Performance and enactment of identity through facebook kodom &akele

-JournalofArts,Science&Commerce ■ E-ISSN 2229-4686 ■ ISSN 2231-4172
International Refereed Research Journal ■ www.researchersworld.com ■ Vol.– IV, Issue – 4(1), Oct. 2013 [22]
PERFORMANCE AND ENACTMENT OF IDENTITY THROUGH
FACEBOOK: THE CASE OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
OF UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
William Kodom GYASI,
Dept of Communication Studies,
University of Cape Coast,
Cape Coast-Ghana.
Rita Akele TWUMASI,
Dept of Communication Studies,
University of Cape Coast,
Cape Coast-Ghana.
ABSTRACT
Presently, Facebook is one of the most famous and prosperous social network service (SNS). In
view of its pervasiveness, the following questions are apropos: How do participants negotiate and
enact their identities on Facebook and what is involved in the construction of identities on
Facebook? The present study provided adequate answers to these questions by examining
students‘ levels of participation on Facebook and how they used it to negotiate the ―virtual self‖
(online identity). Survey research design was employed for the study. The sample size used was
240 posts drawn from the first and third year undergraduate students of the University of Cape
Coast, Ghana (UCC). A combination of purposive and simple random sampling techniques was
adopted for sampling the respondents. The main research instrument used for the study was
questionnaire. The study revealed that by virtue of Facebook design, students have many
opportunities to perform their identity on Facebook, several students are highly interested in
posting pictures which immensely contributed to identity construction and they were not
frequently updating their profiles on this less anonymous website – Facebook.
Keywords: Facebook, Social Network Service, privacy, identity management, construction of
identity, enactment of identity, first and third year undergraduate students.

INTRODUCTION:
In recent times, construction of identity online has drawn much attention from experts in the social network
field. Among these experts, Rheingold (1995) and Turkle (1995) conducted extensive investigation and
research on anonymous online environment such as Chat room and their findings revealed that users hide their
true identity and totally take on a different identity that may closely resemble their innermost desire and
aspirations especially in connection with things they cannot do offline. Users resorted to this type of identity
construction due to the anonymous nature of the online environment of which users are less culpable. These
findings fanned the interest of several researchers on social network service, including Yurchisin et al. (2005)
and Ellison et al. (2006), to investigate how users construct identities in nonymous (i.e opposite of anonymous)
online environment, especially on sites that identity is extremely important, such as internet dating sites.
Results of their study revealed that people constructed their identity differently on these sites (internet dating),
their behavior or actions revealed a sense of awareness of the nonymous online environment, of which their
actions or behavior may be consequential. The result of Yurchisin et al. and Ellison et al studies is quite
relevant to this study because it vividly revealed that the online environment was not constitutive of a single
unit, it has shades of variation suggesting that how individuals constructed identity or presented themselves
varied significantly from one online setting to another. In view of this variation, the present study will also
carry out an extensive investigation into how users on Facebook, a nonymous and social networking site
construct identity or perform self-presentation. The focus of the study is on university students because this
social networking site – Facebook has become very popular with university students in Ghana.
In order to fully understand the various ways students construct their identity on Facebook, the study has as its
objectives the following:
i. to investigate how often students visit Facebook
ii. to ascertain how often students update their profiles on Facebook
iii.to establish how students enact and construct their identities on Facebook.
iv. to find out whether identity enactment is influenced by the Facebook environment and, if so, to investigate
the extent to which it affects it.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
i. How often do users visit Facebook?
ii. How often do users update their profiles on Facebook?
iii. How do users enact and perform their identities on Facebook?
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:
The significance of this study cannot be overemphasized at a time when being a Facebook user is considered a
laudable achievement. Moreover, the study would serve as an impetus to understanding how students perform
self-presentation in nonymous online environment and will add to literature on identity construction on social
networking sites.
