6

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

Authenticity, Digital Media, and
Person Identity Verification
Jenny L. Davis

Introduction
In the early days of the internet, screens were objects people could hide behind.
Interaction was primarily with strangers, and one had relative freedom to engage in iden-
tity performances that others could hardly call into question. However, the rise of so-
cial media has shifted the dynamics of digitally mediated interaction such that an online
presence ties directly to a nameable and knowable person. People are held to account for
who they are online, and patrolled for performances that seem disingenuous. Situated at
the intersection of identity and digitality, this paper draws on in-​depth interviews with
American adults (N = 25) to address authenticity on social media from an identity theory
perspective.
Given the prevalence of social media usage and its integration into social, personal,
and professional life, it is of both theoretical and empirical benefit to tease out the rules
and processes of digitally mediated interaction.1 Rather than catapult into entirely new
understandings of sociality, however, there is wisdom in drawing on established theoret-
ical traditions that have meticulously charted interaction and identity processes. Hence,
this chapter deals with the very issues that concerned early symbolic interactionists: how
identities are formed, operate within, and push against, societal structures (Becker, 1960,
1964; Goffman, 1955, 1959; Snow and Anderson, 1987). The social structures of interest
here, however, are digitally mediated ones, and these germinal issues take on renewed

1. See Pew Research for latest statistics on internet, mobile, and social media use (Smith, 2017: http://​www.
pewresearch.org/​fact-​tank/​2017/​01/​12/​evolution-​of-​technology/​).

Jenny L. Davis, Authenticity, Digital Media, and Person Identity Verification. In: Identities in Everyday Life.
Edited by Jan E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190873066.003.0006
94 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

import as technological changes usher in new social contexts for which the rules of inter-
action are still uncertain.
Identity theory, with its rigorous research program and sharp conceptual precision,
brings the classic ideas of self-​in-​society to bear on the burgeoning field of social media
studies. Identity theory predicts and explains the relationship between social structures,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

identities, and behaviors (Burke and Stets, 2009). The identity theory model, in which
persons call forth identities, behave in accordance with identity meanings, and respond
to feedback from others, has relevance to social media—​as platforms are both tacked to
individual selves and connect interactive social networks (Davis, 2016).
Through social media platforms, users both project identity meanings to others
and reflect identity meanings back to themselves (Gonzales and Hancock, 2011). These
processes of performance, feedback, and self-​reflection through social media dovetail
with the cybernetic feedback loop modeled in identity theory, in which persons behave
in line with identity meanings and incorporate situational cues to reflexively evaluate the
self (Burke and Stets, 2009; Stets and Burke, 2014a). In turn, the broad network connec-
tivity facilitated by social media reflects identity theory’s notion of “embeddedness,” in
which persons become tied to the identities and relationships that are integrated across
varied social settings (Owens, Robinson, and Smith-​Lovin, 2010; Serpe and Stryker,
2011; Stryker, 2000). Identity theory thus facilitates an analysis that is at once deeply
grounded in the micro-​sociological canon, and forward-​looking. Such an approach ac-
counts for identities as processes, emerging and evolving in distinct ways out of historical
and structural conditions.
Authenticity stands out as a useful place to merge digital media studies with
advances in identity theory. A wealth of social media research delineates how users
accomplish authenticity for themselves (e.g., Davis, 2012, 2014; Uski and Lampinen,
2016) and how they monitor authenticity in others (e.g., Marwick and Boyd, 2011).
However, the underlying motivation for maintaining authenticity, and the consequences
for identity performances that come off as inauthentic, remain unaddressed. Identity
theory can be instructive in this regard. Identity theorists have tagged authenticity as the
affective outcome associated with person identity verification (Stets and Burke, 2014b).
Person identities—​the broad characteristics that demarcate a person’s unique values
and demeanor—​drive behaviors across roles, groups, and situations (Stets and Burke,
2014b). Identity theory provides a framework for understanding why and how authen-
ticity matters and offers conceptual tools that address cycles of performance, feedback,
emotion, and behavioral response.
At the same time, the study of social media holds benefit for identity theory. Not
only do new technologies push identity theory into a novel context, they offer the oppor-
tunity to address components of the theory that have received relatively little attention—​
person identities and the interactional paradigm. Indeed, identity theory has thus far
addressed group and role identities more extensively than person identities (Stets and
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 95

Burke, 2014b), while addressing structural and perceptual issues more extensively than
interaction (Stets and Serpe, 2013). An interactionist approach to social media, through
an empirical investigation of authenticity, thus helps round out the identity theory re-
search program.
Beyond theoretical concerns, understanding authenticity in the context of so-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

cial media is key to understanding interaction in everyday life. Authenticity has
implications for both sense of self and the smooth flow of interaction. Interactions
are premised on all parties’ agreeing on the definition of the situation, and agreeing
on who each person is within the situation (Alexander, 1977; Becker, 1964; Berger
and Luckmann, 1966). People trust one another to live up to the identities to which
they lay claim (Goffman, 1959). Authenticity is thus vital for establishing a cred-
ible sense of self, and is a fundamental element of social interaction. It is of little
surprise that social media researchers have uncovered authenticity as a major con-
cern surrounding digitally mediated sociality. It is the task of social scientists to un-
ravel authenticity dynamics within digitally mediated contexts, for which norms and
practices remain in flux. I endeavor to take on just this task, employing an identity
theory framework.
I begin by reviewing the main tenets of identity theory, giving attention to the
person identity and its relation to authenticity. I then connect identity theory to social
media studies by highlighting authenticity as a recurring theme of theoretical and em-
pirical concern for social media scholars. In the analysis, I document the ways authen-
ticity drives identity performance and evaluation, discerning the interactive outcomes for
those deemed inauthentic.

