Computers in Human Behavior 31 (2014) 367–372

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbeh

Expressing the ‘‘True Self’’ on Facebook

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.052

⇑ Tel.: +1 610 929 6742.E-mail address: gseidman@alb.edu

Gwendolyn Seidman ⇑Psychology Department, Albright College, 13th and Bern Streets, Reading, PA 19612, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Available online 1 December 2013

Keywords:‘‘True self’’FacebookSocial networking websitesSelf-presentation

The present research examined correlates of ‘‘true self’’ expression to offline friends on Facebook. The‘‘true self’’ (McKenna et al., 2002) consists of qualities an individual currently possesses but does not nor-mally express to others. In Study 1, 184 undergraduates completed an online survey assessing ‘‘true self’’expression to their friends online and reported the frequency of various Facebook activities. True selfexpression was positively correlated with using Facebook for communicating with others, general self-disclosure, emotional disclosure, attention-seeking, and acceptance-seeking, but was unrelated to seek-ing connection with and expressing caring for others. In Study 2, 41 undergraduates completed the ‘‘trueself’’ measure and their Facebook profiles were saved and coded. True self expression was positively cor-related with frequency of posting on others’ walls, but not posting on one’s own wall or receiving postsfrom others. Finally, true self expression was positively associated with the level of personal disclosure ofparticipants’ wall posts. These results suggest that those who feel able to express their ‘‘true self’’ onlineare more active on Facebook, have more self-oriented motivations for posting, and post more personallyrevealing and emotional content.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since the first appearance of e-mail, listservs, and other forms ofonline communication, the Internet has changed the way we com-municate with each other (see Bargh & McKenna, 2004 for a re-view). In recent years, Internet users have joined socialnetworking websites (SNS) which allow them to connect with oth-ers and post information and daily updates about themselves to alarge network of fellow users of their choice. SNS are so popularthat in 2010, 61% of American adults used them (Zickuhr, 2010).This represents a major shift in Internet use. As recently as 2000,half of American adults did not even have an Internet connection(Rainie et al., 2000). Worldwide, Facebook is the most popular so-cial networking site (Jain, 2010) with over one billion active users,699 million of whom log onto the site daily (Facebook, 2013). Face-book has become so popular that in some weeks it has been thenumber one source of all Internet traffic in the United States(Dougherty, 2010). In recent years, social scientists have takengreat interest in understanding Facebook, examining the demo-graphic characteristics of Facebook users, motivations for Facebookuse, self-presentation, and social interactions on Facebook (seeWilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012 for a review). The currentresearch will address the expression of the ‘‘true self’’ (Bargh,

McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002; McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002)on Facebook.

2. Background

2.1. The ‘‘True Self’’

Psychologists have long accepted the notion that the self is mul-ti-faceted. Early scholars focused on the distinction between one’spublic persona and private self (Jung, 1953). Higgins (1987) di-vided the self into the actual self (the way we currently see our-selves) and two self-guides, the ideal and ought self, which serveas standards to which the actual self is compared. Markus andNurius (1986) posited that each of us has multiple possible selvesthat we hope to become or fear becoming.

The ‘‘true self’’, as defined by Bargh et al. (2002), McKennaet al. (2002), consists of qualities that an individual currentlypossesses but does not normally express to others in everydaylife. According to McKenna this notion is similar to the idea ofthe true self described by Rogers (1951). Rogers posited thatthe self may contain identity-important qualities that are notvalidated by one’s significant others. These are not necessarilyundesirable traits, but rather these are traits that one would liketo be acknowledged, but that one is unable to express or to havevalidated by others. The true self differs from other ‘‘selves’’ de-scribed in the psychological literature, such as Higgins’ (1987)self-guides or Markus and Nurius’ (1986) possible selves because

368 G. Seidman / Computers in Human Behavior 31 (2014) 367–372

unlike these other constructs, the true self contains qualities thatthe individual currently possesses.

