Abstract
This article presents an in-class exercise for teaching theories of the presentation of self that is organized around two key concepts, impression management and impression formation. By highlighting the interpretive, interactive aspects of the presentation of self, this exercise is also useful for teaching the major principles of symbolic interactionism. The exercise is a modified form of speed dating in which students are paired together in a rapid succession of brief interactions (three to five minutes). Rather than seeking a date, however, students are participant-observers paying careful attention to how they form impressions of others and manage the impressions others are forming of them. Because of its brief and repeated interactions, speed dating puts students in a good position to observe their interactions with some analytical distance. With this exercise, students become active learners, which has been found to improve engagement and retention. Drawing on students’ essays, we present evidence that the exercise helps students to develop a basic understanding of presentation-of-self concepts and symbolic interactionism more generally as well as an ability to apply them to their experience.
Keywords
Presentation of self is an everyday experience, so commonplace and ordinary that for most it passes unnoticed. The challenge for teachers is to draw students’ attention to the complex cognitions and affective attachments that underlie everyday interactions. This article grows out of our need to teach presentation-of-self theories in particular, and symbolic interactionism more generally, in lower-division undergraduate courses.
The use of classroom exercises accomplishes what Chickering and Gamson (1987) call active learning. Whether by talking about, writing about, participating in, or applying the class material, students are more likely to be engaged and interested (Eglitis 2010; Holtzman 2005; Pedersen 2010) and to demonstrate improved short- and long-term retention (Prince 2004). Many useful examples of active learning techniques are avail-able to sociology instructors (e.g., McKinney and Heyl 2009), but few directly relate to the presentation of self. Among the exceptions, Brown (2003) provides an exercise for teaching dramaturgical theories in the context of an embarrassing situation. Sharp and Kordsmeier (2008) orchestrate a similar embarrassing scenario to teach theories of face-work and the use of tact. Eglitis (2010:342–43) mentions an assignment in which students observe and apply symbolic interactionist concepts to their relations with three people in three different roles over the course of a week. In contrast, we highlight within the classroom the more mundane facets of everyday interactions and the interpretive aspects of the presentation of self.
We present an in-class exercise for teaching presentation-of-self theories first developed in introductory sociology courses and since tested in three academic fields (sociology, anthropology, and criminal justice) at two universities (a medium-sized state university and a small, historically black state university). We have used this exercise in classes ranging in size from 30 to 90 mostly first- and second-year students (larger than 90 might prove difficult for maintaining order). Colleagues have used it with success, following the same procedures, in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology and Theories of Race and Crime (upper-level), giving us some confidence in its potential for widespread application.
The goals of the exercise are for students to recognize and analyze the presentation of self and apply impression formation and impression management concepts to their experiences in this exercise. Other instructors may also choose to emphasize the self, roles, identities, front/back stage, props, scripts, or face. The exercise is a modified version of speed dating, a matchmaking event in which participants are paired together in a rapid succession of brief one-on-one interactions (three to five minutes). In the classroom exercise, rather than seeking a date, students are examining how they form impressions of others while simultaneously managing the impressions others may form of them. It is a fun way for students to meet and interact with one another and an effective way to teach the principles of symbolic interactionism and the presentation of self.
Impression Management And Impression Formation
The starting point for studies of presentation of self is the work of Erving Goffman (1959, 1963, 1967). Although he refused to be pigeonholed as a symbolic interactionist (Goffman 1969:136–45), many of his ideas are firmly grounded in that perspective’s major principles (Scheff 2005): (1) People act toward things based on the meanings they ascribe to them, (2) meanings emerge within social interactions, and (3) the process of interpreting such meanings guides behavior and frequently modifies those meanings (Blumer 1969). Goffman’s interest is the meanings ascribed to participants in interaction by the participants themselves that contribute to a common definition of the situation and allow participants to anticipate others’ behavior and expectations. The self (Cooley 1902; Mead 1934) plays a prominent role as an object of interpretation that shapes one’s behavior and projects an understanding of a situation. People observe their own appearance and gestures and react to them, just as they observe and react to those of others. Meaning is therefore reciprocal in the sense that people attempt to anticipate others’ interpretations as they hope to communicate successfully their own intended meanings.
Central to this perspective are impression management and impression formation. Impression management refers to the processes by which actors attempt to control how others perceive them. Impression formation refers to the processes of inferring meaning about others from gestures, significant symbols, and other characteristics (Mead 1934). Although relatively little is known about others when one first meets them, first impressions form quickly based on appearance and demeanor, often before a word is spoken (Goffman 1959).
