Network identity

The main difference between a network identity and a real one is the individual’s ability to fully control the first, to correct it at his discretion, so that he can be presented to other users in the light he needs. Unlike the real one, it has relative mobility, that is, it is easily adjusted or replaced. ^[2] These differences arise from certain features of the online environment in which a network identity is created (remote communication between users, the ability to maintain anonymity , etc.)

Thanks to the above factors, the construction of network identity goes in the direction specified exclusively by the individual, that is, it is completely controlled by him, which, accordingly, allows him to move away from his real identity in the process of Internet communications, as well as create alternative ones. Thus, the network identity of a person can both correspond to and to varying degrees differ from his identity in real life. When creating a network identity that contrasts with the real one, the user in one way or another resorts to the distortion of personal information: hides or denies certain facts about himself, changes his biographical information, etc. Moreover, such distortions are more often conscious and incline towards the individual considers ideal. ^[4] So, the image created by a person on the Internet gives him the opportunity to fulfill himself and try on a role that he does not have the opportunity to test in real life.

All of the above has made the phenomenon of network identity the object of study of psychologists. In Russia, Voyskunsky A.E., the founder of Russian cyberpsychology, is studying it. and his team (A. Evdokimenko, N. Yu. Fedunina) ^{[2] [4]} . Among other researchers who raised this topic, it is worth mentioning E. Belinskaya, developing the thoughts of German psychologists V. Frindt and T. Köhler ^[5] , A. Asmolov ^[6] , as well as Kuznetsov Yu. M. and Chudov N . V. ^[7] . Issues of network identity in the cyberphysical world are raised in the works of V.V. Chekletsov

The polls helped to find out that the distortion of information about oneself in the environment of social networks and the blogosphere in order to create a new identity is socially acceptable to a much greater extent than a lie in direct communication, and does not cause strong public rejection, unlike the latter ^[4] : more half of the users of social networks and blog authors admitted that they themselves at least once posted false information about themselves on the Internet to one degree or another. ^{[8] [9]}

Most often, changes are made to the name, age, marital status, appearance, hobby. Less commonly, gender, information about education, professional data, place of residence, musical and artistic tastes, information about purchases, services and travel, sexual relations, income and nationality. Information about political and religious views is hardly distorted. ^[9]

Men more often than women distort information about themselves in the framework of Internet communication, especially in relation to earnings, profession and education. Women more often resort to lies in order to ensure their own security. ^[ten]

The relationship between the individual’s self-relationship and his need for constructing a network identity that is close to his ideal “I” is revealed. So, the greater the individual’s global self-attitude, the lower his need for self-realization through the Internet space, and vice versa. ^[one]

Voiskunsky A.E. defines alternative network identities as multiple (two or more) network identities that are deliberately used by an Internet user for various purposes and situations. The manifestation of alternative identities in life is most often one of the pathologies studied in the framework of psychiatry (example: dissociative identity disorder ). A smaller part of them - cases when people consciously assume social roles that do not belong to them - are rare in life, unlike the Internet environment, where the creation of such identities is a normal practice. The presence of alternative network identities in most cases does not mean that the individual has a mental illness. ^[four]

Some studies ^{[11] [12]} show that the pages of users on social networks most often correctly reflect their real identity in terms of personal psychological characteristics and behavior, thus challenging the widespread idea that network identity in most cases strongly contrasts with the real one.