2.2. Expressing the ‘‘True Self’’ on the Internet

Past research has revealed that some individuals feel better ableto express their ‘‘true self’’ online (McKenna et al., 2002). McKennaet al. (2002) found that individuals who expressed the true self on-line were more likely to form close relationships with others thatthey met via the Internet, and that this was especially true forthose high in social anxiety. Experimental evidence suggests thatthese true self qualities are actually conveyed to online interactionpartners. In a lab study, Bargh et al. (2002, Experiment 3), foundthat online interaction partners evaluated one another as possess-ing more true self traits than face-to-face partners. Thus it appearsthat these participants were more able to express true self qualitiesin online than in face-to-face interactions. This expression of thetrue self also appears to operate at the unconscious level, with trueself qualities being more cognitively accessible following onlineinteractions (Bargh et al., 2002, Experiment1). In research specifi-cally addressing Facebook use, Tosun (2012) found that those witha tendency to express the true self online are likely to use Facebookas a way to establish new relationships, just as such individualsused other Internet interaction venues ten years earlier. However,those who express the true self online are likely to use the Internetas a ‘‘social substitute’’ for offline interactions, substituting onlineonly relationships with strangers for offline relationships (Tosun& Lajunen, 2009), suggesting an unhealthy consequence of suchself expression.

Most past research on true self expression online has focused oninteractions with strangers. However, in the past several years,Internet-based communications have become primarily a way toconnect with existing offline friends and family members. In orderto examine online true self expression to offline friends, McKenna,Buffardi, and Seidman (2005) conducted a survey assessing the ex-tent to which people expressed hidden qualities to their offlinefriends online via email and instant messaging. The tendency to ex-press the true self to existing ‘‘real life’’ friends when interactingwith those friends via the Internet predicted important outcomesfor those relationships, including an ease in discussing trouble-some topics or conflicts online, and a sense that the Internet hadstrengthened their relationships. However, this research did notdeal with social networking sites, in which information is madepublic to a large number of friends and acquaintances, but ratherwith private one-on-one online communications. Some recent re-search suggests that true self aspects may be expressed on Face-book, revealing that neuroticism is positively correlated with selfreports of expressing hidden self-aspects through Facebook posts(Seidman, 2013). The current research will extend this work byexamining how the true self is expressed to existing offline friendson Facebook, using both self report and behavioral data.

2.3. True self expression on Facebook

According to Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012), Facebook use ismotivated by two primary needs: belonging and self-presentation.The need to belong is the fundamental motive to connect with andbe accepted by others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Self-presenta-tion is the attempt to influence how one is perceived by otherswith the goal of making a particular impression (Schlenker,2003). Expression of the true self can be a way to fulfill both ofthese needs.

Self-verification is an important self-presentational goal. Self-verification is the desire to be seen by others as we see ourselves;that is, the desire to present our real and authentic selves to others(Swann, 1983, 1987). Because true self traits are a part of the

existing self, and not idealized or hoped for traits, their expressiononline is an attempt to express the self as it truly is, and is thus anattempt at self-verification. People have a strong motivation tohave identity-important self-aspects acknowledged by others, inorder to ensure that they are integrated into the self-concept(Baumeister, 1998; Gollwitzer, 1986). Individuals who haveself-aspects that can only be expressed online should have agreater tendency to express themselves on Facebook because itmay be the only way to have certain self-aspects verified.

Hypothesis 1. True self expression online will be positivelyassociated with the tendency to use Facebook as a tool tocommunicate with others, to disclose information, and to expressemotions.

In addition, because those who express the true self online areexpressing unique self-aspects, they may be especially likely toseek attention via their Facebook posts, since it is their only chanceto get attention for these unique self expressions. If these are iden-tity-important self-aspects, then being able to express them andhave them validated by others can ultimately increase self-accep-tance (McKenna & Bargh, 1998). This provides a strong motivationnot only to express these self-aspects, but to deliberately try to getothers to notice them.

Hypothesis 2. True self expression online will be positivelyassociated with the use of Facebook as a way to seek attentionfrom others.

