Impression Management

Impression management, also called self-presentation, is the process by which people consciously or unconsciously control how others perceive them.

It is rarely deception: most self-presentation is truthful but selective, stressing some real attributes over others (Turner, 1991).

Erving Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical theory compares social life to theatre: people perform roles for an audience to keep interactions smooth and protect their self-worth.

Impression Management Techniques

Suppressing emotions: Maintaining self-control, for example by speaking briefly and modestly.
Conforming to Situational Norms: The performer follows agreed-upon rules for behavior in the organization.
Flattering Others: The performer compliments the perceiver. This tactic works best when flattery is not extreme and when it involves a dimension important to the perceiver.
Being Consistent: The performer’s beliefs and behaviors are consistent. There is agreement between the performer’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors.

In This Article:

Dramaturgical Framework: Life as Theater

Erving Goffman (1959), a sociologist, introduced the dramaturgical metaphor, which views social life as a theatrical production. The psychology of self-presentation grows out of his work.

He posited that individuals function as actors performing scripts for an audience of peers.

The model is a conceptual framework, not an experiment. Goffman drew on ethnographic observation, including early fieldwork on the Shetland Isles, plus published sociological and anthropological reports, etiquette manuals, and newspaper accounts.

This performance is not necessarily deceptive; rather, it is a necessary functional requirement for social order.

Every interaction involves a “front,” which is the expressive equipment used to define the situation for observers.

Front Stage and Backstage Dynamics

Social environments are divided into two distinct regions: the front stage and the backstage.

Success in social life requires strict boundaries between these two zones. If “backstage” behaviors leak into the “front stage,” the performance collapses, leading to social friction or embarrassment.

Embarrassment is Goffman’s diagnostic sign of a spoiled performance.

In a bar staffroom, waiters relax and joke about diners.

Front stage

Front stage refers to the public arena where individuals perform their social roles with high monitoring.

When you are on the front stage, you are actively in character, attempting to control how others perceive you.

To successfully pull off this performance, individuals must carefully curate their setting, wardrobe, props, and skills to project a specific, favorable image.

Backstage

Backstage is the private space where the performer can relax and drop their public persona.

In the backstage environment, the audience is absent, allowing individuals to drop their public act, relax, and behave in ways they normally would not in public.

It is the hidden area where the “actor” can step out of character and shed the mask they wear in the outside world.

The Boundary Between Front Stage and Backstage

The front stage is a highly regulated space for maintaining an illusion. The backstage works differently. It is a safe haven for dropping that illusion.

For a front-stage performance to be believable and successful, the actor and the audience must share an understanding of what belongs in public versus what belongs in private.

A flawless impression requires keeping inappropriate or contradictory elements strictly confined to the backstage. Blur the boundary and the performance breaks down.

For example, if a person engages in excessive or inappropriate self-disclosure, they are effectively dragging private, “backstage” material onto the “front stage”.

This disrupts the social performance and typically results in a highly unfavorable impression among the audience.

Three ideas protect that boundary:

Audience segregation: Different audiences expect different performances, so actors keep them apart. Behaviour that suits a stag night would sink a job interview.
Teams: Colleagues, families, or couples present a joint front and rely on each member not to break character.
Self-disclosure: Jourard’s (1971) norm of reciprocity holds that people match the level of disclosure their partner offers.

Disclosure that races ahead of that norm drags backstage material on to the stage, with the same embarrassment as any spoiled performance. Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory adds that closer relationships share a broader range of topics, in greater depth.

Props, Wardrobe, and Setting

In Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical model, individuals act much like stage performers, utilizing a combination of settings, scripts, skills, and props to present a favorable public image.

Props: Physical objects, such as a luxury watch or a specific textbook, used to signal status or intelligence.
Wardrobe and Clothing: How a person dresses is one of the most fundamental props used to manage how others perceive them.
Setting: The physical location where the interaction occurs, such as a professional office or a trendy café.
Personal Front: The appearance and manner, such as age, posture, accent, and facial expression, that an audience reads as a sign of the performer’s character.

