# notes --- - [[{1.2a1a1a} online authenticity paradox]] # highlights --- > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=2&selection=387,0,450,1|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.2]] > > Our qualitative analysis revealed that for many, being authentic meant presenting a “true” and consistent self across online and ofine contexts, which necessitated sharing both positive and negative content on social media. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=2&selection=539,0,620,12|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.2]] > > **online authenticity paradox:** people strive to achieve online authenticity, yet because doing so requires sharing negative or sensitive experiences with broad audiences, it is out of reach for many – especially people with marginalized identities and difcult or stigmatized life experiences. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=101,0,168,1|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]] > > Online audiences greatly impact people’s self-presentation and decisions whether and how to share difcult or sensitive content online. **Context collapse occurs when multiple incongruent audiences are present in the same digital space** [ 55] > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=209,0,239,4|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]] > > To manage context collapse, social media users often create boundaries between separate audiences [23, 55, 68]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=525,0,579,5|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]] > > Social media norms, which typically emphasize positive self-presentations [72 , 76 , 77], can also infuence online disclosure. Such factors include positivity bias and social desirability bias. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=581,0,602,2|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]] > > “**Positivity bias**” refers to people’s preference for positive information [ 42]. #type/vocab > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=680,0,761,7|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]] > > **Social desirability bias** – “the tendency... to deny socially undesirable traits or qualities and to admit to socially desirable ones” [ 57] – encourages showcasing positive social selves [70], hindering exhibition of self-aspects related to negatively perceived and stigmatized events. #type/vocab (but also, we should know less abt each other and privacy needs to be normalized again) > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=884,0,1038,0|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]] > > Authenticity is complex, highly subjective, and socially constructed [56]. The term usually carries positive connotations, and is considered a “basic need” that people strive to fulfll [71 ]. Maintaining authenticity requires efort, as it is not only internal, but also requires “allowing the outside world access to one’s inner self” [6 ]. Some have argued that authenticity is artifcial and an “idealized representation of reality” [ 32] that is performed rather than inherent [56]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=1063,0,1134,2|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]] > > People often strive to be authentic both in virtual and physical settings, but online authenticity can be ambiguous [55, 63] due to complex relationships between one’s “real, embodied self” and “virtual persona” [ 21 ]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=1136,0,1164,2|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]] > > Rather than being fixed, **identity is flexible, changeable, and highly dependent upon context** [54]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=3&selection=1267,0,1352,1|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.3]], [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=4&selection=12,0,110,7|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.4]] > > Though some have argued that authentic identity online is constructed rather than internal [ 31], social media sites often encourage presenting a single identity or combining potentially disparate facets into one identity [ 16]. Such requirements **reduce user agency by assuming a “normative, decontextualized concept of self” that is “partly constructed by the application, not the user”** [ 53 ]. <mark style="background: #ABF7F7A6;">boyd</mark> [ 9 ] argued that all social media profles are performances where people give of certain impressions; thus, those who present “fake” versions of themselves are no less authentic than others. > > > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=4&selection=112,0,166,2|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.4]] > > People often struggle with online self-presentation when aspects of their identities are marginalized, stigmatized, or otherwise not easily shareable [ 1 , 6 , 38 , 58]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=4&selection=260,0,307,4|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.4]] > > Having multiple, sometimes incongruent, identity aspects can lead to self-doubt [ 26]. Exhibiting oneself inauthentically may reduce both social connections and well-being [33, 59]. #topic/identity #type/highlight > [!highlight|research] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=4&selection=360,1,409,6&color=research|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.4]] > > Some may experience what<mark style="background: #ABF7F7A6;"> Gergen [26] called pastiche personality</mark> – the acceptance that authenticity is unachievable, which enables living with multiple identities without guilt. #action/research > [!highlight|research] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=4&selection=454,0,519,0&color=research|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.4]] > > Wood et al.’s highly-cited<mark style="background: #ABF7F7A6;"> Authenticity Scale </mark>[ 78 ] is meant to measure “a clear defnition of the construct” of authenticity made up of three factors: self-alienation, authentic living, and accepting external infuence. #action/research > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=4&selection=713,1,773,2&color=yellow|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.4]] > > Banet-Weiser argued authenticity should not be only “understood and experienced as the pure, inner self of the individual, it is also a relationship between individuals and commodity culture” [ 6]. > > yikes, although this is specifically for brands, i guess? > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=4&selection=953,0,1072,6|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.4]] > > We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 28) to understand perceptions of authenticity online and how they correspond to social media sharing. Our inclusion criteria required that participants: 1) used social media; 2) had gone through major life transitions during the past two years; 3) had disclosed one or more of these on social media; and 4) were 18 or older. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=7&selection=34,0,82,7|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.7]] > > the most common ways participants described online authenticity were: presenting identity consistently across online and ofine contexts, and presenting both positive and negative content online. > > think it’s interesting that sharing negative content is a cornerstone of authenticity for a lot of people. do things have to be bad to be true?? margo aaron! > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=7&selection=220,1,279,10|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.7]] > > Being authentic and presenting a “true” identity online involved telling the truth and being honest, being consistent, curating one’s online content as little as possible, and interacting with others genuinely. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=7&selection=573,1,672,8|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.7]] > > P16 stated that: > > > to really present yourself authentically, you’d have to document every single thing that’s going on in your life... the exciting parts, the really sad parts and the day-to-day things too. Just like, if you’re going to get food, or if you’re like cleaning up around the house... > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=8&selection=722,0,746,18|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.8]] > > social comparison [75] can lead to heavily curated content, hindering authentic self-presentation. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=9&selection=12,0,166,6|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.9]] > > most tend to share positive events and not negative content. Such behavior contradicts participants’ common defnition of online authenticity, which required sharing both positive and negative content. Furthermore, we found that participants made selective disclosures to leave positive impressions, which is inconsistent with another requirement for online authenticity they described: curating content as little as possible. Some had shared negative life events online in the past, but after receiving negative reactions, were demotivated from sharing such content again. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=9&selection=698,1,749,8|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.9]] > > people clearly do not avoid posting negative content to be disingenuous – rather, they adhere to social media norms by keeping personal and stigmatized experiences private. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=10&selection=771,1,838,11|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.10]] > > Multiple factors – widely perceived positivity bias, impression management, context collapse, and unsupportive responses when sharing negative events – lead to a discrepancy between online behavior and a desire to be honest and consistent. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=10&selection=904,0,1053,1|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.10]] > > Business researchers introduced the authenticity paradox to describe how efective leadership often involves departing from rigid notions of authenticity, as thinking and acting in accordance with a rigid authentic “true self” can limit growing, changing, and fulflling new roles and challenges [ 34, 43]. We extend this idea by explaining how authenticity can also be paradoxical for the general public when presenting identity in online spaces, a concept we call the online authenticity paradox. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=10&selection=1063,0,1157,2|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.10]] > > context collapse complicates online authenticity and self-disclosure on social media. “Online” is not one space – it involves multiple sites and communities, with diferent audiences, norms, and contexts, and each infuences people’s choices to disclose personal information about their identities and life experiences [2, 55]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=11&selection=195,1,228,2|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.11]] > > The online authenticity paradox describes how the proclivity toward positive self-presentations complicates transparent sharing [ 59 ]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=11&selection=619,0,766,10|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.11]] > > We call this the online authenticity paradox: (1) Many consider authenticity an important construct to uphold in their personal lives and online presentations. (2) Many believe that authenticity requires sharing both positive and negative experiences with broad networks online. (3) Thus, though they do not always recognize it, online authenticity may be unachievable for many, particularly in relation to difcult or stigmatized events (due to factors including positivity bias, impression management, and context collapse). > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=11&selection=813,0,870,2|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.11]] > > in reality most people fnd ways to live somewhat authentically online by using multiple channels like private messages, multiple accounts, and separate online networks [4, 79, 80]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=11&selection=948,0,1003,0|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.11]] > > Taken together, simultaneous demands for and barriers to online authenticity make it so that common online practices like identity multiplicity and separation are often considered inauthentic [38]. > [!highlight|] [[HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox.pdf#page=12&selection=367,0,429,19|HaimsonOnlineAuthenticityParadox, p.12]] > > Online platforms can use the online authenticity paradox to provide better user experiences, such as by facilitating connection between people with similar experiences, allowing anonymous sharing, and enabling multiple accounts and self-presentations.