Belonging needs can be met by expressing caring for others andby being accepted by others. People seek closeness to others forboth altruistic and egoistic reasons (Park, Troisi, & Maner, 2010).Altruistic concerns involve a genuine concern for others’ needs,whereas egoistic concerns involve whether or not one’s own needswill be met by the relationship. Facebook use can satisfy both ofthese concerns. One can express caring and support for friendsvia Facebook and one can also have one’s own needs for acceptanceand validation fulfilled by others on Facebook. True self expressionis one way to satisfy egoistic relational motives. Validation of one’sself-concept is an important goal of close relationships (Derlega &Chaikin, 1977). It is important that these hidden self-aspects bevalidated by others, and the Internet may allow this to occur(Bargh et al., 2002; McKenna & Bargh, 1998). Thus, true self expres-sion can accomplish belonging needs, namely acceptance by oth-ers. However, true self expression does not facilitate altruisticexpressions of caring or concern for others, as it reflectsself-oriented motives.

Hypothesis 3. True self expression online will be positivelyassociated with using Facebook as a way to gain acceptance fromothers (egoistic belonging motive), but not as a way to show caringfor others (altruistic belonging motive).

As discussed previously, it is likely that those who express thetrue self online are seeking validation from others of these hiddenself aspects and may be more expressive on Facebook. This is sim-ilar to the pattern of behaviors exhibited by those with low self es-teem. Research shows that those with low self esteem are morecomfortable expressing negative emotions on Facebook, but theseself disclosures make negative impressions on others and thusmay not lead to positive outcomes for their relationships (Forest& Wood, 2012). Thus, these individuals may fail to receive thevalidation they are seeking. A similar fate may befall those whoexpress the true self online by being more personally disclosing.In most cases, self disclosure by one party leads to greater likingby the second party (see Collins & Miller, 1994 for review) andleads the other party to disclose in turn (Laurenceau, Barrett, &Pietromonaco, 1998; Sprecher, Treger, Wondra, Hilaire, & Wallpe,

1 Results were similar using a more reliable (a = .83) shortened version of the scalethat omitted the first item.

G. Seidman / Computers in Human Behavior 31 (2014) 367–372 369

2013). However, self-disclosure can have negative effects on likingif it is seen as inappropriate in a given situation (Taylor, 1979) withself-disclosures to strangers typically being viewed negatively(Archer & Berg, 1978; Rubin, 1975). Because Facebook socialnetworks are large, most of those receiving these disclosures donot have close relationships with the discloser and some maybarely be acquainted with the user (West, Lewis, & Currie, 2009).Those who express the true self online should be likely to useFacebook heavily, as hypothesized earlier, but they may not bethe recipients of the attention they seek.

Hypothesis 4. True self expression online will not be associatedwith receipt of wall posts from others.

The current research will examine how true self expression onFacebook is related to self-presentational and belongingness ori-ented behaviors and motivations. Study 1 will test Hypotheses 1through 3, by examining participants’ self-reported Facebook usehabits and reasons for using Facebook. Study 2 will use actual Face-book activity to test Hypotheses 1 and 4 by examining participants’user profiles.

3. Study 1

3.1. Method

3.1.1. ParticipantsOne-hundred and eighty-four undergraduate students at a

small liberal arts college in the Northeastern United States (51males, 133 females) between the ages of 18 and 28 (M = 19.51,SD = 1.55) participated. Originally, 207 students began the survey,but only 184 completed all of the measures discussed here. Partic-ipants reported spending between zero and 50 h per week on Face-book (M = 8.68, SD = 8.34).

Participants were recruited via email. All students who wereenrolled in psychology courses received an email soliciting the par-ticipation of students who currently possessed a Facebook account.All participants received extra credit in psychology courses as anincentive for participation. This data was previously analyzed bySeidman (2013) in an examination of the association betweenFacebook use and the Big 5 Personality traits.