Identity Theory
Rooted prominently in the tradition of George Herbert Mead (1934), identity theory
takes a structural symbolic interactionist approach, depicting identity as a structurally
embedded interactive process (Burke and Stets, 2009; Stets and Burke, 2014a; Stryker,
1980; Stryker and Burke, 2000). “Identity” is defined as the internalized set of meanings
associated with the roles people play, the groups in which they hold membership, and
the traits that define them as persons (Burke and Stets, 2009). These are role, group, and
person identities, respectively.
Identity theory accounts for both a structure of the self as well as processes of iden-
tity negotiation and maintenance. The self is made up of multiple identities (person, role,
and group) hierarchically organized (Brenner, Serpe and Stryker, 2014; Burke and Stets,
2009; Serpe and Stryker, 2011; Stets and Serpe, 2013). When the situation allows, people
are more likely to call forth the identities that are relatively salient to them (Owens,
Robinson, and Smith-​Lovin, 2010; Serpe and Stryker, 2011; Stryker, 2000). Once an iden-
tity is activated, verification processes begin.
96 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

Identity theory assumes that people try to maintain stable definitions of self. Thus,
once a given identity is activated, people work to verify the meanings they hold for that
identity (Burke and Stets, 2009). Identity verification is modeled on a cybernetic feedback
loop (Burke, 1991) that contains four component parts: an identity standard, percep-
tual inputs, a comparator, and behavioral outputs (Burke and Stets, 2009). The identity

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

standard is the set of meanings attached to an identity. Perceptual inputs are the situa-
tional cues that people rely on, including reflected appraisals or perceived evaluations
from others as to who individuals are in the situation. The comparator is a comparison of
the identity standard and perceptual inputs, through which people discern the degree to
which reflected appraisals (how they think others see them in the situation) match self-​
views. When the discrepancy is small or absent, identity verification occurs, eliciting pos-
itive emotion. When the discrepancy is large, identities are not verified, and people feel
negative emotion (Stets and Burke, 2014c). Non-​verification results in behavioral outputs
through which persons work to reconcile reflected appraisals with the identity standard.
In addition to behavioral outputs, non-​verification can result in changes to perceptions
of the situation, or when identity non-​verification is persistent, it can result in identity
change (Burke, 2006).
Efforts to align perceptual inputs with the identity standard are motivated by the
affective outcomes of identity verification and non-​verification. When people verify their
identities, they feel good. When people fail to verify their identities, they feel distress.
Affective responses to identity verification and non-​verification are rooted in self-​esteem
theory (Cast and Burke, 2002). Failure to verify identity meanings delivers a blow to
self-​esteem, which has three components: self-​efficacy, self-​worth, and authenticity, each
of which maps onto role, group, and person identities respectively. When people fail to
verify a role identity, they feel less efficacious; when people fail to verify a group identity,
they feel lowered self-​worth; and when people fail to verify a person identity, they feel
inauthentic (Stets and Burke, 2014b).
Although the identity theory model applies to all three bases of identity—​role,
group, and person—​role identities such as “leader,” “student,” “athlete,” and “spouse”
have historically dominated the identity theory literature (Stets and Burke, 2014a).
More recently, however, identity theory scholars are giving greater attention to group
(Stets and Burke, 2000) and person identities (Savage and Stets, 2016; Stets and Carter,
2011, 2012). Person identities are of relevance to social media studies. Person identities
act as “master” identities (Burke and Stets, 2009; Stets, 1995; Stets and Biga, 2003;
Stets and Burke, 1994; Stets and Carter, 2011, 2012), remaining with people across
roles, groups, and situations. Person identities are not tied to situations or particular
relationships, but span across situations and relationships. This resonates with the so-
cial dynamics fostered by mobile connectivity and multiple social platforms, through
which large and overlapping networks are ever present (Davis and Jurgenson, 2014),
and users are expected to engage regularly and publicly (Bucher, 2012; McLaughlin and
Vitak, 2012).
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 97

Social Media and Authenticity

The link between digital connectivity and person identity meanings is quickly apparent
when one reviews the concept of authenticity—​the affective outcome of person iden-
tity verification—​in the social media literature. Indeed, social media research is driven

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

by questions about authenticity norms (McLaughlin and Vitak, 2012); predictors and
outcomes of authenticity on social media platforms (Reinecke and Trepte, 2014); how
users accomplish authenticity for themselves (Davis, 2012, 2014; Zhao, Grasmuck, and
Martin, 2008); and how people monitor authenticity in others (Marwick and Boyd, 2011).
“Authenticity” refers to a perceivably unfettered self (Trilling, 1972), a perfor-
mance of self that the social actor sincerely believes (Goffman, 1959). An authentic self
is spontaneous and unrehearsed (Erikson, 1995); it remains fixed in a person even as
that person moves across varied situations and amid disparate social networks (Turner,
1978). Authenticity is a culturally established moral value (Trilling, 1972). Those who fail
to maintain authenticity suffer social censure and experience lower self-​esteem (Stets and
Burke, 2014b).
In the context of pervasive digital connectivity, authenticity looms large (Salisbury
and Pooley, 2017). While social media grants users the opportunity to carefully portray
images of the self (Davis, 2017), it also leaves users vulnerable to accusations of “trying
too hard” (McLaughlin and Vitak, 2012) or presenting themselves in ways that are as-
pirational, rather than accurate (Marwick and Boyd, 2011). Moreover, digital media
encourages interaction with multiple social networks simultaneously, collapsing existing
divides between an individual’s varied roles and groups (Davis and Jurgenson, 2014),
such that what may be an authentic performance in one context (e.g., among colleagues)
may feel out of place in another (e.g., among friends from a person’s childhood). Given
authenticity’s moral quality and its relationship to person identity verification, it is perhaps
unsurprising that empirical research shows a connection between self-​reports of authen-
ticity on social media and emotional well-​being, along with self-​reports of inauthenticity
on social media accompanied by emotional distress (Reinecke and Trepte, 2014).
Identity theory gives theoretical grounding to existing empirical findings in the
field of social media studies. In turn, empirical accounts of the way people accomplish
and regulate authenticity through and around social media illustrate how person identity
processes look in practice, and test their applicability to digitally mediated interaction.
This latter point is significant, as most identity theory research (and social psychology
research in general) derives from face-​to-​face settings, while in contrast, interaction in
contemporary social life is decidedly multimedia.

