A Deep Dig into the Feature of “Situational Selves” of Online Identity: A Review of the Concept/Theory of “Situational Selves”

Abstract

This review makes a deep dig into the feature of “situational selves” of online identities, by dividing it into five parts and adding new knowledge to each of them in detail, aiming to shed new insights into cognitive-behavioral theories. First, comparing two parts—concept of situation and self, “situational selves” do not stand at the combination point. This chapter argues that individual behavior is situational but unpredictable, is a temporary reaction but not a permanent reaction, and reacts to certain situations differently and actively but not passively. Furthermore, it elaborates on the process of situational selves by synthesizing the other three parts—perceived situation and imaginary audience, taking an advantageous direction, and revision according to any feedback. Finally, it suggests that when focusing on situations, research should pursue similar parts of individuals’ behaviors to illustrate the features of that targeted situation. However, when focusing on individuals, research should pursue individual differences among different situations to illustrate the features of that targeted identity.

1. Introduction

By comparing the differences between online and offline identities, Qin and Lowe [1, 2] indicate that online identities are kind of “situational selves”. They find individuals’ online identities are different from their offline identities because individuals show different aspects of selves or create new selves according to different situations. Further, they explain the logic behind these online behaviors by introducing the “imagination-reflection circle” (see Figure 1). This study makes a deep dig into the feature of “situational selves” of online identities by reviewing the concept/theory of “situational selves”, aiming to shed new insights into cognitive-behavioral theories.

Figure 1.

Imagination-reflection circle of the online behaviors (situational selves).

The term “situational self” was first coined by Chadwich-Jones [3], based on the concept of “multiple selves.” Thus, the self-concept is both general and situationally specific. This study explores the following questions: Is the behavior of individuals relatively stable with enduring qualities? If not, is their behavior the immediate contextual determinant of the situational selves? This chapter provides a deeper review of the concept/theory of situational selves by dividing the process of situational selves into five parts (see Table 1) and adding knowledge to each of them in detail.

Divided process number and contents	Similar expression
①Based on the actual factors (personal values and cultural values)	Dispositional attributions [4]; Voluntary nature (self-development) [5]
②Influenced by the features of the settings	Situational attributions [4]; Semantic space [6]
③Behaviors influenced by Imagined/imaginary audience	Self-image, buffer [6]; Fictionalizing audiences [7]
④To an advantageous direction of imagination	Best matches [8]; To create a desired impression [9]; Gratification [10]
⑤Any feedback for revising	Responses/reaction/Reflexive/interaction [6]; Symbols [11]

Table 1.

Contents of and similar expression to each divided part of situational selves.

Thus, this chapter first contributes to and advances the knowledge of “situational selves” by combining different fields and different literatures in discussing the relationship between the concept of “situation” (② of Figure 1) and “self” (① in Figure 1). Furthermore, it elaborates the “process” [12] or “a line of action” [11] (③, ④, and ⑤ of Figure 1) of “situational selves” by combining the concepts of the situation and selves. It is “automatic and unconscious processing” [12] as it is a psychological process under the skin, which is also being researched as the “black box” [13] of human behavior. The literature and ideas involved in the present study are evaluated by implications rather than years.

2. Situation versus selves

2.1 Situational but unpredictable!

Self-esteem (Psychology): Gecas suggests that social context is an important independent variable influencing self-esteem and cannot be assumed to be constant when dealing with self-variables: “as situations change, so do self-conceptions…changing situational fields produce changes in self-other systems which in turn affect changes in self-conception” [14]. He reported that some participants reported the highest feelings of self-worth when in the presence of peers and the lowest self-esteem when in school classrooms, which illustrates the contextual differences in adolescent self-esteem. Similarly, Savin-Villiams and Demo explore whether self-feelings are stable or transituational, and to what extent. They find for their participants, “self-feelings were neither predictably stable nor predictably unstable from one moment to the next…self-conception is a sustained, transituational phenomenon for most individuals…the data thus indicate that many self-feelings are neither predictably stable nor oscillatory, but just unpredictable” [15]. Savin-Villiams and Demo’s study lends its support to the concept/theory of “situational selves” just without using the identical expression, by saying under different situations that “context” could not “be a sufficient explanatory variable to predict” the fluctuations of self-feelings.

Adolescent drug use (Psychology): Sur et al. believe that the immediate context of (situational) interaction adds value to the understanding of the adolescent self-regulation (ASR) construct. They find “ASR may be of interest as a context-specific and potentially modifiable dependent variable” and suggest changing the problematic situation (of family interaction) as a sufficient way to change ASR [16].