3.1.2. Materials and procedureParticipants followed an emailed link to an online survey. The

first page of the survey was an informed consent. Participants thenprogressed through a series of questions assessing demographiccharacteristics, Facebook use habits and motivations (these itemswere used to create the scales described below, which are also de-scribed in Seidman (2013)), a measure of the ‘‘true self’’, and addi-tional measures not relevant to the present analysis.

3.1.2.1. The ‘‘true self’’. In order to assess the extent to which partic-ipants expressed their ‘‘true self’’ to friends and acquaintances onthe Internet, participants completed a modified version of McKen-na et al. (2002) ‘‘true self’’ measure first used by McKenna et al.(2005). This measure contains four items. Respondents answered‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ to the question ‘‘Do you think you’ve given one ormore of your friends a better idea of who the ‘real you’ is becauseof things you’ve told them online?’’. Four additional items askedparticipants to rate the extent to which each statement character-ized them on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = ‘‘not at all’’, 7 = ‘‘a greatdeal’’). These items were ‘‘To what extent do you feel you’ve ex-pressed different parts or facets of yourself in your online interac-tions with a friend (or friends) that you’d not expressed with thembefore in person?’’; ‘‘How surprised do you think your friends havebeen by things you’ve said or done online – please think of the

most extreme examples when answering this question’’; ‘‘Howmuch have you felt free to share things with a friend (or friends)online that you might have hesitated to share with them in per-son’’; and ‘‘More generally, to what extent do you think yourfriends have been surprised to learn things about you through youronline interactions with them?’’ Responses to these five items werestandardized and then averaged to create the ‘‘true self’’ measure(a = .57)1.

3.1.2.2. Facebook use behaviors. In order to assess participants’ pat-terns of Facebook use, three scales were created: Communication(communicating with others on Facebook), general self disclosure,and emotional disclosure. For all of these items, participants ratedhow often they engaged in the behavior, using a 7-point Likertscale (1 = ‘‘never’’, 7 = ‘‘all the time’’). The communication scale(a = .847, M = 4.38, SD = 1.45) consisted of two items: Writing onothers’ walls and commenting on others’ posts. The general self dis-closure scale (a = .870, M = 3.39, SD = 1.28) consisted of six items:Changing one’s status, updating profile information, posting sta-tuses/messages about special events, posting about daily events,posting photographs of special events, and posting photographsof daily events. Finally, the emotional disclosure scale (a = .909,M = 2.63, SD = 1.66) consisted of two items: posting about ‘‘dramain my life’’ and venting frustrations. These three scales were allused to test Hypothesis 1.

3.1.2.3. Facebook use motivations. In order to assess participants’motivations for Facebook use, three scales were created: Accep-tance-seeking (using Facebook in order to be accepted by others),connection/caring (using Facebook in order to main connectionswith others or to express caring and concern for others), and atten-tion-seeking (using Facebook as a way to get attention from oth-ers). Once again, participants used a 7-point Likert scale toindicate how often their Facebook posts were motivated by eachfactor. The acceptance-seeking scale (a = .777, M = 3.69, SD = 1.68)consisted of two items: Posting to feel included and posting toget others to feel closer to oneself. This scale represents egoisticbelonging motives. The connection/caring scale (a = .729, M = 4.27,SD = 1.50) contained three items: Posting to feel closer to others,to show caring for others, and to support others. This scale repre-sents altruistic belonging motives. Finally, the attention-seekingscale (a = .749, M = 2.91, SD = 1.61) consisted of two items: Show-ing off and getting attention. These three scales were used to testHypotheses 2 and 3.

3.2. Results and discussion

In order to examine the relationship between ‘‘true self’’ expres-sion to friends online and specific Facebook behaviors and motiva-tions, a series of multiple regression analyses were conducted witheach behavior and motivation scale described in Section 3.1.2as thedependent variable for each separate regression model. Genderand the number of hours the participant reported spending onFacebook weekly were entered into step 1 of each regression mod-el as control variables. Scores on the ‘‘true self’’ measure were en-tered in step 2 for all models. Correlations between the criterionvariables are displayed in Table 1. Regression coefficients for thetrue self measure and change in R2 (from step 1 to step 2) for eachof the six regression models are displayed in Table 2. Thus, eachrow of Table 2 represents the results from a separate regressionmodel.

