessments, may result in the fact that individuals do not lose face to
the public. Therefore, instead of presenting an authentic self, the research argues that
others’ influences can affect collectivistic members’ presentation on social
networking sites. The research will adopt Facebook as a research sphere and explore
how the value of collectivistic culture shapes the method by which people present
themselves on social networking sites.
60
II Different Facebook Use between Collectivistic and Individual Members
The central question of my research is how the influence of others may affect
methods and the contents which collectivistic members choose to present on
Facebook. In order to clarify the phenomena of how national culture may affect
Facebook use, this section will address the differences in Facebook usage between
collectivistic and individualistic members through some empirical research.
Huang (2012) deployed questionnaire surveys to collect 4789 samples in
Taiwan (Republic of China) to understand Taiwanese Facebook use. The survey
showed that the average user has 358 friends, which is much higher than the global
70
average (139 friends) (Facebook, 2012), and the average number of friends in the
United States (214 friends) (Backstorm, 2011). Huang utilised the concept of
3
‘Chinese relation culture’ to interpret the phenomena. Within collectivist cultures,
people view individuals as a member of a group, and people tend to believe they can
obtain more benefits from in-group relations than outer-group relations. Therefore,
people add not only acquaintances, but also someone they have met only once, as a
Facebook. This implies Facebook friends of collectivist people consist of some
unfamiliar relationships.
In addition, some research has concluded that although the behaviours of selfenhancement may occur on Facebook, users generally represent a fairly accurate
80
image of their offline identity because the majority of friendships are from real life
acquaintances (Waggoner, Smith & Collins, 2009; Weisbuch, Ivcevic & Ambaby,
2009). Similarly, Wilson, Gosling and Graham (2012: 210) stated that ‘people are not
as motivated to self-enhance when they are certain about the strength of a relationship
or when the relevant self-views are firmly held’.
Even though numerous researchers (mainly from western studies) have
depicted that people tend to present a more authentic self on Facebook, it does not
necessarily mean there is no cultural difference in presentation on Facebook. For
example, Hsu (2011) collected samples from 2013 Taiwanese college students
through a questionnaire in an attempt to explore the phenomena of presentation on
90
Facebook. The findings showed Taiwanese college students tend to choose good news,
or to reveal some social cues that are beneficial to the self, to present on Facebook,
albeit the majority of friendships consist of acquaintances in offline life. Hsu’s
research did not discuss what factors influence Taiwanese college students
presentation on Facebook, but the finding implies there is a difference of selfpresentation on Facebook between East and West.
4
III Research Framework
The above discussion implies Facebook use may be geographically different.
In other words, digital culture is not harmonious in each national frontier. Instead,
nationality could be a dynamic to differentiate digital culture, and further create an
100
exclusive digital culture combined with local culture. This implies the manner of selfpresentation on Facebook could be distinctive within varied cultural contexts.
Hofstede (2001) proposed the concept of individualism-collectivism to explain
geographical culture, generally referring to West and East and how national culture
can affect individuals’ manners in everyday life. Specifically, Hofstede (2001)
pointed out (a) in-group influence, (b)other’s assessment, and (c) interdependent self,
are the main factors affecting the manner of interpersonal interaction in everyday life
toward collectivistic members. In other words, others people’s influence (or peers’
influence) is the main dynamic for collectivistic members to decide what manners to
present during interpersonal interaction.
110
In the digital generation, Facebook has not only gradually replaced the
importance of traditional face-to-face interpersonal interaction, but also become one
of the most popular platforms in providing individuals with the ability to interact with
each other by presenting personal information and liking and commenting on each
others’ statuses. Most importantly, digital characteristics, such as user-centre and
asynchronicity, are likely to empower collectivistic members to present their ideal
selves on Facebook via self-enhancement and further prevent them from losing face to
others.
Hence, the research will explore how the influence of others affects the
Taiwanese - one of the countries with a collectivistic culture - presentation on
5
120
Facebook through three values of collectivistic culture: (a) in-group influence, (b)
others’ assessments, and (c) interdependent self. Based on the research framework,
the research is divided into two sections. The first section addresses how others
influence how the Taiwanese present themselves on Facebook. In addition, Facebook
is a relatively open place where a variety of relationships, for example relationships
from childhood, family, college, work, and so on, are gathered. That is, situations,
encounters and people are not bonded anymore during interpersonal interactions on
Facebook. Instead, every interpersonal interaction is transparent on Facebook, and
each interaction can be seen by all other Facebook friends, even those Facebook
friends that are not involved in the interaction. Hence, the second section of my
130
research will explore how the Taiwanese create an interdependent self through
presentation within the context of multiple relationships on Facebook.
140
6
IV Literature Review
The research explores how others’ influences affect Taiwanese presentation on
Facebook through the value of collectivism. Dramaturgical theory from Goffman was
originally utilised to interpret self presentation within interpersonal interaction in
everyday life. Facebook provides an environment where users can easily choose what
social cues they want to present to the public. Therefore, the literature review will
address the self-presentation from Goffman’s dramaturgical theory, followed by a
discussion of self-presentation on Facebook. Following this, in-group influence,
150
other’s assessment, and interdependent self, which are three values of collectivism,
will be addressed.
1. Self-presentation
A dramaturgical theory proposed by Goffman in 1959 is broadly utilised to
interpret individuals’ presentation in everyday life. Facebook provides a digital
platform with features of asynchronicity and use-centre to enable individuals to
interact with each other. Because of its digital features, interpersonal interaction can
exist at a distance. In other words, people are empowered to have plenty of time to
160
prepare which image they want to present to the public. The phenomena with which
people present themselves on Facebook could be explored by the concepts of ‘front
stage’, ‘backstage’ and ‘impression management’ from Dramaturgical theory.
Therefore, the following will address Dramaturgical theory and self-presentation on
Facebook to clarify the research framework.
7
A Dramaturgical Theory
Goffman (1959) illustrated that individuals can be seen as actors in
theatres who play a variety of roles on the stage throughout their life. On the stage,
people can obtain views from audiences, so they tend to make efforts to play suitable
roles to match the expectations of audiences. Therefore, self-presentation can be seen
170
as social behaviour with goal-driven intentions caused by an audience’s awareness. In
addition, Goffman further pointed out that performers do not reveal all the
information regarding themselves, yet control what information they want to reveal to
the public, relying on their own purposes, such as managing impressions ( Goffman,
1959; Waggoner, Smiths & Collins, 2009), saving face (Cho, 2010 ), and controlling
their relationship with audiences (Jones, 1990).
Based on these, Goffman depicted the place people ‘perform’ a certain
role to the ‘audiences’ is ‘front stage’, and they will retreat to a ‘backstage’ to go back
to a non-performance role. To be specific, Goffman (1959) argued that life is
consisted on a series of acting because performers can play the roles they want in
180
everyday life. If a great deal of interpersonal interaction is task-oriented, a huge
number of self-presentations will occur. That is, during the interpersonal interaction,
people are viewed as performers whose behaviours are seen by audiences in the front
stage. Furthermore, the performers will adjust to different roles according to which
audience are currently on the scene (Goffman, 1959).
Often, ‘a performer engenders in his audience the belief that he is related
to them in a more ideal way than is always the case’ (pp. 56). There are certain images
of people that are difficult to make up, such as a professional basketball player,
because the skills displayed could easily be checked as true or false by audiences’
8
simple observation. However, it is more difficult to distinguish whether personal
190
words and images during interpersonal interaction are true.
Backstage is a private sphere where the performer can take off their selfimposed images in the front stage. Therefore, Goffman utilises ‘a place, relative to
[the] performance, where the impression of performance is knowingly contradicted’
(Goffman, 1959:114) to describe the backstage. The contradiction in backstage does
not necessarily imply something opposite to what audiences see on the front stage, but
a momentous difference in the role played by that performer. Through retreating to
the backstage, the performer can take off their mask and check his or her appearance
and reapply make-up (Goffman, 1959) because it is a ‘place where the performer can
reliably expect that no member of the audience will intrude’ (pp.114). Therefore, the
200
backstage becomes a space in which people ‘prepare themselves for performances in
the front region’ (pp. 87). In order to control the image or play the same role to a
certain group of audiences, Goffman (1959) further proposes the concept of
‘impression management’ to illustrate strategies related to the fact that performers
build or maintain their image to the public, such as first impressions, dramatisation,
idealisation, unmeant gestures, mystification, audience segregation, and tact.