FACEBOOK:
Interested in putting his computer science skill to good use, coupled with his sophomoric sense of humor to
created a type of ―hot or not‖ game for Harvard students, Mark Zuckerberg, along with classmates Eduardo
Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes invented a social networking website called Facebook. This
social networking website was initially made to assist Harvard University students interact socially and get to
know one another (Bellis, 2013). Initially, membership to the website was at first restricted to Harvard
University students. However, other universities and colleges were later incorporated into this popular social
networking site with the help of Zuckerberg‘s colleagues. For example, Severin improved the business section
of the website, Moskovitz worked as a programmer, and McCollum as a graphic artist. In a short while,
Facebook opened up for all audiences and has been growing in leaps and bounds ever since. Facebook differs
from other social networking sites because only users or friends who are part of the same network could view
each other‘s profiles and posts. Unlike Twitter, users do not have access to all the messages on the site.
Another unique feature of Facebook is that it allows applications of third parties to have access to certain user
information via quiz or game. The website is structured so as to collect useful information when participants
use a tool and give permission to the application to use their personal information. Unlike Hyves, Twitter,

Blackplanet and Flickr, Facebook was initially designed to host a specific audience, but due to its evolving
nature as indicated by Boyd and Ellison (2007:12), it has embraced other users and has gained worldwide
acclaim as a powerful social networking site. However, Facebook also has a marked limitation in that it grants
users limited freedom of expression to construct identity or make self-presentation: users cannot choose their
own background and colours of their personal page, they have to stick to default settings.
Due to its curtailment of users‘ ability to feign the ideal personality, Facebook informs an ideal condition for
examining identity construction in online environments where the relationships are anchored in offline
communities. It is expected that people would engage in identity construction on Facebook and adopt strategies
of self-presentation that help them deal with the less anonymous environment. In essence, people are expected
to present their hoped-for-possible selves rather than their ―true‖ or hidden selves. Facebook users may
emphasize or even exaggerate the part of their possible selves that are socially desirable but not readily
discernible in brief offline encounters, such as one‘s character, intelligence, and other important inner qualities.
At the same time, they may seek to hide or de-emphasize the part of their selves they regard as socially
undesirable, such as shyness, overweight, or stuttering. It is certainly true that people engage in such activities
in face-to-face situations as well, but the emergence of a less anonymous Facebook environment provides users
with new leverage for selective self-presentation. Unlike Internet dating, participants who are primarily looking
for romantic relationships among people previously unknown to them, Facebook users are looking for
friendships as well as romantic relationships among two types of people: (1) those they know in person, and (2)
those they do not know in person. A major function of Facebook is to help the users connect with those they
already know and extend that connection to those they do not yet know. However, due to the mixing of these
two different types of people in the audience, Facebook allows users to engage in targeted performances by
blocking certain viewers from viewing certain parts of their Facebook accounts. As people present themselves
differently to different audiences—for example, people won‘t tell their neighbors everything they tell their
family members—the researcher also expect Facebook users to tailor their online presentations to particular
audiences. Hence, Facebook offers a unique opportunity to study how students are performing and constructing
identities in their own way.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
Two aspects are considered under this section, theoretical framework and literature review, so as to provide a
fitting context within which the present study is undertaken.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY BY DECI AND RYAN:
In their book: Handbook of self-determination research, Deci & Ryan (2002), see self-determination theory as a
macro theory of human motivation and personality, concerning people‘s inherent growth tendencies and their
innate psychological needs. Essentially, self-determination theory addresses three universal needs: competence,
autonomy and psychological relatedness. According to Deci & Ryan (p. 227), needs ―specify the necessary
conditions for psychological growth, integrity, and well-being.‖ Relatedness on the other hand is about being
connected to others by caring or being cared for (Wang et al., 2008). Competence is described as the
effectance-focused ability to produce valued outcomes and experience mastery which in turn implies the desire
for information-based learning, while autonomy refers to a person‘s volition – the desire to self-organize
experience and to engage in activities that are in harmony with one‘s sense of the self (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
These three aspects of personality are invaluable to understanding what and why certain goals are pursued by
actors in a social context. Motivation, according to Deci and Ryan, is very important because it lies at the
bottom of the three characteristics mentioned earlier and it serves as the driving force for the three qualities,
hence, there might be variation in what individuals need for competence, autonomy and relatedness. As a result,
it was seen that individuals are not simply passive and act only when they have to replenish perceived
deficiencies of need fulfillment but they are also proactively and self-determinedly engage in activities that
interest them and develop or actualize their individual potential as long as they are ―in a context that allows
need satisfaction‖ (p. 230). This suggests that most activities people are interested in challenge their curiosity,
openness and assimilation culminating in positive resonance not necessarily because a need must be fulfilled
but due to the mental exercise involved in such activities and the actualizing of their fantasies and innermost
desires. This means correlation requires that activities have a back-channel which allows self-assessment as an
option to evaluate and measure need satisfaction.