Methods
I use data from a larger project about “digitally mediated ecologies,” or the span of
platforms, devices, and practices that people employ to communicate, work, learn, and
98 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

live. An ecological approach to digital media studies recognizes that digital technologies
are an integral part of everyday life, enmeshed with built environments and face-​to-​face
interactions (Jurgenson, 2012). Specific social platforms and digital devices, though dis-
tinct in design, purpose, norms, and affordances (Papacharissi, 2009), operate in tandem
to create holistic communication environments for those who use them. Thus, rather

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

than focus the study on one platform (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat),
an ecological approach probes participants about the range of platforms they use, those
they elect not to use, the devices on which participants access these platforms, and how
their practices have changed over time.
The data I present come from interviews with American adults across a range of dem-
ographic and geographic categories (N = 25). The broad sampling frame (i.e., “American
adults”) speaks to the integration of digital social technologies into the fabric of everyday
life. Those eligible for participation include everyone who uses, or knows people who
use, social media. Of note, the sampling frame incorporates people who avoid or reject
new communication technologies altogether, as this population is still engaging with the
emergent media landscape by actively opting out (Portwood-​Stacer, 2013), or in other
cases, feeling left behind.
Participants were recruited in three ways. First, I posted a request for participa-
tion to my network on Facebook, and asked that they spread the request to their own
networks, who were asked to send it on further, and so forth. Second, an undergrad-
uate research assistant replicated the Facebook recruitment with her personal networks.
Finally, I distributed recruitment fliers around the community (a small college town on
the east coast of the United States). Sourcing recruitment from multiple points was essen-
tial for constructing a broad sample pool, as Facebook networks are subject to patterns of
homophily (Rainie and Wellman, 2012) or demographic clustering. Recruiting through
a research assistant and community outreach widened the opportunity to participate. In
this vein, fliers in the community explicitly opened participation to people who do not
use social media or are inactive on their social media accounts. In addition to these ex-
plicit recruitment strategies, interviewees suggested additional participants and put me
in contact with them.
I elected to use Facebook as a primary recruitment platform because it acts as a
“hub” or “home base” for the majority of those who use social media (Greenwood, Parrin,
and Duggan, 2016). Even as people diversify the platforms that they use, most maintain a
Facebook account. Moreover, networks on Facebook are generally sizeable and made up
of both strong and loose ties (Rainie and Wellman, 2012). Recruiting from Facebook was
a quick way to introduce the study to large and geographically dispersed audiences. In
addition, this recruitment strategy mimics the way that people build networks on social
media more generally, thus connecting methodological practices with user practices in
the field (Markham, 2013).
Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 90 minutes. Interviews included broad
questions about platform use, how individual user practices have changed over time,
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 99

and perceptions about the effects of social media on the self, interpersonal relationships,
professional life, and political life. Participants were asked about their own experiences
and given the opportunity to “theorize” about social media as a cultural force. Data for
the present chapter come primarily from queries about the self, including how people
see themselves, the degree to which self and identity are accurately portrayed on var-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

ious social media platforms, the practices by which people present the self via social
media platforms, and experiences that called participants’ sense of self into question.
This qualitative methodology harks back to interpretive traditions of understanding self
and identity processes (Becker, 1960, 1964; Cooley, 1902; Goffman, 1955; Mead, 1934),
while incorporating the added precision of conceptual modeling from identity theory.
The data were analyzed through an abductive approach (Tavory and Timmermans,
2014). Abductive analysis is a hybrid of deductive theory testing and grounded theory
construction. The approach begins with the researcher’s existing knowledge—​garnered
through professional experience and familiarity with the field of study. Established
theories and empirical findings guide the research process through both design and anal-
ysis. The data offer an opportunity to push back on extant knowledge, using interpretive
techniques to discern how the data fit within, are juxtaposed against, and challenge estab-
lished theoretical assumptions and empirical patterns. Using an abductive approach, the
interview protocol was informed by my own prior work (see Davis, 2012, 2014, 2017) as
well as through guidance from existing literature in digital media scholarship and iden-
tity theory. Synthesizing established knowledge with emergent themes proved valuable
for untangling the ways that everyday identity processes operate across dynamic contexts.

Analysis
Identity theory conceptualizes authenticity as the affective outcome associated with
person identity verification (Stets and Burke, 2014b). In a parallel literature from dig-
ital media studies, authenticity has emerged as a significant theme in people’s narratives
about their own and others’ social media practices. Working backwards from the way
people talk about authenticity regarding social media, we can learn how people verify
(or struggle to verify) person identities in the context of social media ecologies. Out of
the data, two key principles of authenticity emerge: curation and triangulation. Together,
these constitute a practice of authenticity in which performances are selective, but not
overly crafted, and remain cohesive across platforms, settings, and networks.
Participants constructed and adjusted their own reported practices by anticipating
and interpreting reflected appraisals (i.e., how they thought others viewed/​would view
them). Participants also divulged appraisals of others in their networks (i.e., how they
evaluated others’ identity performances). Including appraisals of others into this study
brings one’s evaluation of others into sharper focus in identity theory. Reflected appraisals
have been more of the focus in the identity feedback loop on the input side. Evaluations of
others would be on the output side, as one adjusts one’s behavior and behavioral meanings
100 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

given others’ behavior and their meanings (Stets and Burke, 2014a). This divergence is
theoretically and empirically meaningful, as participants’ appraisals of others reveal the
interaction consequences for those whose authenticity comes into question.
In each interview, I asked participants about their person identities by prompting
them with “What is it important for others to know about who you are as a person?” and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