Goffman (1959) highlighted that individuals present themselves when
interacting with others via expressions given, which are intentionally addressed pieces
of information implying how one wants to be seen by others, and via expressions
given off, which consist of specific and sometimes unintentional information
210
conveyed through action. Actors can control expressions given, yet expressions given
off could be viewed as out of one’s control. In other words, actors can compose
messages on purpose, yet cannot easily control non-verbal communication (for
instance, gestures) during interactions. Nevertheless, people can control expressions
9
given off when the receivers cannot see the actors, such as on social networking sites,
because it is common that expressions given off are conveyed by visual cues.
Because visual cues, such as eye contact, gestures, and facial expression, can
commonly leak meaning given off, social networking sites allow for less leakage of
unintentional non-verbal messages. Based on these advantages, people may prefer
online interactions because they can hide undesirable messages that they may give out
220
(Hogan, 2010; Schau & Gilly, 2003). Therefore, numerous researchers deploy the
concept of dramaturgy to analyse how people present themselves on Facebook
(Altheide, 2000; Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Ellison, Heino & Gibbs, 2006;
Friedlander, 2011; Gosling, Gaddis & Vazire, 2007).
Self-presentation on Facebook
Digital features, such as asynchronicity, human-centred patterns, degeography, and decentralisation, shape a virtual community where the strategies of
impression management can be applied in a more efficient way than face-to-face
personal interaction. To be specific, interpersonal interaction does not necessarily
only occur in the same space and at the same time. Instead, within social networking
230
sites, the interpersonal interaction can exist concurrently in different frontiers and
hours. That is, the concern Goffman addressed that people can easily detect whether
the action is true or false during the interaction could be eliminated. In addition, the
new type of interpersonal interaction shaped by digital culture can also foster the
effect of mystification and audience segregation, two strategies of impression
management, because of a clearer boundary between backstage and front stage: online
and off line.
10
‘Identity presentation on Facebook centres on the user profile, which serves as
a stage on which users can make public or semi-public presentation of themselves’
(Wilson, Gosling & Graham, 2012: 210). Unlike traditional social networking sites,
240
emphasising features of individualisation, Facebook profiles provide opportunities to
others to contribute information through comments, wall posts, and tagging.
Nevertheless, the majority of content on a Facebook profile is decorated by the user,
empowering users to present themselves authentically, to cast themselves in a
negative or positive way, or even to recreate some other image. Zywica & Danowski
(2008) pointed out that introverted Facebook users with the personality of low selfesteem and fewer offline friendships tend to make themselves look more popular via
untagging unflattering photos or self-enhancement in their profile. In addition,
Baffardi and Cambell (2008) collected 156 undergraduate Facebook users (56 males
and 100 females) to explore the relationship between narcissism and self-promotion
250
on Facebook via analysing participants’ Facebook interactions (for example their
number of wall posts, number of friends, and number of lines of text in the ‘About Me’
section) and measure participants’ level of narcissism by completing the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI). The finding showed Narcissists tend to have higher
levels of social activity on Facebook, and have more self-promoting content on either
their Facebook wall or their ‘About Me’ section.
Both findings imply personal traits can affect the way people represent self
identities on Facebook via self-promotion and concealing certain images from the
public. The internet creates a new interpersonal interaction culture where
interpersonal communication does not necessarily only exist in a face-to-face context.
260
Instead, individuals use digital devices, such as computers, Smartphone, and tablets,
and the messages can be disseminated across national boundaries and time. The
11
digital devices become a clear boundary between front stage and backstage during
actors’ performances to the audience (interpersonal interaction), and the actors can be
hidden by the digital devices. Therefore, people can easily adopt impressionmanagement to recreate or boost their image on Facebook.
Even though some self-enhancement may occur on Facebook, there are some
researchers that have argued that people tend to represent more authentic selves
compared to traditional online social communities, emphasising the feature of
anonymity (Pempek, Yermolayeva & Calvert, 2009; Ross, Orr, Sisic, Arseneault,
270
Simmering & Orr, 2009). This is because the majority of friends on Facebook are
from offline life. Hence, if people updated enhanced or fake information on their
Facebook, it is very likely their online friends would realise that the Facebook user
does not tell the truth (Pempek et al., 2009).
However, the fact that Facebook members have friendships from offline life
does not necessarily mean all users would represent their authentic selves on
Facebook. Instead, cultural factors or national character could be determining factors
in the different methods of interpersonal interaction, either online or offline. For
example, people who are under a collectivistic culture believe the ‘self’ is a
collectivistic being, so they tend to care about others’ evaluation and judgement
280
during interpersonal interaction (Cho, 2010; Yang, 1981). The cultures originating
from East Asia, such as ‘Shame culture’ and ‘Saving Face culture’, and are also
inherited from the collectivistic culture. People tend to detect communicational
occasions they are involved in and then alter their behaviour, words, and image to
adjust to the occasion and avoid to losing face (Hui & Triandis, 1986:231).
12
In addition, Wilson, Gosling and Graham (2012) reviewed journals,
conference papers, and reports related to Facebook research in the social sciences and
found that cultural differences of Facebook use are rarely discussed. Therefore, my
research will adopt a perspective of collectivistic culture to explore how others affect
the way people present themselves on Facebook.
290
2. Individualism-Collectivism in Online Self-presentation
In order to understand how culture affects individuals, Hofstede conducted
two surveys, from 1967 to 1969 and from 1971 to 1973, to identify how cultural
dimensions at the national level can affect an individual’s behaviour. Many scholars
and researchers have verified the influences of national cultures via adopting the
perspective of Hofstede (for example Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986; Gudykunst, Yoon
& Nishida, 1987; Triandis, 1989). Therefore, the following will address
individualism-collectivism, one of the perspectives of national culture proposed by
Hofstede, and then the relation between individualism-collectivism and interpersonal
300
interaction will be introduced.
Individualism and Collectivism
Hofstede (2001) proposed five cultural perspectives through examining
massive amounts of data received from a survey conducted by thousands of
researchers from a multinational organisation in 40 countries. The survey identified
the following dimensions: (a) masculinity-femininity, the level of ‘masculine’
characteristics, such as wealth and accomplishment, are valued against ‘feminine’
13
elements, such as nurturance and relationships ; (b) uncertainty avoidance, which
implies the level of tolerance in a society for risk and uncertainty; (c) long-versus
310
short-term orientation, which is related to Confucian cultural values, such as personal
stability, perseverance, thrift, and respect for tradition; (d) power distance, which
means how many members accept and admit that power is distributed unequally; and
(e) individualism-collectivism, which refers to the level of how individuals are
group-oriented versus individual-oriented. This research will adopt the dimension of
‘individualism-collectivism’ to explore the characteristics of Taiwanese selfpresentation on Facebook.
Although there are some criticisms of Hofstede’s neglect for the diversity
of members in a nation, it is interesting to note that numerous findings of research (for
instance Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, 1986, 1989; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal,
320
Asai & Lucca, 1988) have supported the impact of national cultures. These studies
examined the factors of individuals’ different attitudes within the same cultural
context and also made cross-cultural comparisons. For example, through referring to
the high-level of cultural impacts as ‘predominant cultural attitudes of individuals’,
Triandis (1989, 1995) explored what differences existed between members of the
same culture. the Triandis’ research showed the meaning of ‘predominant cultural
attitudes’ refers to the fact that individuals have a variety of cultural characteristics in
an individualism-collectivism continuum, and when the two contradictory cultural
values clash, their predominant cultural attitudes will appear. In other words, cultural
characteristics could be a critical element in affecting individuals’ behaviour.
330
Therefore, my research will employ collectivism to interpret Taiwanese selfpresentation on Facebook through the concepts of ‘In-group Influence’, ‘Other’s
assessment’, and ‘Interdependent Self’.
14
(a) In-group Comparison
Hofstede (2001)’s research illustrated that ‘individualism’ refers to the
beings who exist independently and autonomously and who tend to be more detached
from a group, or loosely tied to a group. They view their ‘own’ desires and goals as
more important than the desires and goals of the group. Conversely, collectivist
people are determined as the people who view group cohesiveness and
interdependence as important. Within a collectivistic culture, group desires and goals
340
are more crucial than individual desires and goals.