Impression management and impression formation also interact. As people manage the impressions others form of them, they consider the impressions they are forming of others. Of course, situations can be misinterpreted or interpreted differently by different actors, and a performance may fall victim to disruption or simply fall flat. A successful performance appears sincere, as if it expresses the innate character of the performer (Goffman 1959).
The Exercise
We developed this exercise so students could recognize and analyze the presentation of self in everyday situations and apply symbolic interactionist concepts (foremost, impression formation and impression management) to their experience. The exercise is modeled on speed dating, a popular matchmaking event in which singles are paired with each other for very brief “dates” (e.g., three to five minutes) in round-robin fashion. Adapted for class, we remove the romantic element, and it becomes a succession of first meetings among peers that, because of its repetitious nature, quickly reveals social processes at work in their interactions. Students become aware of the interpretive processes by which they form impressions of others and manage how others perceive them.
Because it allows students to meet one another, this exercise works particularly well early in the semester. It is best preceded by readings that cover basic symbolic interactionist principles and Goffmanian concepts (e.g., presentation of self, impression management, impression formation, dramaturgy). In our courses, we have assigned the introduction to Goffman’s (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life and chapters in introductory sociology texts that cover symbolic interactionism and the presentation of self. The exercise itself requires a minimum of 30 minutes for interactions (including setup, instructions, and 7–10 interactions), 15 minutes for taking field notes, and additional time for class discussion. We use two class periods of 50 minutes each, the first for interactions and note taking and the second for class discussion. It concludes with a writing assignment.
On the first day, begin by arranging chairs in rows facing one another. If chairs cannot be moved, any arrangement that pairs students and allows easy movement from one interaction to the next will do. Introduce the exercise as an opportunity for students to conduct research on the presentation of self as participant-observers. The rules of speed dating are minimal: Talk freely with the person across from you until instructed to rotate; at that time, one half of each student pair will move over one chair (adjacent students remain in place); begin talking with the next student. Instruct students to pay close attention to the processes of impression formation (i.e., how they form impressions of others) and impression management (how they manage the impressions others form of them), and encourage them to be especially attentive to the gestures, significant symbols, and other characteristics that shape their interactions. Immediately after the final interaction they will have time to take field notes.
The instructor’s role is to announce every three to five minutes (whatever time span one chooses) that it is time to rotate. After the final interaction, ask students to return chairs quickly to their original positions and begin taking field notes of their observations. Stress that their notes are entirely confidential, and encourage them to write continuously the entire time, to brainstorm, and to jot down whatever comes to mind. At this point you may choose to distribute questions to guide field note taking (or post them overhead): What information did you gather about classmates as you formed impressions of them (e.g., physical appearance, social group membership, verbal or nonverbal expressions)? How did you decide what information to share or not share? What statuses did you take on, and what roles, characteristics, and attitudes are important for playing them appropriately? In what ways was your presentation of self influenced by the impressions you formed of others? To what extent was your successful performance dependent on the performance of others?
On the second day, discuss students’ observations as a group. The above questions are useful starting points. Ask students to describe examples from their interactions of impression formation and impression management (or front/back stage behavior, scripts, face/identity, etc.) and use these to help them recognize the significant role that interpretation plays in their accounts. Direct them to the verbal and nonverbal gestures, indications of status group membership (gender, race, hometown, sports teams), and physical features (dress, hairstyle, jewelry, height, attractiveness) that may have shaped their impressions of others. Typically, when asked about impression management, many students say, “I just tried to be myself.” This is a useful springboard for discussing the multiple selves, or identities, that they could conceivably present. Perhaps most important (and most difficult), coax them to consider how impression management is influenced by the impressions they formed of their peers.
The exercise should conclude with an essay assignment (we assign one to two pages) in which students define and apply presentation-of-self concepts (i.e., impression formation, impression management) to their speed dating interactions. Instruct them to define the key concepts and describe specific examples of each from their field notes. We evaluate essays based on the accuracy of concept definition, number of examples provided, quality of examples provided, and writing clarity and organization.
Evidence Of Effectiveness
To evaluate the exercise’s effectiveness, we have analyzed student essays (following the assignment described above) from five introductory sociology courses taught by the authors between 2010 and 2012 at Towson University, a predominantly undergraduate public university with approximately 20,000 students. In four of these classes, 78 percent of students completed the assignment; in the fifth, the presentation-of-self essay was one option among other assignments, and 33 percent of students chose this option. In total, we have examined 155 essays (overall response rate = 69 percent). Before analyzing the evidence, we obtained institutional review board confirmation that this research is exempt from human participants requirements because it relies on educational tests, is being conducted after final grades are awarded (thereby eliminating any risk of coercion), and maintains participants’ confidentiality. Consequently, we have omitted all students’ names from this report. In their essays, students commonly take up each concept in turn (impression formation, then impression management), defining each, and then providing examples from the speed dating exercise. Slightly more than two thirds of students are able to recognize at least one gesture or significant symbol in themselves or their partners, discern their interpretation of that action, and explicitly link their interpretation to the processes of either impression management or impression formation. The examples that follow are what we believe to be typical of these.