“What are some ways you display who you are?” This method is reminiscent of Kuhn and
McPartland’s (1954) classic “Twenty Statements Test,” in which participants reflect on self
and identity by responding to the prompt “I am. . . .” In the present study, the language
targets person identity meanings specifically and allows for new identifications to emerge
through the interview process.
Open-​ended identity prompts, as well as information participants volunteered
during other parts of the interview, bore out a range of person identities: kind, outgoing,
thoughtful, intelligent, funny, sardonic, caring/​loving, laid-​back, perfectionist, loyal, depend-
able, straightforward, progressive, open-​minded, creative, honest, optimist, and intense. On
average, participants listed three person identities, with a minimum of one and a max-
imum of four. The open-​ended nature of the prompt allowed participants to articulate
person identities in their own words. Those I list are summary categories of conceptually
equivalent responses (e.g., “laid-​back” was articulated variously as “carefree,” “not a wor-
rier,” and “go with the flow”).
Participants actively articulated how their “true” selves come through on so-
cial media, while making note of those who violate authenticity norms. From an iden-
tity theory perspective, the principles of authenticity generated through participants’
narratives—curation and triangulation—represent the broad tactics people use to verify
person identities and in turn, evoke feelings of authenticity. Maintaining an authentic
sense of self is important for maintaining positive self-esteem (Stets and Burke, 2014b)
and for maintaining shared meanings across persons and settings. Indeed, authenticity
is central in everyday life, both because it contributes to the sense of self and because it
instills confidence in the interaction situation (Goffman, 1959).

Curation
Social media is characterized by an abundance of content. Platforms are designed in ways
that promote sharing, while internet-​connected mobile devices make it seamless to pro-
duce images, video, and text. Digital curation is the process of selective discernment,
characterized by decisions about what to include and what to omit (Davis, 2017). For
participants in the sample, these decisions are effectively represented in the normative
practices of demure and display. Demure refers to norms of performative restraint; display
refers to moves that signal identity and reveal imperfection.

Demure
In efforts to verify person identity meanings and achieve feelings of authenticity,
participants noted that subtlety is key. In contrast with role and group identities, which
may be explicitly articulated, characteristics of the self—​i.e., person identities—​are
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 101

expected to come through during interaction (Trilling, 1972). A demure sensibility

towards content sharing thus emerges as a key element of authenticity on social media.
Participants articulate a keen awareness of how much “space” they, and others, take up.
Frequent posting is a recognized norm violation among social media users (Davis,
2014, 2017; McLaughlin and Vitak, 2012). This is particularly true on archival platforms

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

like Facebook and Instagram, in which algorithms show users only a sampling of shared
content from everyone in the network, making visibility zero-​sum (Bucher, 2012). The
more one person posts, the more “space” that person occupies. Heavy posting practices
are colloquially termed “spamming” or “clogging” the newsfeed, and participants report
questioning the authenticity of those who “over-​post.”
In appraising others, all participants lamented specific others’ (over)posting
practices. “I don’t need to see five selfies of you a day,” says Terry, a 35-​year-​old infor-
mation technology (IT) worker regarding one Facebook friend. Others refer to those
who post frequently as “attention whores,” “attention seekers,” or “needy and insecure.”
Participants wonder about the degree to which those who post a lot want to engage, or if
those who post a lot are instead preoccupied by crafting an image of themselves. “I just
don’t think they are being genuine,” says Kevin (38-​year-​old IT worker), “like they just
want to tell you who they are.” In this vein, Stuart (33-​year-​old lobbyist) complains about
a co-​worker who posts daily about her apparent misadventures: “I’m just like, is your life
really this weird, or do you just have the same shit that happens to everyone, you just tell
everybody about it all the time?”
Participants censure those who over-​ post by hiding the offenders from their
newsfeeds, glossing over and not engaging with those persons’ posts, severing digital
connections (e.g., un-​friending, un-​following), and sometimes, confronting offenders
and/​or engaging in gossip. “Facebook is supposed to be pretty filtered,” explains Michelle,
a 21-​year-​old college student. “I do have some friends that post like, a lot. I won’t un-​friend
them, but I do hide them from my feed.” Carrie, a 38-​year-​old corporate project manager,
has no problem “un-​friending” people who post too much. “I have a limited amount of
time, and I want to keep up with people who are my actual friends, not waste time scrolling
through someone who is spamming my feed all day just to talk about themselves.”
It is theoretically significant that participants respond to perceived over-​posting
(i.e., failures of demure) by disengaging with the offender(s). This disengagement removes
the opportunity for interaction (through “Likes,” comments, shares, etc.) that could verify
those persons’ identity meanings. Lack of verification could well exacerbate the problem
for those who share heavily. Identity theory posits that when identity meanings are not
verified, persons work harder to elicit the desired feedback (Burke and Stets, 2009; Stets
and Burke, 2014a). Concretely, this may mean posting and sharing more frequently and/​
or explicitly “pinging” other users through tags and private messages. Redoubled efforts
are unlikely to improve identity verification, but rather, tend to subject the user to further
social distancing and negative evaluations for “trying too hard” (Forest and Wood, 2012).
It is perhaps the imagined consequences of over-​posting—​or anticipated re-
flected appraisals—​that undergird participants’ own reported practices of omitting
102 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

content, especially as it relates to core aspects of the self. Mary, a 32-​year-​old nurse
practitioner, identifies strongly as “kind,” but is careful not to express this part of her-
self too explicitly. She says, “If I went and did something nice like help the homeless,
I wouldn’t post it on Facebook. It wouldn’t be necessary. It would feel like I was just
looking for attention instead of doing it [helping the homeless] because that’s what

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

I wanted to do.” Similarly, Greg, a 24-​year-​old musician who identifies as “nice,” “ar-
tistic,” and “creative,” explains:

I’m not going to tell people I’m nice, I just want that to come across. I’m not going
to tell people my music is good or that I’m a good artist, I just want to share my
stuff. And sometimes I don’t share my stuff. I could make music all this week and
never share it just because I feel like creating itself is important. I feel really lucky
that I can create and that’s just for me.