To be specific, under the culture of individualism, people are governed by
self-esteem, and are accentuated and self-reliant, so that they tend to make their own
choices and decisions and pursue their own goals. In addition, people who are under
individualistic cultures believe that there is no significant distinction between ingroup and out-group members. Hence, they tend to present a consistent individual
identity to the public, regardless of outside social contexts or situations (Triandis et al.,
1988).
On the other hand, Triandis et al. (1988) proposed that collectivism
considers individuals being subservient to in-groups’ goals, values, and norms.
350
Therefore, people tend to acquire a sense of success when they attain the group’s
expectations and goals. For example, if an individual views his own needs and goals
as a priority and believes that they are more important than a group goal, then he
could be criticised as a person who breaks the harmonious situation. That is, social
values under collectivistic cultures encourage self-effacing attitudes to conform to a
group norm.
15
Triandis et al. (1988) have pointed out that people under collectivistic
cultures believe that their behaviour represents the image and reputation of their ingroup, and the out-group members are easily seen as competitors by in-group
individuals. However, Lin (1999), a Taiwanese social psychology scholar, utilised a
360
questionnaire to measure which group members can be seen as competitors by the
Taiwanese, and the findings showed the Taiwanese tend to view in-group members as
competitors, which is different to the finding from Triandis who emphasised outgroup members being seen as competitors by in-group individuals.
Lin (1999) did not deny the fact that people who are under collectivistic
cultures share the same values and goals, and that they view themselves as
collectivistic beings. Nevertheless, the sharing of values and goals can concurrently
become a dynamic to result in a mental transformation of social comparison for ingroup members. For example, within Taiwanese culture, people share the same belief
that ‘educational background is important’, and individuals thus evaluate whether they
370
themselves achieve the value through assessing peers, family members, classmates,
and relatives’ achievements rather than out-group members. In order to avoid the
feeling of shamefulness (Saving Face culture) in the context of in-groups, resulting
from a failure to achieve the group value, in-group individuals tend to compare to
other in-group members’ achievements and goals to consider who they are.
Conversely, in-group individuals seldom view out-group members’ achievements as
competitive factors, because their relationships have weak ties and the differences of
achievement cannot violate the in-group harmony. In other words, out-group member
behaviour or attitudes cannot be a criteria of assessment for in-group members in
everyday life because they have no relationships of competition.
16
380
Facebook is a platform shaped by the internet and new technological
devices (Laptops, Computers, Smartphones) and it connects a huge number of
relationships, no matter whether they are from childhood, universities, or workplaces,
into a virtual group. Facebook users can automatically and easily receive in-group
members’ everyday life information via their news feed. Therefore, this ‘frequent’
online interpersonal interaction is likely to raise the frequency of accessing others’
personal information, and whether this frequent online group interaction can
strengthen the effect of social comparison to collectivistic members is one of the main
questions concerning my research.
Therefore, my research assumes:
390
(1) Within collectivistic cultures, the dynamic of other Facebook members’ updating
their profiles (sharing, statues, and photos) can result in users’ social comparison.
Through the literature, people under collectivistic cultures prefer to assess
the in-group members rather than out-group members. Not only are they assessing
others, but collectivistic members also care about others’ assessment of them.
Therefore, collectivistic individuals tend to present their ideal self to the public. The
following will depict how others’ assessments may affect collectivistic members’
presentation to the public in the context of collectivism.
400
(b) Others’ Assessments
Cross-cultural research pointed out that people under collectivist cultures
care more about self-presentation, particularly self-identity. Triandis (1988)
17
illustrated that people in collectivistic cultures tend to view themselves as a collective
self. On the other hand, members of individualistic cultures tend to view themselves
as individual selves. In addition, collectivist cultures generally care more about others'
assessment of the self, so they tend to possess a strong consciousness of selfpresentation and have external motivations. Conversely, people who strongly view
themselves as individual selves may view self-presentation as motivated internally,
such as by self-satisfaction. Hence, people from collectivist cultures have more
410
motivation to present themselves well because they care more about others’
assessment of the self.
In terms of consideration of others’ assessments, Hofstede (2001) illustrated
that collectivism represents a shame culture, yet individualism refers to a guilt culture.
Within shame cultures, people care more about others’ judgements and thoughts
instead of acknowledging their faults. Hiding misbehaviour can better one’s
reputation due to a lack of criticism. On the other hand, in guilt-oriented cultures that
are more concerned with internal principles, it may be more difficult to avoid selfcriticism because people cannot self-deny their faults. The cultural difference can
partially explain why collectivist cultures have a bigger concern regarding what others
420
think, resulting in people paying more attention to their self-presentation.
Interpersonal interaction on Facebook is the extension of interaction in
everyday life, and the digital features, transparency, immediacy, and ubiquitous
connectivity can raise the frequency of interaction with others. Therefore, it is very
likely that people who are under a collectivistic culture can feel that they receive
assessment by others more online than in offline life. Even though people on
Facebook can be easily exposed to the public and further feel judged, people are
concurrently empowered to give off and build a new image or ideal self via
18
asynchronous communication on Facebook. In other words, people have, relatively,
enough time to decide what social cues they want to exhibit (for example by sharing
430
photos, statuses, and other information) on Facebook because they believe hiding
misbehaviour can better one’s reputation due to a lack of criticism.
Accordingly, my research assumes:
(2) Under collectivistic cultures, others’ assessments can affect the methods of
presentation and content users present on Facebook.
(c) Interdependent Self
With regard to the position of self, Markus and Kitayama (1991) found
that there are differences of perceiving the self between individualistic individuals and
collectivistic individuals. To be specific, individuals within an individualistic culture
tend to view themselves as autonomous and independent entities. Social context
440
cannot affect the way the express themselves, such as their preferences and attributes.
In other words, people prefer to maintain a consistent self-image to the public.
On the other hand, a collectivistic culture can be a dynamic to cultivate
people becoming interdependent selves, which are ‘assimilated, fitted, and connected’
to contexts or situations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991: 227). Within a collectivistic
cultural context, personal attributions of interdependent self, such as personality, tend
to be affected by specific situations or social contexts. That is, the position of self is
flexible and is defined by which social roles should be played in specific social
situations. Most importantly, the self is more affected by external conditions than
internal attributions.
19
450
Facebook is a public but semi-transparent platform, where a variety of
friendships from either offline life or virtual life gather, and individuals are connected
everywhere and all the time. Further, people can choose certain social cues to post on
their timeline to recreate their own identities to the public on Facebook. In other
words, Facebook is a solid interpersonal interaction network based on a bulk of
relationships, in which users could employ the character of digital power, such as
asynchronicity and human-centre, to build an idealised self for dealing with each
interpersonal interaction.
Markus and Kitayama (1991) depicted that people under collectivistic
culture tend to be assimilated, fitted, and connected to contexts or situations when
460
they interact with people. Nevertheless, Facebook is a public place where the
boundary of interpersonal interaction context has vanished. Additionally, situations,
encounters, and people are no longer bound in each interpersonal interaction. That is,
traditional interactional contexts (fixed people, situations, and encounters in each
interaction) collide, and Facebook users are difficult to predict in terms of what
interactional context they are involved in on Facebook. Therefore, my research will
explore how Taiwanese people create interdependent selves when presenting
themselves within the context of multi-relationships on Facebook.
470
20
V Methodology
The research will adopt Facebook as a research sphere, and explore how (a)
In-group Influence, (b) Others’ Assessments, and (c) Interdependent Self, three
collectivistic cultural values, affect the method and level of online self-presentation to
collectivistic members. Goffman’s dramaturgical theory pointed out that ‘[f]ront stage
actors are visible to the audience and have to stay in role. Backstage actors can relax
from their roles, step out of character, and work with their dramaturgical teammates to
480
prepare for the front page performance’ (1959: 16). My research concentrates on a
discussion of how others’ influences on Facebook (front stage) affect the contents
collectivistic members prepare in back stage to present on Facebook.
Based on my research framework, the research is divided into two sections.
The first section looks at how others’ influence affects what the Taiwanese present on
Facebook. In addition, the interpersonal interaction context on Facebook is not private.
Instead, every interpersonal interaction is transparent, and each interaction could be
assessed by all of your Facebook friends, even those who are not involved in the
interaction. Hence, the second section of my research will explore how the Taiwanese
create an interdependent self within the context of multi-relationships on Facebook
490
(see Diagram 1).