In essence, Deci & Ryan‘s study provides a theoretical framework for this study and sets the background for
the research domain: empirical assessment of how numerical data, or their change between two observations,
may be perceived as effective reflective cues about personal development in terms of satisfying intrinsic and
higher-level needs such as the need for relatedness, competence and autonomy which are often reflective in
identity construction or self-representation on social networking sites such as Facebook.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
The advent of the internet has revolutionized the traditional conditions of identity production. With the inability
of users to experience physical contact during online encounter, it becomes possible for student A in Accra to
interact with student B in Cape Coast on the Facebook thinking he is communicating with a lady whereas
offline (the real world) a young man is posing as a lady. In view of such tendencies, starting from the 1990‘s
researchers have been conducting investigations into various possibilities and implications the internet would
hold for the social conception of identity. Turkle (1995:14) for example investigated the potential for
fragmented, multiple postmodern selves and arrived at the following submission: ―computer-mediated
communication can serve as a place for the construction of identity.‖ In his study, Harraway (2004) probed
feminist concepts such as affinity politics and oppositional consciousness through the idea of the Cyborg (a
being with both organic and cybernetic parts) and sought to reject boundaries such as those between man and
machine. Also, some researchers discovered that the combination of disembodiment and anonymity creates a
technologically mediated environment in which a new mode of identity production emerges (Bargh, McKenna,
& Fitzsimons, 2002; McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002). An important characteristic of this emergent mode of
identity production is the tendency for people to play-act at being someone else or to put on different online
personae that differ from their ‗‗real life‖ identities (Stone, 1996; Turkle, 1995). The inability of users to
experience physical contact enables people to hide their undesired physical features, and anonymity allows
individuals to re-create their biography and personality. In other words, the disembodied and anonymous online
environment makes it possible for people to reinvent themselves through the production of new identities. For
example, in the online world, a man can pretend to be a woman, a nerd to be a star athlete, and an introvert to be
an extrovert. Online ‗‗role-playing,‖ as the phenomenon has come to be known, can be an empowering process.
Research has shown that the removal of physical ‗‗gating features‖ (stigmatized appearance, stuttering, shyness,
etc.) enables certain disadvantaged people to bypass the usual obstacles that prevent them from constructing
desired identities in face-to-face settings (McKenna et al., 2002). The emergent online anonymous environment
also provides an outlet for the expression of one‘s ‗‗hidden self‖ (Suler, 2002) and the exploration of various
non-conventional identities (Rosenmann and Safir, 2006). As such, the Internet plays an important role in
identity empowerment.
However, Zhao (2006) indicated that the online world is not entirely anonymous. Family members, neighbors,
colleagues, and other offline acquaintances also communicate with each other on the Internet. He referred to
this type of offline-based online relationships as ‗‗anchored relationships‖ An online relationship can be
anchored offline in a number of ways. For example, an online relationship can be anchored through institutions,
residence, or mutual friends. The level of anchorage varies depending on the degrees to which online partners
are identifiable and locatable offline. The most important identifying information includes a person‘s legal name,
residential location, and institutional affiliations (Marx, 1999). If an online environment can verify such
personal information and also make it public, then interpersonal relationships are fully anchored in that
environment.