Across social media platforms, all but two participants report “lurking” (i.e., looking
at others’ content) far more frequently than they post content themselves. Two participants
do report posting to archival platforms (Facebook and Instagram) frequently, but reflex-
ively note that other people probably “hide” them, acknowledging the social norm of de-
mure and the social consequence of sharing too much. “I post like 10 things a day,” Stuart
says; “I’m sure people are like ‘oh great, this guy posted another article, who gives a shit,
Hide!’ ” Two other participants, though generally conscious of limiting the content they
post and share, have been chastised at certain points for over-​sharing. “My younger sister
was horrified that I tried to post two pictures on Instagram in one night. That’s apparently
not how you do it. I guess there’s a hard one-​picture-​per-​day rule,” says Leigh, a 33-​year-​
old working in higher education. And Kevin (38-​year-​old IT worker) says a friend once
told him, “You post too much [on Facebook] man, I had to hide you. It’s just too much.”
Kevin now reports a concerted effort to limit his content sharing.
Norms of demure speak to the importance of restraint in digitally mediated identity
performances. Participants censure those who post “too much” and are generally careful
about the frequency of their own posts, reflecting on perceived negative evaluations from
others in their networks. However, too much filtering can imply an overly crafted image
(Uski and Lampinen, 2016), leading participants to balance the information they omit
against the information they include.

Display
With the principle of display, documentation is “proof ” that something happened, evi-
dence of who a person is, and an opportunity to expose (at least minor) imperfections,
establishing self-​meanings in an ostensibly natural and organic way. That is, while demure
indicates that people ought not share too much, display is all about creating an exhibit
of the self (Hogan, 2010). As with demure, participants comment critically on others’
practices of display and incorporate norms of display into their own practices.
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 103

Social life is increasingly documented through mobile and digital technologies.

Capturing and sharing the large and small events of everyday life are important ways
that people express who they are. Caitlin, a 29-​year-​old data scientist, says that her social
media profiles “signal” the kind of person she is.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

I think of myself as someone who really wants to be helpful and informative, and I try
to signal that through what I post on Facebook and Reddit [an anonymous interactive
platform]. If people are having a debate I try to chime in, or if someone asks a
question to the group, I do my best to give them a thorough and informed answer.

Hannah, a 21-​year-​old college student who identifies as “funny” and “caring,” regularly
takes humorous and upbeat pictures and shares them across platforms:

Facebook is like a repository for big events and notable occasions. Then I also snap
pictures of random funny things to send to people on Snapchat. I don’t have to
post pictures, but I like to show people what I’m doing, and I like to share things
that will make people laugh, or make them think.

Harold, a 34-​year-​old human resources (HR) worker, reports that the content he shares
on Facebook is “more authentic” than how he presents in face-​to-​face interaction:

I put a lot of investment into Facebook. . . . Facebook is a space that allows me to

express aspects of myself I don’t often convey in public settings—​my politics, my
religious beliefs or lack thereof, my granular nerdiness that I’m sure most people
have little interest in. It’s also a space I can share what amuses me with the people
who I know for sure will get the joke. . . . I think I am a more genuine person on
Facebook than I am in my daily life.

Although Harold is unique among participants in his statement that his presence on
Facebook is “more genuine” than the presentation he puts forth in other parts of his life,
the importance of sharing core aspects of the self, and the related desire for affirming feed-
back, is common among the sample. “I like getting ‘Likes’ on what I post,” says one partic-
ipant; “If I share something and nobody responds, it makes me kind of sad,” says another.
Not only do participants include content that “signals” identity, they also remove
content that diverges from their projected identity meanings “My mom posts these like
tragic articles to my [Facebook] Wall,” says Kara, a 37-​year-​old stay-​at-​home mother of
two. She continues:

K: It’s fine if she wants to call and tell me about these sad articles she’s reading, or
even send them in a message, but I take them down when she posts them to
my Wall.
104 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

I: Why do you take them down?

K: Because that’s not me and so I don’t want it on my Wall.

Similarly, Kevin (38-​year-​old IT worker), who defines himself as “progressive but not
politically affiliated,” says:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

If someone posts on my wall or tags me in something that doesn’t reflect my views,
I have no problem deleting it. Most people think because I care about people that
I’m a Democrat, but anything establishment Democrat gets deleted. That’s not
what I’m about.

Display thus includes producing content, sharing content, and regulating other-​generated
content, too.
Although social media platforms let users carefully craft their displays, there remains
a normative practice of incorporating personal imperfections, warding off accusations of
effortful identity performance. “My friends give me a hard time because I’m too ‘put to-
gether’ on Snapchat,” reflects Sharon, a 21-​year-​old college student. “They’re like, ‘you
look too good in these pictures!’ ” “Looking too good” can suggest an overly manufac-
tured image, one that does not accurately reflect the self. This may be a particularly sen-
sitive issue for those whose person identities include a “carefree” attitude. For example,
21-​year-​old Hannah and 29-​year-​old Caitlin both identify as “laid-​back” and make a
point of displaying unflattering images on Facebook. Hannah explains: “I may look at a
picture and think eeesh I don’t look good in that one, but I’ll post it anyway, or if someone
else posted it I’ll leave it up. That’s what I look like, so it should be up there.”
Including unflattering images can be an important way to show that a person is
“authentically” presenting via social media, as can keeping (rather than deleting) content
that does not get the desired response. These are ways of displaying effortlessness, and
while they may or may not elicit identity-​affirming feedback, they are key to avoiding
non-​verifying feedback, such as accusations of “trying too hard.” Nicole (61-​year-​old real
estate agent) recounts how her identity as “confident” is reflected in the way she responds
to (lack of) engagement from others:

If I posted something and nobody responded to it, I would probably not notice at
first, but then maybe I would go ‘hey, why did nobody respond to that?’ I guess
I would feel bad for half a second, but I wouldn’t take it down or anything. If
I thought it was relevant to post then it should be up there. But maybe that’s just
the ‘Nicole confidence.’ I think I’m great, I don’t need other people to validate that.