These elements work in tandem to validate the actor’s claimed identity.

The Construction of the Social Self

Goffman proposed the radical idea that the “self” is not a biological or internal entity.

Instead, the self is a “dramatic effect” arising from the performance itself.

This perspective suggests that personality is the cumulative total of the various masks we wear.

The self does not cause the behavior. The social scene produces the impression of a self. Identity is fluid, a collaboration between actor and audience.

Social Consensus and Cognitive Role-Taking

Smooth interactions depend on a shared definition of the situation among all participants.

This requires role-taking, which is the cognitive ability to view oneself from the perspective of another person.

By imagining how they appear to others, individuals can adjust their performance in real-time.

Disruptions happen. Participants often engage in “face-work” to ignore the error. This collective denial prevents mutual shame. The interaction can then continue.

Examples of Impression Management

Impression management manifests in a wide variety of everyday behaviors, ranging from subtle conversational tactics to elaborate, high-stakes deceptions.

The ultimate goal is usually to control how an audience perceives the performer. The specific strategy depends on the situation and the identity a person wants to project.

Everyday Social and Interpersonal Strategies

Jones and Pittman (1982) proposed five strategies of self-presentation, each aimed at a different attribution in the audience’s mind. A sixth everyday tactic, behaviour matching, sits alongside them:

Ingratiation: Using flattery, agreement, or favours to seem likeable, especially to someone of higher status. Detected insincerity makes the flatterer look like a sycophant.
Self-Promotion: Claiming skills or displaying achievements to seem competent. The risk is coming across as conceited, or being caught claiming ability one lacks.
Exemplification: Displaying self-sacrifice, integrity, or discipline to seem morally worthy. Overdo it, and the risk is looking sanctimonious or “holier-than-thou”.
Intimidation: Signalling anger or unpredictability to seem dangerous and not worth crossing. Empty threats destroy credibility and attract dislike.
Supplication: Advertising weakness or incompetence to seem helpless and deserving of help, a strategy of last resort. It risks looking lazy or manipulative.
Behaviour Matching: Mirroring a target’s posture, tone, or level of self-disclosure to seem like “one of us”. Done clumsily, it reads as mockery.

The same behaviour can serve different ends. Disclosing a weakness is supplication if the aim is sympathy, but exemplification if the aim is credit for honesty.

Behavioral Self-Handicapping

Counterintuitively, people sometimes manage their impressions by intentionally setting themselves up for failure.

In behavioral self-handicapping, a person creates real obstacles for themselves. Common examples include drugs and alcohol, reduced effort, or skipping preparation for an important event.

The motivation is self-protective. If the person fails, they can blame the obstacle rather than their own lack of ability, protecting both their public image and self-esteem.

Berglas and Jones (1978) introduced the idea in an experiment.

Aim: To test whether people will voluntarily take a performance-impairing drug to protect a fragile self-image from anticipated failure.
Method: Princeton undergraduates received success feedback unrelated to their real performance. They then chose between a drug said to help problem-solving and one said to impair it.
Results: Men given unearned success were significantly more likely than men given earned success to choose the impairing drug. Women in the original study did not show the effect.
Conclusion: The impairing drug offered a ready excuse for failure. Self-handicapping, the strategic construction of obstacles to one’s own success, is a distinct impression-management tactic.

Claimed self-handicapping is the cheaper form. The person simply announces an obstacle in advance, such as “I’ve barely slept” or “my anxiety is dreadful today”.

Both forms steer the audience’s explanation for failure away from lack of ability and towards an external cause. Used repeatedly, claimed obstacles can start to read as excuse-making.