1. Research Sample
The research adopts the Taiwanese as the research sample, because Taiwan is
one of the countries within a collectivistic culture, and is a Chinese culture. Most
importantly, the number of Facebook users in Taiwan is the highest among Chinese
21
areas, due to the fact that Facebook is blocked by the Chinese government in
mainland China (Facebook, 2013). Even though the districts of Hong Kong (7.072
million) and Macau (555,731) can access Facebook, the size of the population who
can, are much less than the Taiwanese population (23.06 million)1. Most importantly,
500
Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom and Macau was occupied by
Portugal during the past 100 years. Taiwan has never been invaded culturally and
politically by any Western country within the past 200 years, albeit Taiwan was
occupied by Japan 100 years ago, yet Japan is still a country with a collectivistic
culture. Therefore, it is expected that Taiwan can represent the trait of collectivistic
culture most within the Chinese area.
In addition, the research adopts an age scale from 25 to 30-years old as the
research sample, because this group were among the first users of Facebook when it
was invented in 2004 and became popular in Taiwan in 2008. This group of people
tend to have larger and more varied relationship networks than other groups due to
510
their long history of use, and Facebook for them could be a key site for sharing their
lives with others. Therefore, the age scale not only corresponds to the first question ‘How others’ influence affects how the Taiwanese present themselves on Facebook’ but also can help to explore the question of ‘How the Taiwanese create
interdependent selves when presenting themselves within the context of multirelationships on Facebook’.
In addition, each Facebook user has a different frequency of Facebook use, so
the research adopts ‘high frequency use’ and ‘low frequency use’ as research groups
11
The data on the population in Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan are from World Bank Data Search.
Website: http://search.worldbank.org/data?qterm=hong%20kong%20population&language=EN
22
in order to know the relationship between the frequency of presentation and the
effects of others on Facebook.
520
In terms of the definition of high-low frequency of presentation, the research
defines people by the number of times they update statuses, share, or put photos on
Facebook. More than 7 times a week constitutes a high frequency user. On the other
hand, people who update statuses, share, or add photos less than once a week are
defined as low frequency users.
2. Research Methods
This study explores on how others’ influences affect Taiwanese presentation
on Facebook through three values of collectivistic culture: (a) In-group Influence, (b)
Others’ Assessments, and (c) Interdependent Self. Based on this, the research deploys
530
In-depth Interviews to clarify the research questions.
In-depth Interviews
From the three collectivistic cultural values, the research is divided into two
core questions: (1) how others’ influence affects how the Taiwanese present
themselves on Facebook and (2) how the Taiwanese create interdependent selves
through presentation within the context of multi-relationships on Facebook. The
questions are mainly about how national culture affects digital use. Compared to
traditional media, the influence of social media use is difficult to measure precisely
through a quantitative survey. Instead, social media use should be seen as a culture, in
540
which the behaviour is not homogenous and linearised, but complex and phenomenal
(Jordan, 1999). Consequently, the research adopts in-depth interviews to explore how
23
national culture affects digital culture in an attempt to obtain broader and deeper
feedback from the interviewee.
Research Procedure
In order to clarify research questions and interview questions, six Taiwanese
people were approached to conduct a pilot test in the middle of May. After modifying
the research questions through the results of the pilot test, the study interviewed ten
high frequency Facebook users and ten low frequency Facebook users through
550
snowball sampling2. The in-depth interviews are held during the period of 4th July to
14th July 2013 in cafés in Taiwan, Taipei city and Taichung city.
Before the interview, all of the sample participants were requested to read
through the information sheet and complete the consent form authorised by the
department of Culture, Media, and Creative Industries in King’s College London.
Only if the interviewee consents to the provision of the form, could the interview be
conducted. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and all of them were
recorded.
Based on the collectivistic values (a) In-group Influence, (b) Other’s
Assessment, and (c) Interdependent Self, from Hofstede, the interview questions are
560
divided into two parts. The first part mainly addresses how others’ influences affect
Taiwanese presentation on Facebook. For example, Do you feel emotion is changed
when assessing other Facebook members’ statues, sharing, photos are asked during
2
Snowball sampling uses a small pool of initial informants to nominate, through their social
networks, other participants who meet the eligibility criteria and could potentially contribute to a
specific study. The term "snowball sampling" reflects an analogy to a snowball increasing in size as it
rolls downhill Source: Morgan, D. L. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods.
Pp816-817. ISBN 9781412941631
24
the interview. On the other hand, Do you feel that you are assessed by other Facebook
members when you are presenting on Facebook is also asked during the interview.
The second part of the question is to explore how the Taiwanese create an
interdependent self through presentation within the context of multi-relationships on
Facebook. Questions such as ‘ Do you care at all about others’ assessment on
Facebook?’, ‘if not, what sort of assessment do you care about?’, and ‘when you
present on Facebook, have you thought who is your target audience?’, and so on.
570
Then, the data was analysed and compared between ‘high frequency Facebook
presenters’ and ‘low frequency Facebook presenters’ in an attempt to explore
specifically how collectivistic culture affects Facebook use (see diagram 1).
Others’ Influences:
affect
High Frequency
Facebook Presenters
(a) In-Group Influence
(b)Others’ Assessment
Low Frequency
Facebook Presenters
The Values of
Collectivism
affect
High Frequency
Facebook Presenters
(c) Interdependent
Self
Low Frequency
Facebook Presenters
580
Diagram1. Research Structure
25
VI Findings
Through comparison between high frequency Facebook updaters and low
frequency Facebook updaters, the study finds that the frequency does not lessen the
dynamic of others’ influences toward Taiwanese presentation on Facebook. In other
words, no matter who presents more than seven times or less than once on Facebook
weekly, others’ influence can affect what the Taiwanese want to present on Facebook.
590
In addition, digital characteristics, such as asynchronicity and user-centre, empower
the Taiwanese to deal with uncertain situations on Facebook in order to prevent them
from losing face and breaking group harmony. The following section illustrates
specifically how the values of collectivism affect Taiwanese presentation on
Facebook.
The Frequency of Facebook Presentation ≠ The Involvement of Facebook
The findings from the interview of low frequency Facebook presenters reveals
that the majority of low frequency Facebook presenters still browse Facebook to read
others’ news feed more than once a day. Checking Facebook has already become a
600
part of everyday life. ‘I always browse Facebook via Smartphone and computers to
see what my friends’ are doing everyday and find the latest information from
professional Facebook groups. Especially the times when I wait for public transport
and when I lay on bed ready to sleep. It’s become my routine work’ (Low presenter A).
This implies the number of presentations on Facebook does not necessarily indicate
the level of involvement on Facebook.
26
In addition, when low presenters are asked why they would rather be an
audience member than presenter on Facebook, a concern over privacy is the main
reply from the interviewees. However, users with fewer numbers of presentations on
Facebook do not necessarily mean that their Facebook use can avoid influence from
610
the dynamic of collectivistic culture. Except for one low frequency presenter, who
pointed out that he never thinks about others’ assessments when he presents, the
majority of low presentation interviewees illustrated that their content, and the sort of
updating on they do on Facebook, tended to follow their ‘use history’ to predict what
sort of presentation can avoid breaking in-group harmony on Facebook. Rather than
personal use history, use history here is to referring to experiences of viewing others’
information. For example, ‘Actually, I can predict what feedback I will obtain when I
update information on Facebook...I probably know what sort of information is not
suitable to present on Facebook… I don’t want arouse great controversies, so I tend
to avoid presenting that kind of information on Facebook’ (Low presenter D), albeit
620
low presenter D depicted that he only presents issues that he is interested in.
It is certain that use history also influences what information high frequency
presenters update on Facebook, yet the difference between the level of others’
influence to low and high frequency Facebook presenters is not measured in the study.
Nevertheless, the finding not only implies the fact that the frequency of Facebook
presentation does not indicate their involvement on Facebook, but also shows, no
matter whether they are low or high Facebook presenters, their presentation on
Facebook is influenced by the dynamic of other members’ information and their past
interaction experiences. The following section will address specifically how others’
influences (in-group value and others’ assessment) affect Taiwanese presentation on
630
Facebook.
27
In-group Sharing Value Increases Social Comparison on Facebook
Triandis et al. (1988) proposed that collectivism considers that an individual
being should be subservient to in-groups’ goals, values, and norms. Therefore, people
tend to acquire a sense of success when they achieve group expectations and goals.