Indeed, participants negatively evaluate people who exclude unflattering images or who
take down content that does not garner affirmative feedback. “I know this person who, if
she posts something on Facebook and Instagram and doesn’t get like a specific number
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 105

of ‘Likes’ or comments she will take it down, like if people weren’t into it, she pretends it
never happened. That’s a lot of effort,” says Terry (35-​year-​old IT worker).
Of note, participants do not report un-​friending or un-​following those who violate
principles of display, as they do with those who violate principles of demure. However,
the violation may result in reduced identity feedback nonetheless. This is because when

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

participants evaluate others’ social media practices as too highly crafted, shallow, or dis-
tant from meaningful aspects of the self, they simply ignore identity meanings displayed
through social media platforms in preference for what they know of these persons from
other venues. As Ella (37-​year-​old academic) explains, “I have a friend who literally
spends all day crafting one post. I’m obviously going to learn a lot more about her from
face-​to-​face conversation where she’s not so engineered.” Curating too carefully can thus
render digitally mediated performances ineffective at eliciting feedback, and result in dis-
engagement, if not disconnection.

Triangulation
The second broad principle of authenticity is triangulation. In general, triangulation refers
to two or more pieces of evidence pointing towards the same conclusion. Within the social
media literature, triangulation refers to a clear connection between identity performances
across multiple online and offline venues, including various social media platforms and
physically bounded built environments (Davis, 2014). Identity performances across
venues must point to, and reflect, a cohesive story of the self. Triangulation includes
consistency across multiple platforms and between these platforms and the face-​to-​
face interactions that occur in physical co-​presence. Triangulating the self, then, entails
maintaining consistent performances on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat,
which reflect and reinforce performances in the coffee shop, the workplace, the pub, and
the home.
This is not to say that “authentic” performances must be identical, but rather that
successful triangulation reveals an underlying self that is plainly identifiable across digital
platforms, physical meeting places, and diverse networks. Using the language of identity
theory, this underlying self represents a cohesive person identity—​e.g., kind, tenacious,
generous, ambitious, etc. While each situation may call out a new group or role iden-
tity (Thoits, 2003), and while the expectations associated with group and role identities
can diverge and conflict, the person identity is embedded across situations and across
networks. Triangulation captures the need to construct a unified set of person identity
meanings, even among varied networks, platforms, and settings (Davis, 2014; Tian,
2017). As with the component parts of curation, participants demarcate their own au-
thentic practices while questioning the authenticity of those who fail to triangulate.
Although participants say that their social media presence represents a definitively
partial image of the self, they also report that their practices generate an authentic por-
trayal that resonates across contexts and situations. As articulated by Ashley (32-​year-​old
nurse):
106 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

I hardly post to Facebook or Instagram and I only use Snapchat with like five
people, so it would be hard for someone to really know what was going on in my
life or get to know me by looking at my social media, but they would know the
type of person I am.
I: And what kind of person would they see?

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

A: A generally kind person with strong values. I care about my friends and like to
have fun.

Participants further reference diverse audiences and distinct norms about how
to engage on different platforms. They note, however, that despite assorted styles and
sensibilities, coherent person identity meanings emerge. Daniele (31-​year-​old small busi-
ness owner) explains:

Snapchat is for sending select people pictures of my kids, Facebook I’ll post like
big events, travel, things I’m doing, and on Twitter I’ll make a quick comment or
a joke, but I think I always come across happy, fun, and positive, which is how
I think of myself in general, and how I want other people to think of me.

Stuart (33-​year-​old lobbyist) reflects a similar sentiment when he says:

I’m more vulgar on Twitter and more innocuous on Facebook because my mom
reads that. I also don’t share the ins-​and-​outs of my every day on any platform. But
if someone knew me online and then met me in person, they would probably say
“yeah, that’s right, that’s him.”

For participants, an authentic performance is one that weaves a solid thread across
settings. While each setting may call forth its own norms of information sharing and its
own appropriate sensibilities, person identity meanings remain relatively constant.
Reinforcing the significance of stable person identity meanings, participants point
to examples of others who seem inconsistent, and question the authenticity of those they
name. Sam, a 21-​year-​old college student, says that Instagram is “the worst for staging.”
He recounts:

I have friends who post long depressing status updates on Facebook and then post
pictures [on Instagram] of themselves on mountain tops with the sun shining, like
their life is great. But I know it’s not [great], I know they are going through a hard
time. So, I mostly ignore the mountaintop pics.

Similarly, Madison (24-​year-​old college student) recalls a friend who “obviously puts a
ton of effort into her looks and appearance,” but posted a “goofy camping photo as her
Facebook profile pic”:
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 107

M: All of her Instagram pictures are perfectly crafted, and she’s totally put together
in most of her Facebook pictures. Even on Snapchat she’s totally posed. Of course,
in person, she’s always done up perfectly. Then she puts this goofy camping pic-
ture up? That’s not her. She’s like, trying too hard to look like she’s not trying, or
like she doesn’t care, but we can look at her other feeds and we can see how she is

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

in person, and we know that this picture of her camping does not compute.
I: Have you said anything to your friend about it?
M: No, I’m not going to start that fight. I just actively don’t comment or “Like” stuff
like that. I won’t make a big thing of it, but I’m not going to validate it either.

For Sam and Madison, their friends’ identity performances do not resonate across
platforms, nor do they reflect face-​to-​face interactions. These performances thus do not
triangulate into a coherent self, and so suffer evaluations of inauthenticity.
As with violations of curation (i.e., demure and display), reduced identity-​
relevant feedback is a central consequence for those who fail to adequately triangulate.
In response to her friend’s divergent profile image, Madison makes a point to avoid
“Liking” or commenting on the picture and reports non-​engagement as a general
tactic for responding to “inauthentic” content. In this vein, Sam dismisses his friends’
“happy” Instagram pictures as an attempt to “put up a front.” In turn, participants ac-
tively perform consistent selves across platforms and networks, triangulating evidence
that they are, authentically, “kind,” “funny,” “laid-​back,” etc. Such tactics are appar-
ently central to obtaining identity-​relevant feedback and achieving person identity
verification.