Extreme and Context-Specific Examples

The lengths to which people will go to manage their public image can be seen across cultural, medical, and political spheres:

“Saving Face” in Cultural Contexts: Interdependent cultures treat public embarrassment as a powerful threat. In Japan, some hire “convenience agencies” for fake wedding guests; one bride paid $1,500 to rent six, including a fake boss.
Concealing Deviance in Healthcare: Patients often misreport their own history to clinicians. Fearing judgment, they hide poor exercise or dental habits and conceal stigmatised risks like drug use or unprotected sex.
Job Interviews: Both sides know the performance is staged. Applicants flatter, self-promote, and signal consistency, while interviewers probe with structured questions, work samples, and reference checks.
Political Rebranding: In 1991, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke ran for Louisiana governor. He underwent cosmetic surgery and publicly renounced Nazi ideology to appeal to mainstream conservative voters.
Pathological Attention-Seeking: Histrionic Personality Disorder takes impression management to an extreme. Sufferers are excessively theatrical, show rapidly shifting emotions, and use provocative appearances to stay the centre of attention.

Impression Management on Social Media

Digital impression management involves the strategic control of information on social platforms to shape a specific public persona.

Modern technology transforms Goffman’s (1959) theatrical metaphor into a high-definition, persistent performance.

Physical interactions are fleeting. Digital performances are archived, searchable, and globally accessible.

This permanence forces users into hyper-vigilant self-monitoring, constantly checking and adjusting how they come across, to maintain a cohesive “online brand.”

The Asynchronous Front Stage

Social media is an enhanced front stage. It offers asynchronous communication, meaning a time delay between the delivery and the reception of a message.

Unlike face-to-face dialogue, which requires immediate responses, digital platforms allow users to pause, edit, and refine their “scripts.”

This delay minimizes the risk of social “gaffes” (unintentional errors) and permits a level of polish that is impossible in physical reality.

Idealized Self-Presentation

Because users can selectively disclose information, the digital self is often an idealized version of the physical self.

This involves emphasizing successes and high-status associations while omitting mundane or negative experiences.

This curation creates a feedback loop where the actor receives validation (likes, comments) for a curated image, further reinforcing the drive to maintain that specific digital “front.”

Digital Sign-Vehicles: Props and Settings

In the virtual realm, users utilize digital sign-vehicles to communicate identity.

Digital props include:

Profile pictures
“Check-ins” at prestigious locations
Sharing of intellectual content

These items function as shorthand for a user’s values, wealth, or social standing.

Users choose these props with care. An Instagram photograph is selected from many, and a LinkedIn summary can be polished for weeks. As with physical props, they are chosen partly for what they say about the user, not only for their use.

Virtual Staging in Online Dating

Dating profiles represent the most concentrated form of digital staging. Users utilize these platforms to maximize their attractiveness through “technological grooming.”

Study: Toma, Hancock, and Ellison (2008)

Aim: To assess the frequency and magnitude of physical self-misrepresentation on online dating profiles.
Procedure: Researchers measured the height, weight, and age of 80 online daters and compared these physical realities to the data provided on their public profiles.
Findings: 81% of participants deviated from their actual physical measurements in at least one category. Weight was the most frequently misrepresented attribute, particularly among female participants.
Conclusion: Deviations were widespread but small. Participants balanced the editability of profiles against the social constraint of a future face-to-face meeting.

Backstage Management and Social Crisis

Goffman emphasized that a performance fails if “backstage” information leaks into the “front stage.”

During a social crisis, such as a romantic breakup, the digital front stage becomes a site of intense reputational repair.

Individuals engage in “digital scrubbing,” which is the systematic removal of photos, tags, or status updates that link them to a former partner.

This act redefines the situation for the audience. It signals a new, independent identity and stops the ex-partner from accessing the actor’s current backstage life.

Platforms also blur audience segregation, Goffman’s principle of keeping different audiences apart. A single post may reach employers, family, ex-partners, and strangers at once. This is audience collapse. Users respond with alternative accounts, close-friends lists, and story privacy settings, digital versions of Goffman’s backstage doors.

The Psychological Cost of Hyper-Performance

Maintaining a 24-hour digital front stage imposes a significant cognitive load.

For younger demographics, social media acts as “social oxygen,” where their standing is measured by quantifiable metrics of approval.

Behavioral Addiction: The constant search for validation can lead to compulsive checking behaviors.
Fear of Missing Out (FOMO): This is the pervasive anxiety that others are having rewarding experiences from which one is absent.
Impression Fatigue: The psychological exhaustion resulting from the continuous effort required to present a flawless public image.