The sharing values and goals can concurrently become a dynamic to result in the
mental transformation of social comparison for in-group members. Lin (1999)
illustrated the fact that in order to avoid the feeling of shamefulness (Saving Face
culture) in the context of in-groups, resulting from a failure to achieve the group value,
in-group individuals tend to compare to other in-group members’ achievements and
640
goals to consider who they are. Conversely, out-group members’ behaviour or
attitudes cannot be everyday criteria for in-group members to assess themselves with
because they have no competitive relationship. The findings could also correspond to
the finding from Yang (1991)’s study that people (Taiwanese) under collectivistic
culture rather do similar comparison than do upper or lower comparison
Facebook is a group in which users can automatically receive others’ information
if browsing a news feed. Compared to face-to-face interaction, the Facebook news
feed has been transformed into a magnifying glass for users to assess others to reflect
the value of self. Most importantly, the development of the internet and invention of
digital communication technologies (for instance the Smartphone and Tablet) raise the
650
frequency with which we can obtain others’ personal information. In other words,
Facebook users can easily detect whether they achieve group expectations and goals
through doing a comparison within in-group members only if they are connected to
the digital network.
28
Specifically, both high and low frequency Facebook presenters admit that they
obtain more amount of personal news from friends via Facebook, and they further
mention they have had experiences on conversion of emotion (no matter whether
becoming happier or more sad) when they see others’ personal information on
Facebook. When asked what things from other members caused them to become
happier respondents said, ‘information is interesting or funny’, ‘the information is
beneficial to the self’ and ‘good news from specific friends’ are the main factors. On
the other hand, when asked what things from other members influence your emotions
negatively, they said, ‘bad news from specific friends’ and ‘specific people achieve a
goal that I care about. For example, high presenter A stated, ‘I don’t think I’ve
suffered a mental transformation because of other Facebook members, but some
people I define as competitors, if they travel to a place I want to go to, or get a
promotion, I would question why they are always lucky’. In addition, low frequency
presenters also suffered because of others’ Facebook information. ‘I am studying for a
PhD in the U.S.A…I am not in Taiwan so often actually, but since last year, I have
seen photos and statuses about the fact that friends have got married and had
children, and I started to question whether the decision I made was correct.? Because
I am 26, I still have to rely on my parents’ support.’ (Low presenter H)
Through the interviews, it was implied that social core values in offline life
can be extended to online life. The effect of in-group comparison within collectivistic
members can exist de-geographically. It can be seen that the value of career prospects
and marriage are shared values that people would like to achieve. Interviewees tend to
assess specific Facebook members statuses to reflect whether self-achievement
matches the expectations of society.
660
The term of specific for Facebook users
generally refers to someone from offline life with a similar background (including
29
career, education, and achievement) and further involving a relationship of
competition with user. It implies that even though Facebook is seen as an in-group
sphere in which a variety of relationships are bound together, the dynamic of in-group
value only exists in specific relationships from the offline world. In other words, the
dynamic of in-group sharing can raise the social comparison to other Facebook
members, yet the effect is not general but focuses on certain members.
The Performance/Presentation is Influenced by Others’ Assessment on Facebook
Others’ influence is not only represented in the in-group sharing value, but
670
also through the manner of others’ assessment on Facebook. Triandis (1988)
illustrated that people in collectivist cultures tend to view themselves as a collective
selves. Additionally, collectivist cultures generally care more about others' assessment
of the self, so that they tend to possess a strong consciousness of self-presentation and
have external motivation. Based on this, Hofstede (2001) further illustrated
collectivism to represents a shame culture. Within shame cultures, people care more
about others’ judgements and thoughts instead of acknowledging their faults. Hiding
misbehaviour can better one’s reputation due to a lack of criticism.
In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman (1959) proposed that in
self-presentation in everyday life, space-time-identity is bonded in front stage. That is,
680
when people interact with others (perform to the public) in a physical space, the
interaction is bound by the people you are interacting with, the place you are in, and
the specific time you are in, and that people should prepare themselves backstage to
prevent them from playing an inconsistent role in certain situations. Nevertheless,
Facebook is a virtual space where backstage and front stage are regionalised by an
30
offline and online sphere and people can have more private space and time to choose
what personal information they want to reveal during the interpersonal interaction to
other members. The features of asynchrony and user-centre also empower users to
hide on Facebook, which is the front stage, and time-space is not bonded anymore.
Therefore, it is very likely that Facebook, the new type of front stage, can provide
690
collectivistic members with more power to hide misbehaviour and make up idealised
selves.
As the interviewees are asked what factors influence the method of
presentation and the content people present on Facebook, the findings revealed
different frequencies of presentation on Facebook have similar concerns before
updating
online.
Besides
‘others’
assessment’,
‘privacy
concern’
and
‘unconsciousness’ are the two other elements that affect individuals’ presentation
among the interviewees depicted. However, there are still some different distributions
of the concern between high and low frequency presenters. For example, 6 of 10 high
frequency presenters illustrated others’ assessment-related replies, while nearly all
700
low frequency presenters stated that privacy concerns affect their willingness
presented on Facebook.
Specifically, the interview question is open-structure, so that words such as
‘others’ assessment’ do not appear in the question. However, the majority of high
frequency presenters still mentioned others’ assessment-related answers ‘Whenever I
update my latest information on Facebook, especially descriptions of my life, I tend to
check the content several times, because I don’t want my friends thinking I am a bad
speller…’(High presenter A). ‘I update statuses more than once a day on average,
and it seems to I don’t care about anything, and that I just want to present everything
I want, but actually, I know everything I update is safe, and will not arouse big
31
710
debate …because I’ve used Facebook for more than 3 years, I know what content will
generally be accepted by my friends’ (High presenter C). Their replies revealed the
meaning of Taiwanese presentation is not only a presentation of self, it can also be
seen as a performance to audience. In addition the performance tends to reference
others’ preferences and consider the possibility of being assessed by others to adjust
what ’storytelling’ to perform in front stage-Facebook.
‘I don’t like to put too much personal information on Facebook. That’s why I
seldom update information on there. There are too many members who are either
acquaintances or friends of friends. I don’t want all of them to know about my
life’(Low presenter C). Even though the majority of low frequency presenters
720
revealed that the privacy concern affects what they’re willing to present on Facebook,
it does not necessarily mean they do not get concerned with others’ assessment. In the
Oxford dictionary, the term ‘privacy’ means a state in which one is not observed or
disturbed by [other people]. It implies others’ observation is still a crucial factor
triggering low frequency presenters’ behaviour, albeit they rarely expose personal
information online. Even though they never think they are performing on Facebook,
the sense of observation from others also implies low frequency presenters still view
Facebook as a stage where a variety of audiences gather to watch a performance.
Therefore, it can be seen that others’ assessment, a collectivistic value, can trigger
both high and low frequency presenters’ behaviour.
730
Even though others’ assessments may affect the content and willingness of
presentation on Facebook, the features of asynchronicity and user-centre also
empower users to have more space to control what ‘storytelling’ to perform or to reedit themselves in an attempt to avoid losing face to the public. ‘I have deleted my
statuses on Facebook, because there are certain replies that are not too rational. For
32
example, I wrote an article to criticise the current government, and I got too many
people arguing with me, so I deleted it as I wanted to stop the debate… I reminded
myself not to update that sort of article anymore’ (Low presenter G). ‘I prefer to
interact with friends on Facebook than in person, because I don’t have to reply
immediately. Most importantly, I am a professional, and if someone asks me tricky
740
questions publicly, I can have enough time to check information online or in books.
What an amazing platform! [laughs]’(High presenter A). It can be seen that the
features of asynchronicity and user-centre raise the subjectivity of controlling the
situation on Facebook. The subjectivity empowers users to create a main role (self)
and set a scene in the front stage and further, to present an idealised self, prevented
from losing face or revealing their real self which they do not want to expose to the
public.