Table 1Correlations between dependent variables for Study 1.

General self-disclosure Emotional disclosure Acceptance-seeking Connection/caring Attention-seeking

Communication .709��� .423��� .280��� .402��� .209��

General self-disclosure .567��� .400��� .445��� .393���

Emotional disclosure .268��� .319��� .350���

Acceptance-seeking .743��� .611���

Connection/caring .437���

�� p < .01.��� p < .001.

Table 2Study 1 regression results for models predicting Facebook behaviors and motivationsfrom ‘‘True Self’’ expression.

Criterion variables B (SE) DR2

Behaviors Communication 0.509 (0.158)�� .043��

General self-disclosure 0.506 (0.147)�� .054��

Emotional disclosure 0.522 (0.198)�� .034��

Motivations Acceptance-seeking 0.795 (0.200)��� .078���

Connection/caring 0.255 (0.179) .010Attention-seeking 0.703 (0.194)��� .066���

DR2 represents DR2 from step 1 (gender and weekly time spent on Facebook) to step2 (‘‘true self’’ scores).�� p < .01.��� p < .001.

370 G. Seidman / Computers in Human Behavior 31 (2014) 367–372

Scores on the true self measure were positively associated withgreater use of Facebook in all three categories of behavior, consis-tent with Hypothesis 1. As predicted by Hypothesis 2, true selfexpression was associated with use of Facebook as a way to seekattention from others. Finally, in accordance with Hypothesis 3,true self expression was associated with use of Facebook as away to gain acceptance from others (an egoistic belonging motive),but not to connect with or show caring for others (an altruisticbelonging motive).

These results show that true self expression online is associatedwith more frequent use of Facebook to communicate with others,present information about oneself, and express emotions. In addi-tion, these frequent posts are often used as a way to get attentionfrom and be accepted by others. Thus, those who express the trueself online may be doing so for self-oriented motives; where asthose who express the true self online are no more likely thanthose who do not to use Facebook for other-oriented motives.

This study examined the association between true self expressionand Facebook behaviors and motivations as reported by Facebookusers. Although motivations can only be assessed via self-report,behaviors can be observed objectively by examining Facebook pro-files. Thus Hypotheses 1 and 4 can be tested with behavioral data.

4. Study 2

Study 2 is an attempt to again test Hypothesis 1, by replicatingthe findings of Study 1 using behavioral data gleaned from users’Facebook profiles. Frequency of Facebook activity and level of emo-tional expression will both be assessed in order to test this hypoth-esis. In addition, in order to test Hypothesis 4, reactions by users’friends will be gauged by examining the frequency with which oth-ers post on the users’ walls.

4.1. Method

4.1.1. ParticipantsForty-one undergraduate students at a small liberal arts college

in the Northeastern United States (9 males and 32 females)

between the ages of 18 and 25 (M = 19.88, SD = 1.33) respondedto flyers posted in the psychology department soliciting the partic-ipation of individuals who currently possessed a Facebook page.One participant’s data was removed because he was an extremeoutlier; the number of posts he made per day was more than fivestandard deviations above the average for this sample. All partici-pants received extra credit in psychology courses as an incentivefor participation. Participants reported spending between twoand 70 h per week on Facebook (M = 9.50, SD = 12.30).

4.1.2. Materials and procedureParticipants entered the laboratory where they were greeted by

a female experimenter. After explaining the procedure and obtain-ing informed consent, the experimenter gave participants a ques-tionnaire packet. This packet contained demographic questions,the ‘‘true self’’ measure used in Study 1 (a = .85), and other mea-sures not relevant to the current analysis.