In their study, DiMaggio & Hargittai (2001) demonstrated that the internet is far from a system with the highest
ideal or with very skilled users as initially conceived during its introduction, because till now several
individuals lack access to the internet and some that do have do not possess the skill to operate it. Still others
do not have experiential access; perceived barriers to access (or usefulness or ease of use) play just as much of a
role in preventing people from getting online as actual barriers (Porter and Donthu 2006). As a result, Ginger
(2008) posits that ―group identities belonging to marginalized or disadvantaged populations could be setback or
hindered in the world of the digital.‖ Even once people are established online, studies have demonstrated that
gendered, sexual, classed, raced, and age-based identities and corresponding conflicts continue to be salient
factors in determining the character of online relationships (Kendall 1998). People who‘ve grown up using the
web employ skepticism when considering the norms of digital identity and possess learned skills to determine
authenticity, much like they would in Goffman‘s vision of the everyday world. This is a form of digital literacy
(Hawisher et al., 2004) and quite possibly an example of critical access (Banks, 2006), which is increasingly
becoming forefront in the humanities and social sciences (―Our Cultural Commonwealth,‖ 2006). They learn

what kind of behaviors to expect; they know better than to assume that the spam email about millions of dollars
in Africa is real or to view a profile on MySpace as equally informing or valid as meeting that person face to
face. It is not that offline identity is in any way non-imperative to constructing digital identity, it is that the
performance of and way identity is ascertained online is subject to variant forms of expression, reception, and
consequential construction. Essentially, the present study shall unveil and discuss new dimensions in the
performance and construction of identity by university students on a less anonymous online website – Facebook.
METHODOLOGY:
This section discusses the research design, population and sampling procedure and research site,instrumentation
and data collection procedure.
RESEARCH DESIGN:
The study is rooted within survey research paradigm. The choice of this research design was informed by its
appropriateness and suitability. Mizner (2008) indicated that a survey research provides a high level of general
capability in representing a large population. Due to the usual huge number of people who are surveyed, the
data being gathered possess a better description of the relative characteristics of the general population involved
in the study. As compared to other methods of data gathering, surveys are able to extract data that are near to the
exact attributes of the larger population. Moreover, Zhao et al (2008) and Ginger (2008) employed it in a recent
research similar to the present research with appreciable results.
POPULATION AND SAMPLING PROCEDURE:
The population for the study was made up of all the first and third year undergraduate students of the
Department of English, University of Cape Coast, Ghana. The first year students were selected by the
researcher because they have less academic workload. It was therefore thought that these will be more active on
Facebook. The third year students are also not under much pressure academically like the second and final year
students, as such the same assumption about the first year students was thought to hold for the third year
students. The stated academic context of the first and third year students allows them ample time to visit
Facebook frequently. Upon this basis, a combination of purposive and simple random sampling method was
used to sample 240 undergraduate students for the study. The purposive sampling was used to select the first
and third year undergraduate students, since they possess the characteristics needed for the study whereas the
simple random sampling was used to randomly select 240 undergraduate students.
RESEARCH SITE:
The University of Cape Coast (UCC), one of the six public universities in Ghana, is the research site for the
study. Established in October 1962 as a College of Education affiliated to the University of Ghana, the
institution attained full status as an independent university with the authority to confer its own degrees in 1971
(Afful, 2007). The choice of this research site hinges on its proximity to the researcher. The issue of proximity
is very important taking into consideration the time and financial burden of moving from the University of Cape
Coast (where the researcher resides) to other universities. Also, being an alumnus and presently a lecturer in
UCC, the researcher is quite familiar with the students and media ecology, hence the choice of UCC as the
research site.
INSTRUMENTATION:
The major research instrument used was the questionnaire. Open-ended and closed-ended questions were used.