Impression Formation
Students already know that they form impressions of others, but the speed dating exercise directs their attention to the interpretive process by which impression formation occurs. In their essays, we see students becoming attentive to the gestures and significant symbols (e.g., bodily comportment, physical appearance, signs of status group membership) that shape their impressions of their classmates’ identities, interests, characters, lifestyles, and dispositions. The following example from a freshman’s essay is typical. In her discussion of impression formation she identifies a gesture—in this case, looking around the classroom—and describes how she interpreted it: Interestingly, each time it happened, I didn’t get the same impression … because it takes a variety of different factors to conclude an impression of someone, and not just that one aspect. When I was talking to a girl that was higher up in my sorority and she kept looking around the classroom, I felt she thought she was better than me… . When another girl did the same gesture I didn’t think twice about it because I figured that it is just something she does all the time.
The gesture, lack of eye contact, conveys something to her about the character of her classmates (arrogance in one although not in another), and her description displays an understanding that meaning is not inherent in the gesture but instead emerges within social interactions (Blumer 1969). This student astutely observes that she infers different meanings from the same gesture depending on her partner’s status. Meaning and interpretation are at the heart of her example. This can also be seen in an example from a sophomore’s essay: Before anyone began to speak the students generally had impressions forming of the other student. What I immediately noticed was that I began to judge people by what they were wearing that day. If they were in sweats, I assumed they were either lazy or just did not care what they wore because it was raining. If they were dressed in at least jeans, I felt they took pride in their apparel.
She too points to a nonverbal significant symbol (clothing) and describes the impression she forms of students’ dispositions and attitudes (lazy, indifferent, proud).
Some students point to the social origins of their interpretations, by either acknowledging the role of cultural stereotypes (e.g., about particular racial, gender, or other status groups) or identifying institutional agents of socialization. In the following example, a freshman explains how he forms impressions of his classmates’ tastes and lifestyles when reflecting on the speed dating exercise: First, I looked at the person’s clothing and would have a predetermined impression based on what I see in the media. If someone … is wearing baggy clothing, I would assume that they listen to rap and follow that lifestyle. If someone was wearing jeans and tee, I believed them to be a laid back person.
It is worth mentioning that we use this exercise early in our courses before discussing the role of social institutions in depth, so comments like this about the media are unprompted. For students in an introductory course, this is an impressive attempt to link the micro- and macro-levels of symbolic interaction that we would like to foster in future classes.
By linking the concept of impression formation to interpretations of particular gestures, significant symbols, and other characteristics of their speed dating partners, students are demonstrating an understanding that their impressions of others form through interpretation and interaction.
Impression Management
When discussing impression management, students describe aspects of their own performances that they believe convey messages to their speed dating partners about their identities, characters, interests, and dispositions. As with impression formation, students highlight the role of interpretation in their interactions. However, their examples of impression management describe messages they hope to convey using such gestures as posture, fashion, facial expressions, and verbal cues. They report both conscious and unconscious attempts to manage impressions, sometimes to elicit positive responses and sometimes to avert negative ones. The following is characteristic of the examples of impression management: As I was making impressions of others, I tried to appeal to what I want others to see through impression management. I wanted people to see that I had goals that I plan to stick to even though I am a freshman, so I brought up my $15/hr. internship. I also wanted to seem like a nice person, so I tried to smile and seem genuinely interested in what they had to say.
This student connects particular gestures (talking about her internship, smiling) to the messages she wants to convey about herself (she is goal oriented, nice, interested). As such, she demonstrates how she is interpreting these gestures and how she hopes others with whom she interacts will as well.
We also see evidence that this understanding is developing during the course of the exercise. Many students describe realizing only after the fact how much work they put into impression management, as in this sophomore’s essay: When trying to manage my own impression, I tried to … be my normal self, and not concern myself with my impression management. Yet, afterwards I realized I did things like smile the entire time (to seem more friendly and make them feel more comfortable with me), fix my shirt before they sat down (to make sure I was presentable), and lean in (to show I was interested and truly listening).