Online Disinhibition and the Performance Breakdown

The “online disinhibition effect” (Suler, 2004) occurs when the absence of physical identity markers reduces an individual’s drive for polite impression management.

Anonymity acts as a mask that shields the actor from the consequences of their performance.

Without the threat of immediate social shame or “face loss,” the shared consensus that maintains civil interaction often collapses.

This leads to toxic behaviors such as trolling. The actor intentionally disrupts the audience’s experience without fear of reputational damage in their physical life.

Mechanisms of Impression Management

Impression management is the process by which individuals attempt to control the perceptions others form of them. This conscious or subconscious regulation of information influences social outcomes.

Many psychologists use the term interchangeably with self-presentation, but some draw a fine line between the two (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980). Self-presentation covers every way the self becomes visible to others, including habits with no strategic intent.

Impression management is the narrower, deliberate subset, aimed at a particular effect on a specific audience. It is also unavoidable.

Virtually every social interaction, from a job interview to greeting a neighbour, involves managing what the other person will conclude about us (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Success in professional or romantic spheres often depends on these perceived identities.

The effort can be tactical or strategic. Tactical effort targets one audience on one occasion, such as an interviewer. Strategic effort builds a general reputation, such as being seen as trustworthy or competent.

People monitor their public persona constantly. The intensity of this effort fluctuates. Situational demands and personality traits determine the specific images individuals choose to project.

Research by psychologists Mark Leary and Robin Kowalski (1990) suggests that impression management ultimately increases our subjective well-being by fulfilling three primary motivations:

1. Maximizing the Rewards of Social Relationships (Belonging)

The major function of impression management is to fulfill our fundamental human need to belong.

By presenting a favorable image, individuals seek to maximize social rewards, such as gaining acceptance, respect, friendship, romantic partners, and job success.

Positive evaluation is a prerequisite for these outcomes. People are therefore highly motivated to avoid the social anxiety and rejection that follow a bad impression.

2. Enhancing Self-Esteem (Self-Enhancement)

Impression management is a tool for public self-enhancement, meaning it helps us maintain a positive evaluation of ourselves.

People use various presentation strategies to protect their self-worth, sometimes even adopting defensive behaviors to manipulate how others attribute their actions.

Two prominent strategies motivated by the need to protect or enhance self-esteem include:

Ingratiation: Using flattery, praise, or agreement to seem more likeable to someone of higher status, such as a boss. People naturally enjoy being flattered.
Self-Handicapping: Creating an excuse before a task even starts, such as staying up all night before an exam. If they fail, they can blame the obstacle, not their own ability.

3. Establishing Desired Identities (Self-Understanding)

People also perform for others to establish and solidify their own identities.

Impression management helps individuals define who they are and understand their role in the social world.

For instance, people often act like “intuitive politicians,” carefully managing impressions to successfully justify their decisions and anticipate the objections of their social constituencies.

Baumeister (1982) called this constructing the desired self. It means projecting an image that fits an internal ideal, even when the audience would prefer something different.

Cultural Motivations

While the drive to manage impressions is universal, the specific underlying motivations and strategies can differ considerably across cultures.

In Western cultures, the focus is often on projecting independence and individual success.

However, in Asian cultures, which often foster an interdependent view of the self, a massive driver of impression management is “saving face” and avoiding public embarrassment.

This motivation can run strong. In Japan, some hire stand-in “friends” or “bosses” from a convenience agency for weddings and other personal events, as the Extreme and Context-Specific Examples above describe.

Two-Component Model of Self-Presentation

Two distinct sub-processes constitute the framework of impression management.

Mark Leary and Robin Kowalski (1990) reviewed more than two decades of self-presentation research and identified these as impression motivation and impression construction. Each process operates under different psychological principles.

Motivation concerns the desire to control one’s image. Construction involves the specific tactics used to create that image. Both processes are essential for navigating complex social environments effectively.