Section C of the questionnaire contained structured questions based on a four Likert Scale where Always was 4,
Sometimes 3, Rarely 2, and Never 1. The questionnaire was made up of three major sections. Section (a)
consisted of items dealing with the frequency of users to Facebook, section (b) contained items designed to
measure respondents‘ effort in updating their profiles on Facebook while section (c) looked into how people
construct and enact identities on Facebook.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE:
The researcher administered the questionnaire, the main instrument for data collection, personally to
respondents. This was to promote participation and a high return rate of the questionnaire from respondents.

DATA ANALYSIS:
Analysis was done in relation to the stated research questions. First, in order to answer researcher questions 1
and 2, simple frequencies were run for section A and B of the questionnaire using frequencies and percentages.
Secondly, an adequate answer was provided regarding question 3 by calculating the average-mean of responses
in relation to section C of the questionnaire. The aggregate conjecture of the data assisted the researcher to
arrive at a conceptualization of construction of identity on Facebook.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
Identification of students‘ activity on Facebook is primarily important to deciphering how they enact their
identity on Facebook. This matter is treated in research question one (1).
RESEARCH QUESTION ONE (1):
How often do users visit Facebook? This question is meant to reveal how frequently Facebook users visit their
profiles, and make necessary contacts, conversation, and announcements. Table 1 provides an answer to the
first research question.
Table 1 below shows that of the students observed, majority (48.3%) visit their profiles between one and two
times a day. This means that many students are digitally oriented and desire to make and retain friends on
Facebook. Many though, (21.7%) visit the site three to four times daily, while only 6.7% visit the site three
times a week and 3.3% less than once a week. These statistics suggest that participants log on frequently, which
logically parallels the frequency at which they could (and do) perform their identity.
ACTIVITY:
Table 1: Table Showing How Often Students visit Facebook
Activity Count Percent
6+ times daily 36 15%
3-4 times daily 52 21.7%
1-2 times daily 116 48.3%
3 times a week 16 6.7%
1-2 times a week 12 5%
Less than once a week 8 3.3%
Source: Field work, 2013
n=240
RESEARCH QUESTION TWO (2):
How often do users update their profiles on Facebook? This question is intended to elicit information on the
regularity or readiness of users to update their profiles on Facebook. Table 2 dwelled on this aspect of the study
and results are presented below.
Table 2 below revealed that an overwhelming 124 (51.7%) of the respondents update their profiles once every
few weeks. This means majority of the respondents are not very eager to update their profile, perhaps they feel
until something very important happens before they will update their profile. 32 (13.3%) update their profile
every few days whiles 24 (10%) update their profile once a week. It is also noteworthy that 12 (5%) update
their profile once a day. This means they are very frequent in updating their information, but they are few as
compared to the total number of students‘ sampled. Additionally, 48 (20%) are updating their profiles less than
once a month. These ones are really lagging behind, perhaps they are not digitally inclined or motivated or
have fewer friends, hence they visit it once-in-a-while
Table 2: Table Showing How Often Students Update Aspects of their Profiles on Facebook
Activity Count Percent
Once a day 12 5%
Once every few days (or more) 32 13.3%
Once a week 24 10%

Once every few weeks 124 51.7%
Less than once a month 48 20%
I don‘t update my profile 0 0
n=240
Table 3: Table Showing Activities Students Often Perform on Facebook
S/N Items
Always
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Mean(X)
Remark
1. Investigate/view profiles or pictures 125 10 57 48 2.96 Popular
2. Investigate/view groups or event 144 38 48 10 3.32 Popular
3. Investigate/view notes or posted item - 115 77 48 2.28 Unpopular
4. View news feeds (personal or general) 173 19 10 38 3.36 Popular
5. Search for people (profiles) or pictures 192 19 29 3.48 Popular
6. Search for groups or events 29 154 57 1.88 Unpopular
7. Check, reply to, or send messages 192 19 29 3.48 Popular
8. Read wall posts 173 38 10 19 3.52 Popular
9. Make or respond to wall posts 192 10 38 3.44 Popular
10. Poke others (initiate) 10 221 9 2.04 Unpopular
11. Return pokes (reciprocate) 150 38 9 43 3.23 Popular
12. Create groups - 115 77 48 2.28 Unpopular
13. Create events 5 4 185 46 1.87 Unpopular
14. Post pictures 182 29 19 10 3.60 Popular
15. Check out advertisements 10 221 9 2.04 Unpopular
n=240
RESEARCH QUESTION THREE (3):
How do users construct and enact their identity on Facebook? The study revealed that users are logging in often,
and updating their profiles semi-frequently, but what are they really doing when they log in? i.e How do they go
about negotiating their identity on Facebook. Section C of the questionnaire contained questions to gauge
students usage tendencies. These behaviours give one measure of how information might be exchanged in ways
that construct or enact identity. By assigning value of 4, 3, 2, and 1 to the four point likert scale, the scale allows
for easy identification of popular or unpopular used items. Using 2.50 as the cut off point to determine popular
and unpopular items, then, frequently used or popular item is represented by items with mean value higher than
2.50 while items with mean value of responses lower than the 2.50 is indicative of an unpopular item. 2.50
therefore represent neutral item. Responses of the students are given in Table 3 above.