Conclusion
Identity theory posits that the outcome of person identity verification is the feeling of
authenticity, while failure to verify person identities results in feelings of inauthenticity
(Stets and Burke, 2014b). This theoretical framing maps productively onto social media
studies, for which authenticity is a key construct. In the context of multimedia commu-
nication, people engage socially and professionally both online and face-​to-​face, amid
vast networks, on devices that are always potentially documenting, and through a suite
of platforms, on which documented material may be archived and easily spread. These
conditions make authenticity particularly fragile (Davis, 2012), and people who engage in
a digitally connected environment develop patterned ways of verifying person identities
and thereby achieving the authenticity component of self-​esteem.
From participants’ narratives, two principles of authenticity emerge: curation and
triangulation. That is, persons are expected to share selectively, share accurately, allow
for imperfection, and present an underlying core self that spans networks and contexts.
Participants report engaging in practices that represent these guiding principles, while
making note of those in their networks who fall short.
108 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

When participants appraise others as inauthentic, there are interaction consequences.

Specifically, perceived inauthenticity may well get a person hidden or even deleted from
others’ networks, or otherwise glossed over rather than engaged with. Those who seem
to try the hardest to present an ideal version of self may struggle to get the feedback they
need to achieve identity verification. This dovetails with research showing that low self-​

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

esteem relates to both active social media sharing and negative evaluations from others
(Forest and Wood, 2012). Thus, the data presented herein depict something of a vicious
cycle, in which the need for identity-​affirming feedback elicits prolific and/​or carefully
crafted self-​presentation through social media, and results in decreased or negative feed-
back that makes it more difficult to receive identity-​affirming reflected appraisals.
The use of information about participants’ appraisals of others, along with their re-
flected appraisals, proved instrumental for the current project. Standard identity theory
protocols rely primarily on reflected appraisals rather than the appraisals of others (Burke
and Stets, 2009). This is because people may interpret feedback in unexpected ways, and
what matters for identity theory is how persons respond to their own perceptions (Stets
and Burke, 2014a). However, the data here show that in the context of social media,
evaluations of others’ inauthenticity result in the tangible consequence of disconnection,
thereby influencing individuals to adjust their behavior and its meanings in response
to others’ behavior and corresponding meanings. Persons deemed inauthentic receive
reduced feedback for their identity claims, and have less opportunity to adjust in ways
that enable identity verification. In the social media context, appraisals of others take on
an important, explanatory value.
The findings from this study both advance identity theory and illuminate the dy-
namics of authenticity in a digitally connected era. The interaction contexts of contem-
porary life interweave built environments and digital social technologies. Authenticity
arises as a continued concern regarding stable identity meanings and shared situational
definitions that enable smooth interaction. Indeed, censuring inauthenticity is a way of
bracketing out the elements of interaction (and the individuals) that fail to sustain shared
expectations. In turn, efforts towards authenticity—​and person identity verification—​
function to maintain the individual’s sense of self and shore up steady interaction
structures amid a multimedia environment.

Acknowledgment
Sincere thanks to Madeline Johnson (University of Cambridge), whose contributions to
research design and data collection were integral to this project.

References
Alexander, Norman C. (1977). “Situated Identities and Social Influence.” Sociometry, 40(3), pp. 225–​233.
Becker, Howard S. (1960). “Notes on the Concept of Commitment.” American Journal of Sociology, 66(1),
pp. 32–​40.
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 109

Becker, Howard S. (1964). “Personal Change in Adult Life.” Sociometry, 27(1), pp. 40–​53.
Berger, Peter T., and Thomas L. Luckmann. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Penguin.
Brenner, Philip S., Richard T. Serpe, and Sheldon Stryker. (2014). “The Causal Ordering of Prominence
and Salience in Identity Theory: An Empirical Examination.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(3), pp.
231–​252.
Bucher, Taina. (2012). “Want to Be on the Top? Algorithmic Power and the Threat of Invisibility.” New

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

Media and Society, 14(7), pp. 1164–​1180.
Burke, Peter J. (1991). “Identity Processes and Social Stress.” American Sociological Review, 56(6), pp.
836–​849.
Burke, Peter J. (2006). “Identity Change.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), pp. 81–​96.
Burke, Peter J., and Jan E. Stets. (2009). Identity Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cast, Alicia D., and Peter J. Burke. (2002). “A Theory of Self-​Esteem.” Social Forces, 80(3), pp. 1041–​1068.
Cooley, Charles H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner.
Davis, Jenny L. (2012). “Accomplishing Authenticity in a Labor Exposing Space.” Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(5), pp. 1966–​1973.
Davis, Jenny L. (2014). “Triangulating the Self. Identity Processes in a Connected Era.” Symbolic Interaction,
37(4), pp. 500–​523.
Davis, Jenny L., and Nathan Jurgenson. (2014). “Context Collapse: Theorizing Context Collusions and
Collisions.” Information, Communication and Society, 17(4), pp. 476–​485.
Davis, Jenny L. (2016). “Identity Theory in a Digital Age.” Pp. 137–​164 in New Directions in Identity Theory
and Research, edited by J.E. Stets and R.T. Serpe. New York: Oxford.
Davis, Jenny L. (2017). “Curation: A Theoretical Treatment.” Information, Communication, and Society,
20(5), pp. 770–​783.
Erikson, Rebecca. (1995). “The Importance of Authenticity for Self and Society.” Symbolic Interaction, 18(2),
pp. 121–​144.
Forest, Amanda L., and Joanne V. Wood. (2012). “When Social Networking Is Not Working: Individuals with
Low Self-​Esteem Recognize but Do Not Reap the Benefits of Self-​Disclosure on Facebook.” Psychological
Science, 23(3), pp. 295–​302.
Goffman, Erving. (1955). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-​to-​Face Behavior. New York: Penguin.
Goffman, Erving. (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Gonzales, Amy L., and Jeffrey T. Hancock. (2011). “Mirror, Mirror on My Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure
to Facebook on Self-​Esteem.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(1–​2), pp. 79–​83.
Greenwood, Shannon, Andrew Perrin, and Maeve Duggan. (2016). “Social Media Update 2016.” Pew
Internet and American Life Project (Retrieved January 2, 2017) (http://​www.pewinternet.org/​2016/​11/​11/​
social-​media-​update-​2016/​).
Hogan, Bernie. (2010). “The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances
and Exhibitions Online.” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 30(6), pp. 377–​386.
Jurgenson, Nathan. (2012). “When Atoms Meet Bits: Social Media, the Mobile Web and Augmented
Revolution.” Future Internet, 4(1), pp. 83–​91.
Kuhn, Manford H., and Thomas S. McPartland. (1954). “An Empirical Investigation of Self-​Attitudes.”
American Sociological Review, 19(1), pp. 68–​76.
Markham, Annette. (2013). “Remix Culture, Remix Methods: Reframing Qualitative Inquiry for Social
Media Contexts.” Pp. 63–​82 in Global Dimensions of Qualitative Inquiry, edited by N.K. Denzin and M.D.
Giardina. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Marwick, Alice E., and Danah Boyd. (2011). “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context
Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media and Society, 13(1), pp. 114–​133.
McLaughlin, Caitlin, and Jessica Vitak. (2012). “Norm Evolution and Violation on Facebook.” New Media
and Society, 14(2), pp. 299–​315.
Mead, George Herbert. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Owens, Timothy J., Dawn T. Robinson, and Lynn Smith-​Lovin. (2010). “Three Faces of Identity.” Annual
Review of Sociology, 36, pp. 477–​499.
Papacharissi, Zizi. (2009). “The Virtual Geographies of Social Networks: A Comparative Analysis of
Facebook, LinkedIn, and ASmallWorld.” New Media and Society, 11(1–​2), pp. 199–​220.
110 | A u t h e n t i c i t y