The model reframed impression management as a general theory of the social self. It also made testable predictions. Self-presentational effort should peak when the audience holds power over valued outcomes and doubts the actor’s preferred image.

Impression Motivation

Impression motivation is the degree to which an individual desires to control how others see them. Three factors raise it:

Goal relevance: Motivation is higher when the public image is tied to significant personal goals, and drops when outcomes are independent of social perceptions.
Value of the goal: The more a person prizes a specific goal, the harder they work to manage impressions.
Discrepancy: A gap between the desired image and the current reputation also fuels motivation.

People focus more on their image when interacting with high-status figures. Power explains this behavior. These figures hold sway over the individual’s future.

If a scandal damages a person’s standing, they will actively work to repair it. Repair restores the social capital the scandal cost.

Factors of Impression Construction

Impression construction refers to the specific methods and content people use to shape their public identity.

Five primary factors dictate the nature of these presentations. The first two relate to the internal self; the last three relate to external social dynamics:

Self-concept: What people take themselves genuinely to be.
Desired and undesired identity: The images people want to project and the ones they want to avoid.
Target’s values: What this particular audience finds admirable.
Role constraints: What the situation lets people plausibly claim, such as what a doctor or defendant can credibly present.
Current social image: What people already think of them, the starting point for any effort.

These elements work together to ensure that the projected image is both effective and believable.

Self-Concept and Identity

Self-concept acts as a primary internal anchor for any public presentation.

Most individuals strive to be perceived accurately according to their true beliefs.

This creates a tension between authenticity and the tactical management of information.

People often view deceptive self-presentation as unethical. They also fear the social sanctions that follow if a lie is discovered.

Self-Concept: The mental image one has of their own abilities and traits.
Desired Identity: The idealized version of who a person aspires to become.

A desired identity image represents what a person thinks they can be at their best.

Individuals manage impressions to align with these positive ideals.

They also distance themselves from “undesired selves” or traits they find repulsive. For example, a person valuing tolerance will loudly reject any association with bigotry.

This public rejection reinforces their internal sense of morality and social standing.

Empirical Validation: Tunnell (1984)

Aim: To investigate the relationship between self-consciousness and the consistency of self-presentation.
Procedure: Participants completed scales measuring public self-consciousness. Their public behaviors were then compared against their private self-reports.
Findings: High public self-consciousness predicted a greater gap between private identity and public behavior.
Conclusion: Social anxiety and awareness of others’ gaze reduce the congruency of an individual’s self-presentation.

Social Context and Target Values

External factors often dictate which parts of the self are highlighted. People tailor their behavior to match the values of the people they want to impress.

Rather than lying, individuals usually engage in selective disclosure.

They share truthful information that the target audience will likely admire. This strategy maintains integrity while maximizing social appeal in diverse groups.

Role constraints also limit the range of acceptable self-presentations.

Every social role comes with specific norms and expectations.

A doctor or a judge must project authority and calm to be effective. Violating these norms costs professional credibility.

Finally, the current social image acts as a starting point for all new interactions.

If someone is already viewed negatively, they will focus their energy on refuting those specific labels.

Critical Evaluation

Explanatory Scope and Falsifiability

Baumeister (1982) argued that many apparently unrelated social-psychological effects are self-presentation in disguise.

Aim: To show that conformity, aggression, altruism, cognitive dissonance, and reactance can be re-read as instances of self-presentation.
Method: A theoretical review across established research literatures, treating participants as people aware of being observed rather than isolated cognitive processors.
Core claims: People pursue two broad goals: pleasing the audience, and constructing a desired self that fits an internal ideal.
Conclusion: Self-presentation is a pervasive layer that qualifies, and sometimes wholly explains, effects first attributed to internal mechanisms.

On this view, conformity is not only informational or normative influence. It is partly an effort to appear reasonable.

The breadth is both a strength and a weakness. Tetlock and Manstead (1985) countered that impression-management and intrapsychic accounts of the same finding are often indistinguishable. Intrapsychic accounts explain behaviour through internal mental processes.

The available experimental methods rarely separate the two, and almost any social behaviour can be re-described as impression management. The reinterpretation therefore risks being unfalsifiable.

Cultural Relativity and Global Limitations

Goffman’s observations primarily reflect Western, individualistic social structures. In these societies, people manage impressions to highlight personal achievements and unique traits.

This focus on self-enhancement involves promoting one’s own status and autonomy. Critics argue this framework ignores the complexities of collectivist cultures.

In many Asian cultures, the primary goal of impression management is to maintain group harmony. This is often called saving face.

Saving face refers to the act of preserving one’s dignity and social standing within a group.

In these contexts, individuals may suppress their personal desires to satisfy collective expectations.

Kim and Markus (1999) tested this in behaviour, not self-report. Across several tasks:

European Americans: Consistently chose the unique or minority-represented option.
East Asian participants: Chose the option matching the majority.

The authors read this as each group enacting a culturally rewarded self-presentation rather than a different underlying preference. Goffman’s theory needs adjusting for these diverse motivations.

Cognitive Constraints and Non-Verbal Leakage

The dramaturgical model assumes that individuals are highly conscious directors of their own behavior.

However, maintaining a perfect social performance requires immense mental effort.

This effort can lead to cognitive depletion, the state where a person’s mental energy is exhausted, reducing their self-control.

Vohs, Baumeister, and Ciarocco (2005) tested this experimentally. Presenting oneself in a way that contradicted habitual self-views used the same limited self-regulatory resource as an unrelated self-control task. Those participants then showed markedly worse self-control.

The reverse also held. Participants whose resources an unrelated task had already drained gave less complex, less impressive self-presentations.

Tired or stressed people often show non-verbal leakage, the unintended betrayal of true feelings through body language or facial expressions. The leak is usually involuntary. Micro-expressions can reveal “backstage” emotions that contradict the “front stage” message, because these automatic cues escape conscious control.

Modern research suggests that much of our social interaction is reflexive rather than strategically planned.

Contemporary Research

Bak-Coleman and colleagues (2021), writing across seventeen disciplines in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reviewed how digital networks have restructured the environment in which self-presentation happens. Larger networks, cheaper information flow, and algorithmic curation now decide which performances reach which audiences.

Feedback such as likes and algorithmic amplification favours curated, idealised, emotionally arousing self-presentation over mundane self-presentation. Timelines drift toward extremes as a result. No single poster intends this effect.

Three implications follow:

Population-level distortion: Individually rational impression management still adds up to a population-level gap between timelines and people’s real lives, with costs to viewers’ self-evaluation.
Broken segregation: Platforms retain data and connect separate audiences by default, so Goffman’s assumption that front stage and backstage stay apart no longer reliably holds.
Heavier burden: Sustaining a curated identity across a persistent, searchable, collapsed audience is more continuous work than any single face-to-face performance. This fits the depletion findings above.

These aggregate effects now shape collective decision-making. Bak-Coleman and colleagues therefore frame the study of digital social behaviour as a “crisis discipline”, like conservation or medicine.

Individual Differences: The Self-Monitoring Scale

Aim: Snyder (1974) tested whether people differ in how closely they monitor and adjust their self-presentation, and whether this trait predicts real expressive skill.
Method: Snyder built a 25-item true/false scale of sensitivity to social cues and skill at adjusting behaviour. He validated it against peer ratings and direct tests with stage actors, psychiatric inpatients, and undergraduates.
Results: Stage actors scored highest, then undergraduates, then psychiatric inpatients. High self-monitors read emotions more accurately, and peers rated them as more chameleon-like.
Conclusion: People differ reliably in how far they treat social situations as scripts to perform. High self-monitors manage impressions more skilfully but can seem opportunistic; low self-monitors stay consistent but can seem inflexible.

Snyder (1987) later extended this into stable life-choice differences. High self-monitors more often choose partners and jobs that fit the immediate situation, while low self-monitors choose ones that fit their private values.

How the Four Models Fit Together

Four accounts shape the psychology of self-presentation, and each answers a different question.