ADHD (attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder) (Psychology): Koi proposed environmental (situational) factors in the evaluation and assessment of the responsibility of people with ADHD. According to his viewpoint, agents could choose environments “that foster desirable behaviors”, and thus actively engage in GxE interactions (gene-by-environment interactions), which are an important way of genetic causation. Therefore, he asserts that while genes dictate our characteristics, our selection, modification, and navigation of the environment also contribute to the development of those traits [17].

Committing crimes (Psychology): Bruinsma et al. tested situational action theory (SAT) to explore situational explanations of adolescents’ behavior in committing crimes. Upon confirming the SAT theory, it is observed that the cross-lagged test did not indicate a notable impact of the interplay between self-control and morality in the anticipated direction. They attribute these results to the situational features of criminal behavior: “the interaction effect between self-control and morality is mainly situational and not predictive of later behavior” [18].

2.2 Temporary reaction and permanent reaction

Marketing: Jain et al. examine the influence of “chronic and situational self-construal” and find that collectivists are more context-driven in a categorization task. Based on the influence of contextual information, they report that because individualists (collectivists) consider contextual information less (more), their consideration sets may be more stable than collectivists [19]. They also suggest future research should examine the notion of multiple selves and how it may relate to (chronic and/or situational) self-construal. Similarly, in marketing, Mirela and Ivana studied the correlation between situational factors and consumers’ impulsive buying behavior [20]. They used situational factors “situational factors” as “stimulators” of impulsive buying behavior and provided an additional explanation of impulsive buying and comprehension of respondents’ behavior. In their analysis, they not only examine the impact of individual worth by segregating three groups of consumers (markedly rational—immune to influence, impulsive to some extent—sensitive to some situational stimuli, and mostly rational—generally immune to influence), but they also explore situational variables. As a result, they discover that among the first and third consumer groups, none of the assessed impulsive purchasers significantly influence impulsive buying. Nevertheless, for impulsive buyers, promotional campaigns, amicability and expertise of sales personnel, store placement, and enticing food aroma commonly provoke impulsive purchases.

In a specified product usage situation, Hildebrand discovers that when comparing the chosen brand, situational self-image exhibits a higher degree of image congruency in contrast to both real and ideal self-image [3]. She combined the concept of “situational self-image” and a symbolic approach to explore a better understanding of the relationship between the situation, self-image, and (situational) purchasing behavior. The purpose of her study is to illustrate that brands function as symbols or tools that consumers select based on the roles they intend to assume in a specific scenario. Likewise, in their research, Schenk and Holman employ a perspective rooted in symbolic interactionism to propose situational self-image as a more comprehensive understanding of self in the field of marketing. Situational self-image refers to the desired perception of oneself that an individual aims for others to hold. This perception encompasses the attitudes, perceptions, feelings, character, and proper behavior that the individual wants others to attribute to him/herself within the given situation. This definition clearly shows that situational self-image is a logical consequence of propositions of symbolic interactionism. This illustrates that the behavior of buying happened in that certain marketing “situation” and also proves the potential usefulness of “situational self-image” for the exploration of marketing communication strategies. This is consistent with the chapter’s concept/theory of “situational selves”, which proposes that individuals will select different brands based on the particular situation they find themselves in and the roles they need to fulfill. The chosen brand will reflect the desired image the consumer wishes to project in that specific situation. The brand that aligns “best” with the situational self-image will strongly influence the consumer’s decision-making process when it comes to purchasing that brand. Moreover, when discussing the factors that drive choices related to situational self-image, it is argued that individuals will exhibit the self that most accurately embodies the image they desire others to perceive in that specific situation [8]. The expression “best” here signifies best for the advantage of the person concerned, which resembles the model of situational choices of human behaviors of “situational selves” (see details in Section 3.2).

Furthermore, Grace et al. find media is a causal stimulus activating the “context-relevant psychological dispositions” [21] which provides a psychological roadmap for today’s digital marketing because individual make use of media to satisfy their needs and gratifications, such as gratification derived from establishing interpersonal connections, pursuing information, seeking entertainment or fun experience, appreciating the likeability of a brand based on its attractiveness and credibility, fostering feelings of attachment, and affection toward the brand, receiving incentives as a component of preferential treatment, etc. [10].

Human resources development: Zia et al. investigated the influence of individual and situational factors on self-development and the moderating role of situational factors [22]. They discovered a noteworthy direct correlation between personal factors related to learning-goal orientation and proactive personality, as well as situational factors concerning an empowering environment and job autonomy, and its impact on self-development. Their investigation urges organizations to prioritize self-development endeavors by affording employees an empowering environment and job autonomy, in order to reduce the overall training costs. Additionally, organizations should identify individual factors, specifically proactive personality and learning-goal orientation, that contribute to self-development. Jeong et al., in their comprehensive review of literature, also advocated for the influence of individual and situational factors on informal learning. Given that self-development is both self-motivated and highly contextualized, it is expected to result from the interplay between individual and situational factors [23].