After completing the questionnaire, participants were seated infront of a computer and asked to login to their Facebook account.They were first asked to click on their main profile page and the re-searcher saved this page. Participants were then instructed to clickon the ‘‘Wall’’ tab, and click ‘‘expand all comments’’ so that all com-ments were shown. The experimenter then clicked ‘‘view olderposts’’ twice and saved the entire page. Participants were assuredthat although their data would not be anonymous due to the iden-tifying information contained in the saved profiles, it would beconfidential, and they were asked to give their final consent to al-low the researchers to save and code their Facebook profile. Partic-ipants were then debriefed.

4.1.3. Facebook profile codingTwo independent raters examined each saved profile page and

wall. The participants’ number of friends (M = 635.79,SD = 436.04) was recorded from the main profile (Info) page. Therewere no disagreements between the raters on this measure. Threedifferent types of wall posts were counted from the saved wallpages: participant’s posts on his/her own wall, posts by others,and posts on others’ walls. For each of these counts, the numberof posts per day was computed. Any inter-rater disagreements onthese counts were resolved upon re-counting. On average, eachday, participants received 1.06 (SD = 1.53) wall posts from others,made 0.93 (SD = 1.11) posts on their own wall and made 1.09(SD = 0.81) posts on others’ walls. Finally, the raters used a 5-pointLikert scale to assess the extent to which the overall content of theparticipant’s wall posts was personally revealing. An interclass cor-relation was computed to assess inter-rater reliability for the initialset of ratings. The ICC was .711, indicating substantial agreement.For profiles in which the inter-rater discrepancy was 1 point, thetwo raters’ scores were averaged. Discrepancies greater than 1point were resolved through discussion. The average self disclosurerating was 2.66 (SD = 1.02).

In order to test Hypothesis 1, several variables were examined.Frequency of communication with others was assessed with theaverage number of posts per day the participant made on others’

Table 3Correlations between dependent variables for Study 2.

Posts perday on ownwall

Posts per dayon others’walls

Posts perday byothers

Wallpersonaldisclosure

Number ofFacebookfriends

�.041 �.188 .104 �.003

Posts per dayon ownwall

.565��� .098 .297�

Posts per dayon others’walls

.076 .328�

Posts per dayby others

�.133

� p < .10.� p < .05.��� p < .001.

G. Seidman / Computers in Human Behavior 31 (2014) 367–372 371

walls. Frequency of self-expression was assessed by examining theaverage number of posts per day on the participant’s own wall.Overall emotional disclosure was assessed by the coders’ ratingsof the participant’s personal disclosure.

To test Hypothesis 4, the average number of posts per day byothers on the participant’s wall was used. However, frequency ofposts by others could be an indicator not only of how responsivethe participant’s friends are, but also a simple indicator that theparticipant had more friends, and thus more people who couldpotentially post on the wall. For this reason, number of friendswas also examined, to rule out this possible explanation.

4.2. Results and discussion

In order to examine the relationship between ‘‘true self’’ expres-sion to friends online and the frequency of Facebook behaviors andemotional expression, a series of multiple regression analyses wereconducted with each profile element described in Section 4.1.3 asthe dependent variable for each model. Gender and the numberof hours the participant reported spending on Facebook weeklywere entered into step 1 of each regression model as control vari-ables, and scores on the ‘‘true self’’ measure were entered in step 2.Correlations between the criterion variables are displayed inTable 3. Regression coefficients for the true self measure andchange in R2 (from step 1 to step 2) for the five regression modelsare displayed in Table 4. Thus, each row of Table 4 represents theresults from a separate regression model.

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, true self scores were positivelyassociated with frequency of posting on others’ walls. This indi-cates that those who express the ‘‘true self’’ online are more likelyto use Facebook as a method to communicate with others. Contraryto Hypothesis 1, and to the self-report data from Study 1, true selfscores were unrelated to frequency of posting on one’s own wall,but the relationship was in the expected direction and scores onthe true self measure did account for 6.3% of the variance in

Table 4Study 2 regression results for models predicting Facebook behavior from ‘‘True Self’’expression.