It is interesting that the number of ‘likes’ for a Taiwanese may be a critical
element to affect what content they want to present on Facebook. They can feel others’
support and agree, and the supportive power from others can also be a reference to
750
perform to the audience. ‘Yes, I think I care how many like I have, because I feel
happy when I obtain a large number of likes from other members. They can make me
feel warm and make me feel that I am not alone on Facebook…Actually, for every
update I can predict who might like or reply to my information’ (High presenter A)
The Feature of Asynchronicity Breaks down the Boundary between Front Stage
and Backstage on Facebook
The role of audience is adopted to describe the phenomena with which Facebook
users view other Facebook members’ statuses in an attempt to reflect whether they
33
have self achieved the in-group sharing value. On the other hand, the phenomenon of
caring about others’ assessment during presenting on Facebook can reflect that
760
presenters are transformed into performers to work for the audience. No matter
whether users play the role of audience or performer, the dynamic of others’ influence
affects the way the Taiwanese perform on the stage of Facebook.
In addition, asynchronicity on Facebook alters the method with which people
interact with each other because time and space are not bounded anymore. Instead, a
quick swift of offline life and online life transform the type of front stage and
backstage. During the interaction on Facebook, this digital platform could be a front
stage and a backstage. The separation of time and space empowers people to have the
ability to pause within the continuity of each encounter and scene. That is, the front
stage of interpersonal interaction is not fixed, the user can switch to backstage to deal
770
with some unpredicted situations on the front stage (see Diagram 2). In addition, the
performances on Facebook exist only within the digital form, which almost
completely reduces the risk of others’ finding out the user’s real feelings. Instead of
real beings, a variety of photos, texts, and links create a digital self on Facebook.
34
780
Backstage
Backstage
asynchronicity
time
situations
time
space
situations
space
User-centre
encounters people
encounters people
refers to front stage
refers to front stage
Diagram 2a.
Diagram 2b.
The context of in-person interpersonal
interaction. Front stage is bounded with
time, space, people, encounters, and
situations.
The context of interpersonal interaction on
Facebook. The connection of time, space,
people, encounters, and situations are broken
down by internet features of asynchronicity
and user-centre. The boundary of front stage
and back stage is vague.
However, Facebook is a digital medium where all interpersonal interaction can be
seen by all members, and at the same time, users can witness countless interpersonal
interactions, although some of the interaction they are not involved in. It alters the
traditional interpersonal model as each situation and encounter is bonded with certain
people. Through the metaphor of drama to interpret interpersonal interaction, the
790
Facebook platform becomes an open stage where context collides and the performer is
not conscious of who is viewing his performance; on the other hand, the audience can
access countless performances in Facebook news feeds. Therefore, the question of
how performers detect who is watching performances and how audiences watch a
variety of performances can be seen as the phenomena of how collectivistic members
deal with the collided context (a loose relationship within encounters, situations, and
people) during the interpersonal interaction. The feature of interdependent self from
35
collectivistic culture represented in nationality reflects how people play a different
self to deal with different situations of interpersonal interaction. Derived from the
interviews, the following will address how Taiwanese deal with this new type of
800
interpersonal interaction on Facebook.
Set Target Audiences as References of Interdependent Self to Fit in on Facebook, a
Collided Context
Markus & Kitayama (1991) pointed out that a collectivistic culture can be
a dynamic to cultivate people becoming interdependent selves, which are assimilated,
fitted, and connected to contexts or situations. Within a collectivistic culture context,
personal attributions of interdependent self, such as personality, tend to be affected by
specific situations or social contexts. That is, the position of self is flexible and is
defined by which social roles should be played in specific social situations. However,
810
Golffman (1959), in his book The Presentation of Everyday Life, depicted that there
are possibilities that front stages can collide and result in a conflict of image. For
example, the civil inattention that occurs as someone answers a phone in front of
others. Similarly, Ling (2008) addressed the situation related to the “dual-front” that
happens with a mobile phone. He used the example of an office phone to describe that
the individual and office phone are bounded and that represents the individual in the
company. In contrast, the mobile phone connects individuals in many situations and
results in a risk of a substantial mismatch between two fronts. It can be seen that
Facebook is an open platform where all interpersonal interactions can be seen by
unknown audiences. That is, the context of traditional interpersonal interaction
820
collides, and encounters-situations-people are not bound anymore. How do
36
collectivistic members present interdependent selves on Facebook in the context of
collided interpersonal interaction?
‘In contrast to situations, many social media sites do not depend on being
bounded in space and time with continued observation occurring between individuals.
Instead they have the following features, which I consider sufficient components of an
exhibition space: 1. Information signifying an individual is delivered to the audiences,
on demand by a third party. 2. Because of the reproducibility of content and the fact
that it is sent to a third party for distribution, the submitter doer not continually
monitor these data as an audience is receiving it, and may possible never fully know
830
the audience’ (Hogan, 2010:381).
For an interpretation of the collided context, Hogan (2010), a professor at
the Oxford internet institute, adopted a metaphor of exhibition to interpret
interpersonal interaction in SNSs. ‘Never fully know the audience’, a new notion of
performance on SNSs he proposed, reveals that performers do not easily notice who
the audiences is during the presentation.
Instead of performing to all unknown audiences, the interviews in my
study reveal that collectivistic members can unconsciously imagine certain people are
viewing their performance, so that users can either expect to receive feedback from
specific friends, or avoid presenting a certain kind of content that may offend specific
840
people, in order to maintain harmonious relationships. Hence, I would argue
collectivistic members do not ever fully know the audience. Instead, specific members
on Facebook are the target audience of the user and further become references for the
user to build an interdependent self.
37
‘Well…I never think about the issue of who my audience is when updating
Facebook…[thinking]…Actually, I can predict who will like or reply to my
statuses…if I update with my opinion on a certain and someone I care about replies to
or likes my status, I will feel happier. For example, I enjoy some exotic food and
always share recommended restaurant information on Facebook, and I hope that
those who are interested or have good taste in food can give me good feedback on
850
Facebook. If I express some professional opinion, such as criticising a political issue,
I will expect my college professors and people who are politically concerned will give
me feedback, and if they like my criticism, I will feel honoured’ (High presenter B).
From the response of presenter B, it is clear he expects to receive feedback from
specific members. Instead of unknown audiences, he set a specific group as the
audience viewing his presentation. Even though the interactional context is collided
on Facebook and the situation-people are not bound anymore, users still may choose a
certain group of people as an audience to present to and expect to obtain feedback
from them.
Throughout the interviews, it is also revealed that collectivistic members
860
can avoid presenting a certain kind of content that may offend specific people in order
to keep a harmonious relationship. It implies that people can be assimilated, fitted,
and connected to contexts or situations on Facebook, albeit it seems the interactional
context is collided and the audiences are unknown on Facebook. ‘I think I have
already done my best not to share controversial opinions or links on Facebook,
because I know all of my shared information is seen there and I don’t want to start
unnecessary quarrels. However, if I really want to share some controversial issues at
that moment, I tend to hide the post to certain people who may not agree with my
opinion through custom settings on Facebook…For example, last year I shared a
38
series of anti-government opinions on Facebook, but because some members of my
870
friend list are strong supporters of the government, I used custom settings to avoid
them seeing those kinds of opinions from me ’ (High presenter B). ‘Actually my
parents are on my friend list, and sometimes I use customised settings to avoid them
seeing information that I don’t think is suitable for them’ (High presenter E).
The interview shows collectivistic members tend to avoid presenting
controversial opinions to the public on Facebook. Even though the situationencounter-people are not bound on Facebook, the interviews insinuate that people try
to play a neutral role to remain assimilated, fitted, and connected to Facebook
contexts because they do not want to break the harmonious relationship. Most
importantly, collectivistic members may depend on the content of presentation set
880
people as target audiences to either expect obtaining feedback from them or to avoid
them viewing some sensitive issues in order to avert breaking up harmonious
relationships on Facebook.
It is interesting that some interviewees pointed out that they are more
concerned about the reception from someone who has a higher a social status or from
who are elder members of a family, because they do not want break the image of
certain role to them. It can be seen that people tend to present a good image to senior
and elder members of a family in order to show respect to them, because Confucian
morals emphasise you ‘respect seniors’ and that a ‘different social position has a
different relationship’. Accordingly, people who are from Confucian cultures tend to
890
build an idealised image of seniors in order to show their respect (Frederickson, 2002;
Lai, 1995). The culture of respecting seniors is immersed into Facebook, and people
may have more concern about the reception from seniors, so that they would adopt
customised settings to prevent seniors from viewing certain personal information and
39
present a different image to seniors. Although it seems audiences are unknown on
Facebook due to the collided interaction context, Facebook users may depend on the
content of presentation to imagine a target group to be assimilated, fitted, and
connected to Facebook.