A closer look at Table 3 revealed that most activities have stayed at approximately the same level of popularity
for respondents. The only significant exception might be posting of pictures, followed by wall actions and
reciprocating pokes, which seem to have become more popular, 3.60 (posting pictures), 3.52 (read wall post).
Pictures and Wall postings are an interesting method of expression on the Facebook network. When users post
on another‘s wall, they are not just simply messaging or communicating with one another, but doing so in a
semi-public fashion, making it a distinctly different kind of performance-based activity. The act of posting to
another‘s wall is the only one that is (potentially) picked up by the newsfeed and easily visible to the general
public (people who visit your profile).
Apart from wall actions, the remaining common usages on Table 3 were covert ones: investigate/view profiles
and pictures, reading wall posts and messages, and following the newsfeed. Posting pictures and returning
pokes are the only two occasional activities that are clearly shown. The remaining actions users sometimes take
when logged on are hidden: Sending messages, searching for friends, and investigating or viewing groups and
events. Table 3 also revealed that the most popular behaviors are those related to both direct and indirect

communication and information exchange. Intentional construction of identity (on-stage) comes in the form of
‗public‘ actions such as profile updates, posting of pictures, and wall messages as well as hidden reciprocative
actions (back-stage) like messaging and poking communications. Implicit influences on identity construction
are carried out by the searching and investigating of profiles and pictures, distanced observations of walls,
groups, events, and newsfeeds, and potentially read but unanswered messages (off-stage). Participants know
others are looking at their profiles and watching the newsfeed and thus situate them in a context suited to their
audience, allowing for a blend of influence strategies (impression management). Pictures are often one of the
driving features behind the whole economy of profile exchange.
The ties between the physical and online worlds facilitate a stronger representation of identity and help to combat
feelings of disembodiment. Sharing through pictures may be less assertive, however, as viewing a picture does not
actually notify the owner of the picture that someone is looking at it. Users seem to browse (investigate) more than
they actively and intentionally search for specific people, groups, and events in the system. The newsfeed,
however, offers an interesting mixture of potential passive observation and indication of assertive behavior. Some
items, like the breakup of a romantic relationship, group and application involvement, and status changes are also
tagged by the newsfeed but were not included in the collection of widespread routines.
Significantly, Table 3 indicates that the newsfeed (3.36 (popular)) has become a viable, or at least accepted way
of sharing one‘s activities, constructing identity information, and otherwise communicating indirectly (and
potentially unintentionally) with the mass. While some users may not purposely act to perform for the
newsfeed they at least know that they are being observed. The fact that far fewer people initiate pokes (2.04
(unpopular)) than return them probably indicates fewer poke starters than people willing to engage in poke-
exchanges. The most assertive activities, such as creating events, groups, and poking others as well as the ones
least directly connected to people, such as viewing groups, events, the pulse, and posted items, were the ones of
lowest occurrence. Advertisements (2.04 (unpopular) were one of the least often engaged items on Table 3,
which is perhaps not surprising, but nonetheless unfortunate news for marketing agents who feel Facebook is
the best place to get their product to take off.