Orvis and Leffler studied person-situation interactions and examined the link between proactive personality and self-development [5]. They found that employees with highly proactive personalities demonstrate an internal propensity to engage in voluntary development, regardless of the support available. However, high workplace support appears to be particularly influential for less conscientious employees. In conclusion, they propose the need for greater support from supervisors as well as the entire organization (contextual variables) to enhance involvement in personal growth among the entire workforce of an organization. They agree with the basic concept of situational selves by accepting the influences of contextual factors on employees’ behaviors; however, they may neglect proactive employee feedback.

2.3 Combination? Which one is the prevalent cause?

Fleeson discussed the person-situation debate. The “person argument” holds the belief that behavior is largely influenced by an individual’s traits, resulting in consistent actions often with some adaptation to varying circumstances. Conversely, the “situation argument” supports the notion that behavior is primarily determined by the immediate situation, causing significant variations in an individual’s actions across different occasions [24]. Thus, Fleeson argues that personality traits can vary across situations and suggests integrating interactionism and situationism [10]. Similarly, Markowitz and Levine view the two aspects as “complementary and sides of the same coin” and “the situation may facilitate dishonesty and personality can contribute to how much people cheat” [25].

However, when answering the question of which (disposition or situational factors) is a better predictor of their research phenomenon (public speaking anxiety)? Keaten and Kelly argue that there is “limitation” with an interactional model in research of communication fear, because “our neurological process serve simultaneously as inputs, processes and outputs”. A neurocommunicology model is proposed for communication, which center on neuronal mechanisms situated at the crossroads of genotype, emotions, linguistic expression, mental visualization, and environment. There findings indicate the special features of the researched context provide “a more complete understanding” of state anxiety because the researched situation (public speaking) is “a social construction rather than a physical reality” [26]. This means that individuals’ psychological construction of the targeted situation influences their behaviors. Similarly, Simpson and Willer’s research on altruism focus on “decontextualized settings” or situation such as “social vacuum” which devoid of relationships or norms. Thus, they report that individuals’ behavior comes from both the micro-level manifestations of social order (cooperation, trust, prosocial behavior, altruism, etc.) and social setting mechanisms (rules, reputations, relations, etc.) [27]. That is to say, the results of individuals’ behavior (such as cooperate or behave prosocially) are ambiguous or create significant uncertainty “significant uncertainty” about whether that cooperation results from “internal motivations or external influence”. They notice the failure/insufficiency of individual mechanisms “unless paired with social mechanisms” and then emphasize the two mechanisms coexisting with social factors taking the main effects. It is not the matter of “altruism” and “egoism”, social mechanisms could lead self-interested individuals to behave prosaically in ways similar to the behavior of intrinsically motivated people [27].

Cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Mischel and Shoda indicate that individual behaviors tend to vary across situations [12]. They proposed the cognitive-affective system theory of personality, which is a psychological dynamic mediating process theory. The concept of situation is not only a stimulus to “pull[s] responses from an organism’s repertoire” but also “affective” which is from the individual’s prior experiences with these situational features. The concept of situation is not defined by the observing researchers but depends on “the perceiver’s constructs and subjective maps” which are the “acquired meanings of situational features for that person”. These proposals also emphasize subjective encoding and construction, even in part creating situations that align with situational selves (see Section 3.1).

2.4 Situationism?

Situationists argue that “behavioral variation across a population owes more to situational differences than dispositional differences among persons” [28]. Psychological experiments, such as Milgram’s [29, 30] studies on obedience, Phillip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment, and BBC prison study, have been mentioned repeatedly. However, some researchers questioned their “scientific validity” [31] and found “limitations” [32].

First, manipulation of situation. Minor manipulation will change the situation and the results. Such as Reicher and Haslam’s study, without giving “exact details of how people behaved”, the results show “no inclination to treat Prisoners cruelly” [33]. Furthermore, they suggest the study on “identity leadership” could be a better interpretation of the cruelty in the SPE (Stanford Prison Experiment) [32]. This can also be explained by “feedback” mentioned by situational selves (see Section 3.3), which provides a clue for people’s behavior. Regardless of the Stanford Prison or the BBC’s prison, they are all man-made situations with many uninterpreted features. In the end, you will not figure out which causes determine the participants’ behavior: the action of the researcher who have “primed” the Guards? or the cameras that distorted participants’ behavior [34]?