It can be seen that collectivistic members tend to follow different sorts of
presentations to image specific members as ‘target audiences’. Instead of unknown
900
audiences, collectivistic members may imagine a context where they are mainly
interacting to target audiences, and the rest of members, I would define them as a
‘potential audience’. During presentation on Facebook, content and the target
audience are bound into a single interactional situation, and target audiences can be
seen as references of interdependent self (see Diagram 3). Generally, seniors, elder
members of a family and professional friends can easily be seen as references of
interdependent self to fit into an interaction context.
Facebook User
Potential
Audiences
Target
Audiences
910
Diagram 3. A Model of Presentation on Facebook in Taiwan.
Instead of unknown audiences on Facebook, a collided context, the presenter tends to set some
Facebook members as target audiences when updating information. The rest of the Facebook
members are potential audiences. Each presentation has a different target audience, and target
audiences in different contents of presentation may overlap.
Diagram proposed by Author.
40
VII Conclusion
Even though the function of Facebook is homogenous throughout the world, the
research argues that geographical culture, mainly referring to West and East, can
affect individuals’ manners on Facebook. Therefore, the research adopts three
920
collectivist values, (a) In-group influence, (b) Others’ Assessment and (c)
Interdependent Self, derived from individualism-collectivism, proposed by Hofstede
in 2001 to explore Facebook presentation in Taiwan - one of the collectivistic
countries in the Chinese area. The findings reveal others’ assessments tend to affect
collectivistic members’ content and the method of presentation on Facebook.
Although the Internet transforms the format of interpersonal interaction and all
interpersonal interaction on Facebook is easily judged or seen by other members who
do not belong to the interaction, the characteristics of asynchrony and user-centred
empower collectivistic members to conduct better impression management prevent
them from losing face to the public. It seems that collectivistic members still present
930
authentic selves on Facebook, but actually they follow past use history to play a role
that expects others’ expectation.
Specifically, a review of the relevant literature of collectivism-individualism
shows that people in collectivistic cultures attempt to achieve certain goals that are
shaped by sharing values of mainstream society and tend to care about others’
assessment. The research reveals that the effect of social comparison may be
expanded. Because Facebook is a digital platform that gathers different periods of
friendships from offline life and every user can easily evaluate whether they have
obtained self achievement through viewing others’ personal information, even if they
only access the Internet. Specifically, the research found that, for collectivistic
940
members, viewing others’ news feed can affect their mood. Career prospects and
41
marriage are the two main factors that Facebook users (both high and low frequency
users) would compare to other members. Users might feel depressed if they found
specific members’ statuses seemed to achieve goals they wanted to seek. The research
further discovers the definition of specific members from Taiwanese Facebook users
refers to members who have similar backgrounds (for example their career, education
and achievement) to the user. The findings firstly correspond to the assumption that
Facebook users under a collectivistic culture tend to be involved in social
comparisons resulting from other Facebook members’ updates. They also match Lin’s
research (1999), which found that collectivistic members tend to do similar
950
comparisons to reflect whether they have self achieved common values in the society.
In terms of others’ assessment, the research reveals both high and low frequency
presenters under collectivistic cultures tend to consider possibilities of being judged
by others and further adjust the content they would like to present on Facebook in an
attempt to live up to others’ expectations. Unlike traditional interpersonal interaction
emphasising face-to-face communication, asynchrony and user-centre raise the
subjectivity of controlling situations on Facebook and prevent users from losing face
to the public. In other words, even though Facebook is an open platform where all of
interpersonal interaction can be easily seen or assessed by other members, asynchrony
and user-centre empower users to conduct better impression management through
960
controlling situations and encounters (for example re-editing articles, deleting
unwanted replies or articles) on Facebook. The research further argues that the
boundary of backstage and front stage proposed by Goffman (1959) is collided
because the separation of time and space empowers Facebook users to pause the
facultative continuity of each interpersonal interaction and switch to backstage to
handle unpredictable situations on front stage.
42
Additionally, Facebook is a platform where boundaries between situations,
encounters, and people are no longer present. In other words, people cannot predict
who will be able to see all of the interpersonal interactions on their Facebook timeline.
Furthermore, how collectivistic members build an interdependent self to fit in
970
Facebook, a collided interactional context, is an interesting phenomena but it has not
been explored. The research finds that collectivistic members tend to present neutral
or not strongly controversial opinions on Facebook to fit into this collided
interactional context. Hogan (2010) utilised the term ‘[n]ever fully know the audience’
to describe how performers may not easily notice who the audiences are during
presentation on SNSs. Instead of the unknown audience on Facebook, my research
proposes a model of presentation on Facebook revealing that a presenter in a
collectivistic culture tends to set some members as target audiences when updating
information on Facebook. The rest of the members are potential audiences. Each
presentation, depending on content, has different target audiences, and target
980
audiences in different contents of presentation overlap.
43
VIII Discussion
In terms of discussion, through my study I propose two interesting issues- the
990
relation of power on Facebook, and a blurring dynamic between self-esteem and
sharing values - as being worthy of exploring in the future.
Goffman in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life emphasises how
individuals deal with interpersonal interaction through the concept of front stage,
backstage and impression management. From his second revision of the book in 1959,
the work is further sensitive to ‘situational’ as well as ‘structural’ concerns and also to
class, hierarchy and power (Williams, 1986:3). It implied ‘power’ can be a dynamic to
affect the way people perform to certain audiences in certain situations. Although it
seems the features of asynchronicity and user-centre on Facebook transform the form
of interpersonal interaction and empower users to easily build idealised selves, it does
1000
not necessarily mean the dynamic of power on Facebook is vanished.
Specifically, it is believed that the digital world is a decentralised space where the
influence of institution, law, and social norm in the physical world are getting weaker.
The feature of user-centre and anonymity in digital space seems to break down the
fact people with different positions have different volumes of power in the real world.
Nevertheless, the majority of friendships on Facebook are from offline, so the
structure of power is extended from offline to online. Rather than decentralisation, the
relations of power are still a dynamic to affect collectivistic members’ behaviour on
Facebook. The philosophy of Confucian morals in Taiwan, generally viewed as the
origin of collectivistic culture, emphasises ‘respect for seniors’ and that a ‘different
1010
social position has different relationships’. This is why interviewees in my studies
tend to hide certain personal information and statuses via customised setting to those
44
with higher social positions, or to the elders of a family in an attempt to avoid
presenting a bad image to them. However, my study mainly focuses on how others’
influence affects collectivistic members’ presentation on Facebook, and the discussion
about power relations is rare. Hence, the issue of how and what ‘power’ affects
Facebook users’ manner is worthy of exploring in the future.
In addition, the main finding of the research shows that collectivistic culture
promotes users comparing themselves socially to other Facebook members. This is
because they can examine whether they have already achieved common goals that
1020
society expects, such as success in their career or personal life, through viewing others
news feed. However, some studies pointed out how the characteristics of
individualism, such as self-esteem, can also result in mental effects of social
comparison. Accordingly, whether in-group influence within a collectivistic culture is
the only reason that leads Facebook users to compare themselves socially to others is
worthy of further discussion.
The proverb that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”, states that the louder one
expresses one’s own opinions and beliefs, the more attention and benefits one receives
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991: 234). It implies that the values of self-esteem and selfreliance are encouraged as desirable social values in individualistic cultures (Triandis,
1030
1989). Hofstted (2001) described how individuals who are autonomous and
independent and are less detached from a group ( and have weak ties to a group) can
be view as individualism. Individual needs and goals are generally viewed as more
important than group goals and needs. Based on loose in-group bonds in
individualistic culture, individualistic members are taught to maintain a consistent
self-image which is separate from the social context and are expected to express their
desires, preferences, and attributes. Accordingly, these cultural characteristics
45
cultivate an independent self to have a clear boundary between self and others and to
be highlighted by social comparison with others.
Not only can in-group influence in collectivistic cultures result in the effect of
1040
social comparison, but also the value of self-esteem and self-reliance are encouraged
as desirable social values in individualistic cultures where someone can compare
themselves socially to other members. There are numerous studies from Western
researchers that refer to nations with individualistic cultures, showing that users can
feel jealous (Muise, Christifides & Desmarais, 2009), isolated (Maier, Laumer,
Eckhardt & Weitzel, 2012), and even depressive (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011)
after consuming social information from other SNSs members. Therefore the effect of
social comparison may not be decisively attributed to the cultural trait of collectivism,
albeit my study further pointed out that, rather than compared to all Facebook
members, collectivistic members may view specific members as references to reflect
1050
themselves. This implies that both external motivation (in group influence) and inner
motivation (self-esteem) may trigger individuals to compare socially to others.