Such realizations can prompt a rethinking of interactions outside of the classroom as well. Although not required for our assignment, some students report that the exercise changed their views of everyday interactions. One junior who made such a comment writes, [Impression management] is something that you do to project the image of yourself that you want seen. I don’t realize that I do things to project images but after this exercise I now know. I usually roll my sleeves up … to show my [arm-length] tattoo that I’ve spent well over a thousand [dollars] for. I think it projects an image of detachment from the norms as well as [my] age.
In the best of circumstances, students can also demonstrate an understanding of the complex interaction between impression formation and impression management. Although less common than understanding each on its own, a typical example of this sort involves a student who realized that she had modified her presentation of self according to her interpretations of others. In the following example, a freshman describes the effect that interpreting others as physically attractive has on her impression management: While working on my own impression management, I was very tuned in to the impression [I was forming] of others… . When I first sat down with my colleagues I took into account how attractive I believed them to be. This did not affect how I spoke to them, but it may have changed my body language—I tended to smile more around those I thought to be attractive, which may have altered our overall interaction.
Another student (a white, male freshman) describes a similar dynamic when meeting a black male classmate: His race and gender played a big role in how I saw him. [Because he is] black I felt like I talked a different way to him, a way that involved me not completing all of my sentences. I didn’t really notice it until I started taking notes at the end of class; I started saying words like “yo” and started using curse words and laughing.
As he placed his classmate in a status group (black men), he also changed his language and demeanor to what he believed would present a positive image of himself within this particular interaction. In doing so, he demonstrates an understanding that impression management and impression formation interact.
With the speed dating exercise, students learn to recognize and analyze the presentation of self by applying the concepts impression formation and impression management to their in-class experience. At the same time they are coming to understand the symbolic, interpretive, and interactive character of the presentation of self.
Conclusion
The in-class exercise described here is a useful and effective means for teaching symbolic interactionism in general and presentation-of-self theories in particular. We have presented evidence from student essays to demonstrate that it helps students to understand that the presentation of self is an interpretive, interactive process. Although we have not measured the exercise’s effect on long-term retention, past research gives us confidence that students are more likely to recall material in both the short and the long term when it is acquired through active learning techniques rather than presented with traditional lectures (Eglitis 2010; Holtzman 2005; Pedersen 2010; Prince 2004). Together with guidance and instruction, this exercise helps students become effective participant-observers of the presentation of self and learn to recognize the complex processes that underlie ordinary interactions.
As we have shown, most students learn and can successfully apply key concepts with this exercise, but some do struggle. We continue to seek ways to improve our presentation of the material and, in conclusion, we note three of the more persistent difficulties we encounter. First, students sometimes mistake managing impressions for displaying a lack of authenticity and insist that they do not “perform” for others. We respond by directing them to the many possible identities or statuses they could conceivably adopt (e.g., friend, lover, boss), all of which could be authentic (or not). Impression management entails presenting an identity that seems appropriate for the situation, and authenticity is but one part of this process. Second, some students presume a sharp break between the authenticity of real-world interactions and the staged nature of the speed dating exercise. This is an opportunity to challenge their taken-for-granted belief that one always knows when others are being authentic. As Goffman (1959:2) explains, “the ‘true’ or ‘real’ attitudes, beliefs, and emotions of the individual can be ascertained only indirectly, through his avowals or through what appears to be involuntary expressive behavior.” In other words, the authenticity of others is an interpretation based on gestures we observe during interaction. Third, students may mistake impression formation for being judgmental of others. We remind them that while evaluation does have its place, impression formation is the process of interpreting someone else’s identity so that we might know what to expect from them (not merely whether or not we like them). One important part of the process of impression formation we have not emphasized when conducting this exercise is the way in which the participants in an interaction sometimes revise their initial impressions. Highlighting this aspect of impression formation has the potential to steer students away from viewing the exercise as simply an opportunity to judge others by forcing them to consider the possibility that their initial impressions may change quickly.
We have used the speed dating exercise with success in introductory sociology courses, and our colleagues have adopted it for introductory cultural anthropology and upper-division criminology courses. We think it also could be used effectively in any course that covers symbolic interactionism. Although we emphasize processes of impression formation and impression management, others may prefer to highlight any number of related concepts (e.g., self, identity, face, scripts, props, front/back stage behavior). This versatility and ease of use have earned the speed dating exercise a regular place in our pedagogical tool kits.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors want to recognize Kalfani Turé, who has played an important role in moving this article forward. The authors are also grateful to Xóchitl Mota-Back, Steve Nelson, Kathleen S. Lowney, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts.