Impression management, also known as self-presentation, refers to the ways that people attempt to control how they are perceived by others.
Erving Goffman’s theory of impression management posits that social life functions like a theatrical performance.
People act as performers to influence how others perceive them during social encounters.
By controlling information flow, individuals maintain social equilibrium and protect their internal sense of self-worth.
Erving Goffman popularized the concept of perception management in his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, where he argues that impression management not only influences how one is treated by other people but is an essential part of social interaction.
Impression Management Techniques
- Suppressing emotions: Maintaining self-control (which we will identify with such practices as 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.
Dramaturgical Framework: Life as Theater
Erving Goffman (1959) revolutionized social psychology by introducing the dramaturgical metaphor, which views social life as a theatrical production.
He posited that individuals function as actors performing scripts for an audience of peers.
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.
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 the Two
The core difference between the two concepts is that the front stage is a highly regulated space for maintaining an illusion, while the backstage is a safe haven for dropping it.
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.
When the boundary between these two stages blurs, 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.
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 are the physical objects, such as a luxury watch or a specific textbook, used to signal status or intelligence.
- Wardrobe and Clothing: The specific way an individual dresses is cited as one of the most fundamental props used to manage how they are perceived by others.
- Setting is the physical location where the interaction occurs, such as a professional office or a trendy café.
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.
Rather than the self causing the behavior, the social scene produces the impression of a self.
Consequently, identity is a fluid, collaborative achievement between the actor and the 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.
If a disruption occurs, participants often engage in “face-work” to ignore the error.
This collective denial prevents mutual shame and allows the social interaction to continue.
Examples
Impression management manifests in a wide variety of everyday behaviors, ranging from subtle conversational tactics to elaborate, high-stakes deceptions.
While the ultimate goal is generally to control how one is perceived by an audience, the specific strategies people employ depend heavily on the situation and the identity they wish to project.
Everyday Social and Interpersonal Strategies
Psychologists have identified several common tactical components people use to adjust their behavior and manage others’ viewpoints:
- Ingratiation (Flattery): People frequently use flattery, agreement, or sympathy to make themselves more likable, especially to individuals of higher status. A classic example is a subordinate eagerly telling their boss, “Great job today, I loved your presentation,” even if the meeting was incredibly boring. While effective, it can backfire if the target senses insincerity, causing the flatterer to look like a sycophant.
- Behavior Matching and Norm Conformity: To create a favorable impression, individuals often mirror the behavior of their target, such as matching their level of personal self-disclosure. They also conform to the specific “situated identity” of a room, applying their knowledge of social norms to act perfectly appropriate for that specific environment.
- Self-Promotion vs. Exemplification: People self-promote to ensure others see them as competent, though this carries the risk of appearing conceited or fraudulent.
- Exemplification: A person tries to project an image of being highly moral, worthy, or “saintly”. The downside to this strategy is the danger of coming across as sanctimonious or “holier-than-thou”.
- Supplication and Intimidation: Impression management is not always about being liked. Intimidation is used to project danger and ward others off, though empty threats can ruin a person’s credibility. Supplication is often a strategy of last resort where a person pleads, begs, or demonstrates “strategic incompetence” so others view them as helpless. This forces others to step in and help, though the actor risks being perceived as lazy or manipulative.
Behavioral Self-Handicapping
Counterintuitively, people sometimes manage their impressions by intentionally setting themselves up for failure.
In behavioral self-handicapping, an individual creates obstacles for themselves—such as using drugs and alcohol, putting in reduced effort, or intentionally failing to prepare for an important event or test.
The underlying motivation is the protection of their public image and self-esteem: if they fail the task, they can blame the failure on the convenient excuse (the obstacle) rather than on their own lack of innate ability.
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:
- Extreme “Saving Face” in Cultural Contexts: In cultures that emphasize an interdependent view of the self, avoiding public embarrassment is an incredibly powerful motivator. In Japan, for example, social standing at events like weddings and funerals is so important that people will hire “convenience agencies” to rent fake guests. In one instance, a woman who feared too few people would attend her wedding paid $1,500 to rent six fake guests, including a man hired to pose as her boss and deliver a flattering speech about her.
- Concealing Deviance in Healthcare: In medical and research interviews, patients frequently alter their self-reporting to give a better impression of themselves. Fearing that they will be judged as careless or “deviant,” individuals often hide a lack of preventative care (like poor exercise or dental habits) and actively conceal highly stigmatized risk behaviors, such as illicit drug use or unprotected sex.
- Political Rebranding: A dramatic historical example of macro-level impression management is the 1991 gubernatorial campaign of David Duke in Louisiana. Duke had spent most of his adult life as a Ku Klux Klan leader, white supremacist, and anti-Semite. To manage his public impression and appeal to mainstream conservative voters, Duke literally attempted to change his “costume” and “mask”—he underwent cosmetic facial surgery and publicly claimed to no longer support Nazi ideology.
- Pathological Attention-Seeking: When the need to control an audience’s attention becomes an extreme psychological compulsion, it can manifest as Histrionic Personality Disorder. Individuals with this diagnosis manage their social impressions by being excessively theatrical, exhibiting rapidly shifting but shallow emotions, and using provocative or sexually seductive physical appearances to ensure they remain the absolute center of attention.
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.
While physical interactions are fleeting, digital performances are archived, searchable, and globally accessible.
This permanence forces users to engage in hyper-vigilant self-monitoring to maintain a cohesive “online brand.”
The Asynchronous Front Stage
Social media serves as an enhanced front stage by offering asynchronous communication.
Asynchronicity refers to the 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, and the sharing of intellectual content.
These items function as shorthand for a user’s values, wealth, or social standing.
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 81 online daters and compared these physical realities to the data provided on their public profiles.
-
Findings: The data revealed that 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.
-
Conclusions: The study concluded that digital environments facilitate strategic misrepresentation because the physical body is “backstage” and hidden from the initial audience.
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, signaling a new, independent identity while preventing the ex-partner from accessing the actor’s current backstage life.
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” 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, where 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. Every social interaction relies on participants projecting specific traits to secure status or influence.
Success in professional or romantic spheres often depends on these perceived identities.
While 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.
Because being evaluated positively by others is a prerequisite for many of these positive life outcomes, people are highly motivated to avoid the social anxiety and rejection that come from making 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: This involves using flattery, praise, or agreement to make oneself more likable to another person, frequently someone of higher status (like a boss). It is a powerful technique because people naturally enjoy having others be nice to them.
- Self-Handicapping: To prevent the disappointment and blow to self-esteem that comes with failure, people sometimes actively create obstacles or ready-made excuses for themselves before a task even occurs. By self-handicapping (e.g., staying up all night before a big exam or complaining of physical symptoms), individuals manage impressions by ensuring that if they perform poorly, they can blame the obstacle rather than their own lack of 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.
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.
The motivation to preserve one’s social standing and avoid shame is so strong in places like Japan that individuals might even rent “friends” or “bosses” from a convenience agency to attend personal events, like weddings, just to maintain the appropriate public appearance.
Dual-Process Model of Self-Presentation
Two distinct sub-processes constitute the framework of impression management.
Mark Leary and Robin Kowalski 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.
Impression Motivation
Impression motivation is the degree to which an individual desires to control how others see them. Higher motivation occurs when the public image is tied to significant personal goals.
When outcomes are independent of social perceptions, motivation levels typically drop. People focus more on their image when interacting with high-status figures.
This behavior stems from the power these figures hold over the individual’s future.
Value plays a critical role in determining self-presentational effort. The more a person prizes a specific goal, the harder they work to manage impressions.
Discrepancy between a desired image and a current reputation also fuels motivation.
If a scandal damages a person’s standing, they will actively work to repair it. This corrective action restores the social capital lost during the embarrassing event.
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.
Two factors relate to the internal self: self-concept and desired identity.
Three factors relate to external social dynamics: target values, role constraints, and existing social images.
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.
Conclusions: 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 can lead to a loss of 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
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 described through the concept of 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. Goffman’s theory requires adjustment to account for these diverse social 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. Cognitive depletion is the state where a person’s mental energy is exhausted, reducing their self-control.
When people are tired or stressed, they often experience non-verbal leakage.
This term describes the unintended betrayal of true feelings through body language or facial expressions.
Micro-expressions can reveal “backstage” emotions that contradict the “front stage” verbal message. Because these cues are automatic, individuals cannot fully control their social performances.
Modern research suggests that much of our social interaction is reflexive rather than strategically planned.
References
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choices as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 405-417.
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. The Overlook Press.
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. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological perspectives on the self, 1(1), 231-262.
Leary M R (1995) Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behaior. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Leary, M. R.. Impression Management, Psychology of, in Smelser, N. J., & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.). (2001). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34.
Leary M R, Tchvidjian L R, Kraxberger B E 1994 Self-presentation may be hazardous to your health. Health Psychology 13: 461–70.
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 (Vol. 222). Monterey, CA: 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.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.
Tedeschi, J. T, Smith, R. B., Ill, & Brown, R. C., Jr. (1974). A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 540-563.
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
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.
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.
Further Information
- Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Joseph, N. L., & Norton, S. D. (2013). Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, organizations and society, 38(3), 195-213.
- Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management (Vol. 222). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
- Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of management, 14(2), 321-338.
- Goffman, E. (1963). Embarrassment and social organization.
- Scheff, T. J. (2005). Looking‐Glass self: Goffman as symbolic interactionist. Symbolic interaction, 28(2), 147-166.