Furthermore, how different dynamics of external motivation and inner motivation
result in social comparison either individually (micro effect) or culturally (macro
effect) is a worthy issue to be explored in the future.
Wilson, Gosling and Graham (2012) reviewed journals, conference papers, and
reports related to Facebook research in the social sciences and found that cultural
differences in Facebook use are rarely discussed. My preliminary research adopts
collectivism (Eastern perspective) to clarify how others’ assessment on Facebook
affects the Taiwanese people’s presentation of themselves on Facebook. Furthermore,
1060
it discusses how the Taiwanese use internet power to deal with a new type of
interactional interaction on Facebook which emphasises that the boundary of
46
situations, encounters, and people are collided. In the future, I would like to explore
individualistic members’ Facebook use and further to specifically compare the
cultural difference between individualism and collectivism in online interpersonal
interaction in an attempt to clarify what level of national culture may influence online
interpersonal interaction.
47
References:
[1] Altheide, D. L. (2000). Identity and the Definition of the Situation in a Massmediated Context. Symbolic Interaction, 23, 1-27.
[2] Backstorm, L. (2011). Anatomy of Facebook. PaloAlto, CA: Facebook. Retrieved
from http://www.facebook.com/note/php?note_id=10150388519243859
[3] Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and Social Networking
Web Sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303-1314.
[4] Cho, S. E. (2010). Cross-cultural Comparison of Korean and American Social
Network Sites. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, USA.
[5] Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Impression Online: SelfPresentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 11, 415-441.
[6] Facebook. (2012). Statistics of Facebook. Palo Alto, CA: Facebook. Retrieved
from http://newsroomfb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22
[7] Facebook. (2013). Statistics of Facebook. Socialbakers, CA: Facebook. Retrieved
from http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/
[8] Frederickson, H. G. (2002). Confucius and the Moral Basis of Bureaucracy.
Administration and Society, 33(6), 610-628.
[9] Friedlander, L. (2011). Friending the Virgin: Some Thoughts on the Prehistory of
Facebook. SAGE Open, 1-14.
[10] Goffman, A. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday.
[11] Gosling, S. D., Gaddis, S., & Vazire, S. (March, 2007). Personality Impressions
Based on Facebook Profiles. Paper Presented at the International Conference on
Weblogs and Social Media, Boulder, CO.
[12] Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online
social networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the Electronic
Society. 71-80.
[13] Gudykunst, W. B. & Nishida, T. (1986a). The Influence of Cultural Variability
on Perceptions of Communication Behaviour Associated with Relationship Terms.
Human Communication Research, 13, 147-166.
48
[14] Gudykunst, W. B., Yoom, Y. C., & Nishida, T. (1987). The Influence of
Individualism-Collectivism on Perceptions of Communication in Ingroup and
Outgroup Relationships. Communication Monographs, 54, 295-305.
[15] Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Iinstitutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
[16] Hogan, B. (2010). The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media:
Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online. Bulletin of Science, Technology
& Society, 30(6), 377-386.
[17] Hsu, F. L. K. (1963). Clan, Caste, and Club: A Comparative Study of Chinese,
Hindu, and American Ways of Life. Princeton, N.J.: van Nostrand.
[18] Hsu, N. L. (2011). A Study on College Students Facebook use and Presentaiton
in Taiwan. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Shih Hsin University, Taipei, Taiwan.
[19] Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-Collectivism: A Study of
Cross-Cultural Researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.
[20] Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perceptions. New York: W. H. Freeman.
[21] Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the World, Unite! The
Challenge and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
[22] Jordan, T. (1999). Cyberpower: The Culture and Politics of Cyberspace and of
the Internet. London: Routledge.
[23] Lai, K. L. (1995). Confucian Moral Thinking. Philosophy East and West, 45(2),
249-272.
[24] Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the Crowd:
Social Searching VS. Social Browsing. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 167-170.
[25] Lampe, C., Eliison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2007). A Familiar Face(book): Profile
Elements as Signals in an Online Social Network. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 435-444.
49
[26] Ling, R. (2008). New Tech, New Ties: How Mobile Communication is Replacing
Social Cohesion. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[27] Maier, Laumer, Eckhardt, & Weitzel. (2012). When Social Networking Turns to
Social Overload: Explaining the Stress, Emotional Exhaustion, and Quitting
Behaviour from Social Network Sites’ Users. 2012 Proceedings of ECIS.
[28] Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for
Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
[29] Muise, A., Christofides, Desmarais, S. (2009). More Information than You Ever
Waned: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy?
CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 12. 21-36.
[30] O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The Impact of Social Media on
Children, Adolescents, and Families. Pediatrics, 127, 800-804.
[31] Oksman, V. & Turtiainen. (2004). Mobile Communication as a Social Stage:
Meaning of Mobile Communication in Everyday Life among Teenagers in Finland.
New Media & Society, 6(3), 319-339.
[32] Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The Virtual Geographies of Social Networks: A
Comparative Analysis of Facebook, Linedin and AsmallWorld. New Media & Society,
11(1), 199-220.
[33] Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College Students’
Social Networking Experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology. 30, 227-238.
[34] Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, .M., Arseneault, J. M., & Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R.
(2009). Personality and Motivations Associated with Facebook Use. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 25(2), 578-586.
[35] Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We Are What We Post? Self-Presentation in
Personal Web Space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 385-404.
[36] Triandis, H. C. (1986). Collectivism vs. Individualism: A Reconceptualisation of
a Basic Concept in Cross-cultural Social Psychology. In C. Bagley & G. K. Verma
50
(Eds.), Personality, Cognition and Values: Cross-cultural Perceptives of Childhood
and Adolescence. London: Macmillan.
[37] Triandis, H. C. (1989). The Self and Social Behaviour in Different Cultural
Contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
[38] Triandis, H. C. (1995). Collectivism and Individualism. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press.
[39] Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).
Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on Self-ingroup
Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.
[40] Waggoner, A. S., Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. (2009). Person Perception by
Active Verses Passive Perceivers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45,
1028-1031.
[41] Walther, J., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L., & Shulman, H. (2009). Self-generated
Versus Other-generated Statements and Impressions in Computer-mediated
Communication: A Test of Warranting Theory Using Facebook. Communication
Research, 36, 229-254.
[42] Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambaby, N. (2009). On Being Liked on the Web
and in the “Real World”: Consistency in First Impressions Across Personal Webpages
and Spontaneous Behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 573-576.
[43] Williams, S. J. (1986). Appraising Goffman. The British Journal of Sociology.
37(3), 348-369.
[44] Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A Review of Facebook
Research in the Social Sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7(3), 203220.
[45] Yang, K. S. (1981). Social Orientation and Individual Modernity among Chinese
Students. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 159-170.
[46] Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The Faces of Facebookers: Investigating
Social Enhancement and Social Compensation Hypothesis; Predicting Facebook and
Offline Popularity from Sociability and Self-Esteem, and Mapping the Meanings of
Popularity with Semantic Networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
14, 1-34.
51
Appendix:
(A) Brief Description of Participants According to Categories
High Frequency Presenter
(A) 26 years old, Male, Professional
Low Frequency Presenter
(A)27 years old, Male, Professional
(B) 25 years old, Male, Student
(B)26 years old, Female, Student
(C) 28 years old, Male, Professional
(C) 27 years old, Male, Professional
(D) 26 years, Female, Student
(D)31 years old, Female, Professional
(E) 27 years old, Female, Professional
(E)26 years old, Male, Professional
(F) 25 years old, Male, Professional
(F)28 years old, Female, Student
(G) 31 years old, Female, Professional
(G)29 years old, Male, Professional
(H) 25 years old, Female, Professional
(H)32 years old, Male, Student
(I) 27 years old, Female, Professional
(I)27 years old, Male, Professional
(J) 27 years old, Female, Professional
(J)26 years old, Female, Professional
※The in-depth interviews are held during the period of 4th July to 14th July
2013 in café shops in Taiwan, Taipei city and Taichung city