Model	Question it answers	Kind of account
Goffman (1959)	What is a performance?	Sociological and descriptive: a vocabulary of front stage, backstage, teams and audience segregation, not testable variables
Jones and Pittman (1982)	Which tactical moves are available?	A taxonomy of five strategies, each defined by the attribution sought; it classifies behaviour, not people
Snyder (1974)	Who performs more skilfully?	A stable individual difference, measured by the Self-Monitoring Scale
Leary and Kowalski (1990)	When and why is effort invested?	A motivational model, the most explicitly testable of the four

Read together, they are complementary layers rather than rival explanations. The main disagreement is scope: Goffman’s claim that performance constitutes the self in every interaction is stronger than the other three accounts need.

Key Takeaways

Dramaturgical Model: Goffman (1959) compared social life to theatre, where people perform a self shaped by an audience’s reactions rather than reveal a fixed inner identity.
Front and Backstage: Performances succeed only when private “backstage” material stays separate from the public “front stage”; when it leaks, embarrassment follows.
Five Strategies: Jones and Pittman (1982) identified ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication as the main tactics people use to shape how others see them.
Self-Monitoring: Snyder (1974) showed people differ in how closely they track and adjust their self-presentation, with high self-monitors more socially skilled but less consistent across situations.
Digital Front Stage: Social media lets people edit and curate performances before an audience ever sees them, intensifying the effort self-presentation takes.
Cultural Variation: Western self-presentation emphasises personal achievement; many Asian cultures instead prioritise “saving face” and group harmony.
Modern Evidence: Bak-Coleman et al. (2021) argue algorithmic feedback now selects for idealised, emotionally arousing self-presentation at a population scale, a cost individual impression management doesn’t intend.

Cite this article

Pick a style, copy the reference, or download it to your reference manager.

Updated 29 Sep 2026

Nickerson, C. (2026). Impression Management. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/impression-management.html

Download .ris Download .bib

References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bak-Coleman, J. B., Alfano, M., Barfuss, W., Bergstrom, C. T., Centeno, M. A., Couzin, I. D., Donges, J. F., Galesic, M., Gersick, A. S., Jacquet, J., Kao, A. B., Moran, R. E., Romanczuk, P., Rubenstein, D. I., Tombak, K. J., Van Bavel, J. J., & Weber, E. U. (2021). Stewardship of global collective behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(27), Article e2025764118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025764118

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.3

Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.405

Braginsky, B. M., Braginsky, D. D., & Ring, K. (1969). Methods of madness: The mental hospital as a last resort. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Buss, A. H., & Briggs, S. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1310-1324.

Gergen, K. J. (1968). Personal consistency and the presentation of self. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 299-308). New York: Wiley.

Gergen, K. J., & Taylor, M. G. (1969). Social expectancy and self-presentation in a status hierarchy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 79-92.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123-142.

Goffman, E. (1963). Embarrassment and social organization.

Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life (Vol. 21). London: Harmondsworth.

Martey, R. M., & Consalvo, M. (2011). Performing the looking-glass self: Avatar appearance and group identity in Second Life. Popular Communication, 9 (3), 165-180.

Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Erlbaum.

Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. Wiley-Interscience.

Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785

Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Westview Press.

Leary, M. R. (2001). Impression management, psychology of. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 11). Elsevier.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34

Leary, M. R., Tchividjian, L. R., & Kraxberger, B. E. (1994). Self-presentation can be hazardous to your health: Impression management and health risk. Health Psychology, 13(6), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.13.6.461

Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 379-385.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological bulletin, 92(3), 641.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. W. H. Freeman.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

Tedeschi, J. T, Smith, R. B., Ill, & Brown, R. C., Jr. (1974). A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 540-563.

Tetlock, P. E., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological Review, 92(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.1.59

Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067

Tseëlon, E. (1992). Is the presented self sincere? Goffman, impression management and the postmodern self. Theory, culture & society, 9(2), 115-128.

Tunnell, G. (1984). The discrepancy between private and public selves: Public self-consciousness and its correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4805_15

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Open University Press.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attractions, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(2), 121–127.

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 632–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632