Criterion variables B (SE) step 1 B (SE) step 2 DR2

Number of Facebook friends 33.036 (65.354) .006Posts per day on own wall 0.343 (0.224) .063Posts per day on others’ walls 0.453 (0.167)� .159�

Posts per day by others 0.056 (0.367) .001Wall personal disclosure 0.481 (0.222)� .116�

DR2 represents DR2 from step 1 (gender and weekly time spent on Facebook) to step2 (‘‘true self’’ scores).� p < .05.

posting activity. Also consistent with Hypothesis 1, which pre-dicted greater emotional disclosure by those who express the ‘‘trueself’’ online, those who expressed the true self were significantlymore likely to personally disclose in their wall posts, as assessedby the independent coders. As predicted by Hypothesis 4, true selfexpression was unrelated to the frequency of others’ posts on theparticipants’ wall. Thus, those high on true self expression reachedout to others more by posting on friends’ walls, but did not receivethe corresponding boost in activity by friends on their own wall.This lack of posts by friends could not by explained by their lackingsufficient numbers of friends, since there was no relation betweennumber of friends and true self expression.

5. Conclusions

These results suggest that those who feel more able to expresstheir ‘‘true self’’ online post on Facebook more frequently and postmore personally revealing and emotional content, even controllingfor how much time they spend on the site. In addition, Study 1 sug-gests that those who express the ‘‘true self’’ online tend to post formore self-oriented reasons, such as getting attention and feelingincluded, rather than other-oriented motivations, like expressingcaring for others. Study 2 replicated the behavioral findings ofStudy 1, using data from actual user profiles. Study 2 confirmedthat those who express the true self online are more likely to poston others’ walls and are more likely to disclose intimate informa-tion on Facebook. However, those who scored highly on the mea-sure of the true self were not more likely to post on their ownwall, contrary to the results of Study 1. This may be due to thesmaller sample size, as the effect was in the expect direction andtrue self expression accounted for a substantial portion of the var-iance in posting behaviors. Additionally, it is possible that whenself-reporting, participants may not be accurate in differentiatingbetween the frequency of posts to their own vs. others’ walls.

These findings also suggest that those who express their trueself online may not be getting the social validation they seek. De-spite having the same number of friends as those who do not ex-press their true self online and posting on friends’ walls morefrequently, Study 2 showed that those who express the true selfdo not receive more wall posts from others in response to theirgreater expressiveness. These individuals appear to reach out toothers with higher frequency and greater intensity (revealing moreprivate information), but this is not met by a higher frequency ofresponses. This may be a result of the fact that these individualsuse Facebook more for self-oriented motives, rather than other-oriented motives, as demonstrated in Study 1. Their self-orientedmotives may be apparent to their Facebook friends, causing themto not respond in kind. Alternatively, there could be a disconnectbetween the levels of self-disclosure with which these users andtheir friends are comfortable. Future researchers should investigatethe long term consequences of true self expression on Facebookand others’ reactions to it. The current findings suggest that thetendency to express the true self online to existing friends isassociated with specific Facebook behaviors and motivations, butthe consequences of these behaviors are not currently wellunderstood.

These findings add to the larger literature on true selfexpression online. Most prior research on true self expression hasfocused on Internet-initiated relationships (Bargh et al., 2002;McKenna et al., 2002; Tosun, 2012; Tosun & Lajunen, 2009), whichonly represent a small portion of online social interactions. Theonly study to focus on true self expression to offline friends as atrait-like individual difference examined private email and instantmessage communications (McKenna et al., 2005), which, with theadvent of social networking sites, have become only a small part

372 G. Seidman / Computers in Human Behavior 31 (2014) 367–372

of online social interactions. Facebook offers new, and less private,ways to connect with a network of friends and acquaintances. Inone sense, it represents communication with close others, but inanother sense it approximates the communication with strangersthat characterized early Internet social communication, as manyFacebook friends are not well-known to the user. Evidence doesin fact suggest that self-presentation and identity construction onsocial networking sites does differ from other online environments(Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008). Social networking sites may bean especially fertile ground for the expression of the true self,opening up the possibility to seek validation of hidden self aspectsfrom a broad range of social network members.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Mary Kate McCarthy and ErinMarie Poulson for their contributions to data collection and codingand Dr. Benjamín Liberman for comments on an earlier version ofthis manuscript.