Ginger (2008) and Compete.com (cited by Freiert, 2007) also conducted similar studies to determine what
Facebook visitors were doing most on the website. Their findings are consistent with those explained here
though they sourced data via a different method. For example, Compete.com tracked only behavior, wall
posting was not examined. Their study was not based on user-reported data but instead collected data by
analysis of system statistics. Unlike this study, Compete.com‘s findings ranked browsing of profiles as the most
frequent activity, followed by browsing pictures and interacting with applications. Ginger on the other hand
studied the differences between users on a basis of the number of friends on other networks and also analyzed
the demographics of participants.
SUMMARY:
The major findings emanating from the research include the following:
i. It was discovered that Facebook subscribers have many opportunities to perform their identity on Facebook,
hence several students investigated are frequently (Table 1, item 3 (48.3%) visiting the site once or two times
a day for networking, making and retaining friends and the likes.
ii. The investigative study also revealed on Table 2, item 4 that majority (124 (51.7%)) of the respondents
update their profiles once every few weeks, this means they are semi-frequent in updating their profiles.
This may also suggest that they are very actively involved or passive about such matters but are rather
interested in checking postings or events on the site.
iii.The study also revealed that majority of the respondents is highly interested in posting pictures (3.60)
followed by wall posting (3.52) as depicted in Table 3, item 8 and 14. These are veritable means of
constructing and performing individual identities on the Facebook.
CONCLUSIONS:
In view of the findings emanating from this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
a.In line with the analysis presented above, majority of the students showcased themselves indirectly through
photo (Table 3, item 8, 3.60) and wall posting on Facebook (Table 3, Item 14, 3.52). In this way, the visual
possibilities of Facebook mean that users offer a mediated interaction to their audience, one that requires the
audience to pay equal attention to the social milieu of the individual. Most users appealed to the interest of
ideal figures that captivate their fantasies.

b.The study also revealed that any activity in the virtual (online) world is consequential, appropriate penalty or
fine can be imposed for deviant behavior, hence it is expected of subscribers to behave according to
established norms; conformity to norms will be rewarded and deviations from them will be punished.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings and the conclusions enumerated above regarding the construction and enactment of
identity on Facebook, the researcher made the following recommendations:
1.All users of Facebook network should be wary in their approach to matters on the website because Facebook
allows subscribers to present a totally different picture of their person or personality thereby staging different
identity shows for different audiences. Users should not be deceived into believing what may later hurt him
physically and otherwise.
2.Also, in view of the great deal of power and leverage Facebook has over users due to its access to subscribers‘
private information through other sources, it is recommended that Facebook should continue to uphold the
tenet of individual privacy and right of information and refrain from using user‘s private information for
marketing purposes which may create an avenue for miscreants to gain access to privileged information.
REFERENCES:
[1] Afful, J. B. A. (2007). Academic Literacy and Communicative Skills in the Ghanaian University: A
Proposal. Nebula: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Scholarship 4.3/09/07
[2] Altheide, D. L. (2000). Identity and the definition of the situation in a mass-mediated context. Symbolic
Interaction, 23(1), 1–27.
[3] Banks, A. (2006). Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground. Mahwah, CT:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[4] Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and
expression of the ‗‗true self‖ on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48.
[5] Boyd, D. M. and N.B. Ellison (2007) ‗Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship‘, Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1).
[6] Brennan, G., & Pettit, P. (2004). Esteem, identifiability and the Internet. Analyse & Kritik, 26, 139–157.
[7] Cassidy, J. (2006). Me media. The New Yorker (May 15), 50–59.
[8] Cinnirella, M., & Green, B. (2007). Does ‗‗cyber-conformity‖ vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect of
culture and communication medium on social conformity. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 2011–2025.