Portwood-​Stacer, Laura. (2013). “Media Refusal and Conspicuous Non-​consumption: The Performative
and Political Dimensions of Facebook Abstention.” New Media and Society, 5(7), pp. 1041–​1057.
Rainie, Lee, and Barry Wellman. (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Reinecke, Leonard, and Sabine Trepte. (2014). “Authenticity and Well-​Being on Social Network Sites: A
Two-​Wave Longitudinal Study on the Effects of Online Authenticity and the Positivity Bias in SNS
Communication.” Computers in Human Behavior, 30, pp. 95–​102.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

Salisbury, Meredith, and Jefferson D. Pooley. (2017). “The #nofilter Self: Contests for Authenticity Among
Social Networking Sites, 2002–​2016.” Social Sciences, 6(1).
Savage, Scott V., and Jan E. Stets. (2016). “Identity and Exchange: Person Identities and Power Use.”
Pp. 107–​135 in New Directions in Identity Theory and Research, edited by J.E. Stets and R.T. Serpe.
New York: Oxford.
Serpe, Richard T., and Sheldon Stryker. (2011). “The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective and Identity
Theory.” Pp. 225–​248 in Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, edited by S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx,
and V. L. Vignoles. New York: Springer.
Smith, Aaron. (2017). “Record Shares of Americans Now Own Smartphones, Have Home Broadband.” Pew
Internet and American Life Project (Retrieved January 20, 2017) (http://​www.pewresearch.org/​fact-​tank/​
2017/​01/​12/​evolution-​of-​technology/​).
Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. (1987). “Identity Work Among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction
and Avowal of Personal Identities.” American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), pp. 1336–​1371.
Stets, Jan E. (1995). “Role Identities and Person Identities: Gender Identity, Mastery Identity, and Controlling
One’s Partner.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 38(2), pp. 185–​217.
Stets, Jan E., and Chris F. Biga. (2003). “Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology.” Sociological
Theory, 21(4), pp. 398–​423.
Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. (1994). “Inconsistent Self-​Views in the Control Identity Model.” Social
Science Research, 23(3), pp. 236–​262.
Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. (2000). “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory.” Social Psychology
Quarterly, 63(3), pp. 224–​237.
Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. (2014a). “The Development of Identity Theory.” Advances in Group Processes,
31, pp. 57–​97.
Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. (2014b). “Self-​Esteem and Identities.” Sociological Perspectives, 57(4), pp.
409–​433.
Stets, Jan E., and Peter J. Burke. (2014c). “Emotions and Identity Non-​Verification.” Social Psychology
Quarterly, 77(4), pp. 387–​410.
Stets, Jan E., and Michael J. Carter. (2011). “The Moral Self: Applying Identity Theory.” Social Psychology
Quarterly, 74(2), pp. 192–​215.
Stets, Jan E., and Michael J. Carter. (2012). “A Theory of the Self for the Sociology of Morality.” American
Sociological Review, 77(1), pp. 120–​140.
Stets Jan E., and Richard Serpe. (2013). “Identity Theory.” Pp. 31–​60 in Handbook of Social Psychology, ed-
ited by J. DeLamater and A. Ward. New York: Springer.
Stryker, Sheldon. (1980). Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin
Cummings.
Stryker, Sheldon, and Peter J. Burke. (2000). “The Past, Present, and Future of Identity Theory.” Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), pp. 284–​297.
Tavory, Iddo, and Stefan Timmermans. (2014). Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Thoits, Peggy A. (2003). “Personal Agency in the Accumulation of Multiple Role-​Identities.” Pp. 179–​194 in
Advances in Identity Theory and Research, edited by P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, R. T. Serpe, and P. A. Thoits.
New York: Kluwer.
Tian, Xiaoli. (2017). “Embodied Versus Disembodied Information: How Online Artifacts Influence Offline
Interpersonal Interactions.” Symbolic Interaction, 40(2), pp. 190–​211.
 A u t h e n t i c i t y , D i g i ta l M e d i a , and V e r i f i c at i o n | 111

Trilling, Lionel. (1972). Sincerity and Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Turner, Ralph H. (1978). “The Role and the Person.” American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), pp. 1–​23.
Uski, Suvi, and Airi Lampinen. (2016). “Social Norms and Self-​Presentation on Social Network Sites: Profile
Work in Action.” New Media and Society, 18(3), pp. 447–​464.
Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin. (2008). “Identity Construction on Facebook: Digital
Empowerment in Anchored Relationships.” Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), pp. 1816–​1836.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/book/35178/chapter/299467782 by Det Kongelige Bibliotek user on 13 November 2023