References

Archer, R. L., & Berg, J. H. (1978). Disclosure reciprocity and its limits: A reactanceanalysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 527–540.

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. (2002). Can you see the real me?Activation and expression of the ‘true self’ on the Internet. Journal of SocialIssues, 58, 33–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00247.

Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review ofPsychology, 55, 573–590.

Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology (pp. 680–740). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonalattachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,497–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analyticreview. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475.

Derlega, V. L., & Chaikin, A. L. (1977). Privacy and self-disclosure in social relation-ships. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 102–115.

Dougherty, H. (2010). Facebook reaches top ranking in US. <http://weblogs.hitwise.com/heather-dougherty/2010/03/facebook_reaches_top_ranking_i.html>Retrieved 06.10.12.

Facebook (2013). Newsroom: Key facts. Facebook.com. <http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts> Retrieved 14.10.13.

Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working:Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits ofself-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23, 295–302.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1986). Striving for specific identities: The social reality ofself-symbolizing. In R. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self(pp. 143–159). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Journal ofPsychological Review, 94, 1120–1134.

Jain, S. (2010). 40 Most popular social networking sites of the world.Socialmediatoday.com. <http://socialmediatoday.com/node/195917> 6/14/12.

Jung, C. G. (1953). Two essays in analytical psychology (Trans. R.F. Hull). New York:Pantheon.

Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonalprocess: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived

partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. Journal of American Psychologist,41(9), 954–969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954.

McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet:Identity demarginalization from virtual group participation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 681–694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.681.

McKenna, K. Y. A., Buffardi, L., & Seidman, G. (2005). Self presentation to friends andstrangers online. In K. Renner, A. Schutz, & F. Machilek (Eds.), Internet andpersonality. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation onthe Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9–13.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00246.

Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality andIndividual Differences, 52, 243–249.

Park, L. E., Troisi, J. D., & Maner, J. K. (2010). Egoistic versus altruistic concerns incommunal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(3),315–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407510382178.

Rainie, L., Lenhart, A., Fox, S., Spooner, T., & Horrigan (2000). Tracking online life:How women use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends.Pew Internet & American Life Project. <http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2000/Report1.pdf>.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implication, andtheory. Trans-Atlantic Publications, p. 136.

Rubin, Z. (1975). Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 233–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(75)80025-4.

Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.),Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492–518). New York: Guilford.

Seidman, G. (2013). Self presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personalityinfluences social media use and motivations. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 54, 402–407.

Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J. D., Hilaire, N., & Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns:Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 49, 860–866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.017.

Swann, W. B. Jr., (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony withthe self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.). Social psychological perspectives onthe self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swann, W. B. Jr., (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051.

Taylor, D. A. (1979). Motivational bases. In G. J. Chelune (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins,patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships(pp. 1100–1151). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tosun, L. P. (2012). Motives for Facebook use and expressing ‘‘true self’’ on theInternet. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1510–1517.

Tosun, L. P., & Lajunen, T. (2009). Why do young adults develop a passion forInternet activities?: The associations among personality, revealing ‘‘true self’’on the Internet and passion for the Internet. Cyberpsychology and Behavior,12(4), 401–406.

West, A., Lewis, J., & Currie, P. (2009). Students’ Facebook ‘friends’: Public andprivate spheres. Journal of Youth Studies, 12, 615–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676260902960752.

Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research inthe social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 203–220.

Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digitalempowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,1816–1836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012.

Zickuhr, K. (2010). Generations 2010. Pew Internet and American Life Project. <http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Generations_and_Tech10.pdfRetrieved 06.10.12.