[9] Clark, L. S. (1998). Dating on the net: Teens and the rise of ‗‗pure relationships‖. In S. G. Jones (Ed.),
Cyberspace 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 159–183). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
[10] DiMaggio, P. and Hargittai, E. (2001). From the 'digital divide' to 'digital inequality': Studying Internet
use as penetration increases," Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working
Paper Series number 15.
[11] Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: Computer-mediated
communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399–416.
[12] Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in
the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2) (article 2).
[13] Ellison, N.B., C. Steinfield and C. Lampe (2007) ‗The Benefits of Facebook ‗Friends:‘Social Capital and
College Students‘Use of Online Social Network Sites‘, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(4).
[14] Freiert, M. (2007). ―Facebook now ranked 3rd
in Page Views; MySpace down nearly 20%.‖ Compete.com.
September 11.
[15] Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of
anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication
Research, 33(2), 152–177.
[16] Ginger, J. (2008) (2nd
Ed.) Performance and Construction of digital identity. The FacebookProject.com.
(http://www.thefacebookproject.com/research/jeff/publications/ genderroles.html)
[17] Girard, R. (1961). Deceit, desire, and the novel: Self and other in literary structure. Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press.
[18] Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
[19] Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. New York: The Free Press.

[20] Hawisher, G. E., Cynthia L. S., Brittney Moraski, and Pearson, M.. 2004. ―Becoming Literate in the
Information Age: Cultural Ecologies and the Literacies of Technology.‖ College Composition and
Communication 55:642-92.
[21] Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy theory. Psychological Review, 94, 1120–1134.
[22] Kendall, L. (1998). ―Meaning and Identity in ―Cyberspace‖: The Performance of Gender, Class, and Race
Online.‖ Symbolic Interaction 21:129-53.
[23] Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.
[24] Marx, G. T. (1999). What‘s in a name? Some reflections on the sociology of anonymity. The Information
Society, 15, 99–112.
[25] McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., and Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet:
What‘s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9–31.
[26] ―Our Cultural Commonwealth.‖ 2006. American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyber
infrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences. American Council of Learned Societies.
[27] Porter, C. E. and Donthu, N. (2006). ―Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes
determine Internet usage: The role of perceived barriers and demographics.‖ Journal of Business Research
59:999-1007
[28] Rheingold, H. (1995). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized world. London:
Secker and Wargurg.
[29] Rosenberg, M. (1986). Conceiving the self Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger. Rosenmann, A., and Saﬁr, M.
P. (2006). Forced online: Push factors of Internet sexuality: A preliminary study of online paraphilic
empowerment. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 71–92.
[30] Stone, G. (1981). Appearance and the self: A slightly revised version. In G. Stone and H. A. Farberman
(Eds), Social psychology through symbolic interaction (2nd ed., pp. 187–202). New York: Wiley.
[31] Stone, A. A. (1996). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
[32] Stutzman, F. (2008). Data Portability . ‖ Unit Structures. July 2.
[33] Suler, J. R. (2002). Identity management in cyberspace. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 4(4),
455–459.
[34] Surratt, C. G. (1998). Netlife: Internet citizens and their communities. New York: Nova Science.
[35] Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
[36] Twumasi, P. A. (1986) Social Research in Rural Communities: the problems of fieldwork in Ghana.
Accra, Ghana Universities Press*Pp. 109.
[37] Walker, K. (2000). ‗‗It‘s difficult to hide it‖: The presentation of self on Internet home pages. Qualitative
Sociology, 23(1), 99–120.
[38] Yurchisin, J., Watchravesringkan, K., & McCabe, D. B. (2005). An exploration of identity re-creation in
the context of Internet dating. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(8), 735–750.
[39] Zhao, S. (2006). Cyber-gathering places and online-embedded relationships. In Paper presented at the
annual meetings of the eastern sociological society in Boston.
[40] Zhao, S., Grasmuch, S., and Martin J. (2008) Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in
anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behaviour, pp. 1816 – 1836.
-----

Performance and enactment of identity through facebook kodom &akele

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Performance and enactment of identity through facebook kodom &akele (20)

Recently uploaded (20)