Second, personal and national culture differences. Prinz provides “cross-national variance” to explain the different results of Milgram’s study, which shows 65% of the subjects’ full obedience from American participants, while 85% of German and only 28% of Australians [35]. Similarly, Fromm finds that there are “two thirds of the guards did not commit sadistic acts for personal kicks”, which in fact show that “one cannot transform people so easily into sadists by providing them with the proper situation” [36]. Thus, from the individual level instead of the population level, in Lamiell’s words: “all of the investigations thus far reported in the literature have found some evidence for relative stability/consistency at the level of the individual, and all of them have simultaneously found evidence for relative instability/inconsistency at the level of the individual” [37]. For participants who conformed to the role, the situation wins; for participants who show resistance, the character wins. Thus, researchers should focus on the participants (including both Guards and Prisoners) who did not conform to their roles in Zimbardo’s experiments, as well as those participants who resist authority in Milgram’s study to find why they choose different behaviors from others, which might be their characters [31].

In conclusion, the concept/theory of situational selves is neither a proponent of “situationists” who are “never been seriously put [stable character] to the test’ mentioned by Olsthoorn [38], nor agree the statement such as “situational features—not character traits—are the main determinant of human behaviour” [28].

From the perspective of situational selves, first, people behave based on their consistent, temporal, “stable character traits” [38]. In other words, situations extract characters from a certain person on the basis of a specific person’s culture and social background. Like Smith-Lovin [39], “who you know depends profoundly on structure of organizations and institutions that surround you”. Furthermore, he suggests that the social context (particularly its network connections) influences both the individual and social engagement, fostering a somewhat deceptive association between the two [39].

Second, we agree with Mischel and Shoda that individuals react to certain situations differently and actively but not passively [12]. They choose and even create situations to fulfill their needs, including creating an imaginary audience (see Section 3.1). Individuals do have their character, and their character lies in their choices of different behaviors and imaginations of the audience and certain situations. Thus, situational selves are unpredictable, temporary, and creative reactions to personally imagined situations.

3. Situational selves are more than situations

3.1 Not situations but the imagination of the situation (perceived situation); Not audience but imagined audience (perceived audience)

One of the most deeply rooted theories of “situational selves” is Goffman’s conceptualization of self-presentation and impression management, which uses dramaturgical metaphors describing how audience and context shape the way the self is presented [40]. Online individuals control their self-presentation to their audience’s responses to “emphasize or de-emphasize certain aspects of their selves to create a desired impression” [9]. Kelly et al. conclude that people who fear negative evaluation find online sittings safer to make a communication comfortably and freely “which they are unable to do in many face-to-face contexts” [41].

Following Goffman’s metaphor of “front” and “back regions” for individual performance management [40], one extreme “stage” is online posting. Bernstein et al. indicate that perceived audiences influence content production and self-presentation online and find that social media users consistently underestimate their audience size for their posts (only 27% of their true size) [42]. According to Litt and Hargittai, the concept of an “imagined audience” acts as a navigational tool, indicating what content is suitable and pertinent to share when the actual audience is unclear or absent physically [43]. Likewise, individuals in mediated conversations consistently perceive an audience’s presence and construct it in their minds. This constructed audience allows them to present themselves in a suitable manner, taking into account technological capabilities and immediate social circumstances [44]. Keaten and Kelly argue that communication contexts are a “semantic construction” which is subject to individual variations and give an example that highly apprehensive individuals tend to imagine their audience as “less familiar, less friendly, and less interested in the topic” [26]. According to Veletsianos and Shaw, the more limited the cues (to help conceptualize their actual audience), the more they must rely on their imagination to fill in the gaps [9]. Furthermore, among all the perceived personal relevance of one’s multiple imagined audience, Marder et al. found that the strength of the strongest (social/economic value) audience predicts behavioral constraints as well as social anxiety [7].

Nevertheless, the occurrence of “audience collapse” arises due to the convergence of multiple audiences into single online settings, posing challenges in deploying similar strategies used in face-to-face interactions to manage complexity. In their study, Marwick and Boyd assert that the online network serves as a “collaborator” in shaping the speaker’s identity and the content they shared on Twitter, wherein the perceived audience becomes visible through its impact on the selection of broadcasted content [44]. This confirms the logic of situational-self feedback in the imagination circle (see Section 3.3).

However, individuals’ behavior is based on the imagined audience, regardless of whether the imagined audience is equal/larger/less in conception than the actual audience. That is, there is no need to know if the “imagined audience” is aligned with the actual audience, which is not a problem when you know only the perceived audience can have an influence on a person’s behaviors.

According to Ong, the audience of the writer is consistently a fabrication. The historian, the scholar or scientist, and even the ordinary correspondent all fabricate their audiences, assigning them a fictitious role and requesting their participation in the assigned role [45]. What is the reason for Ong’s expression of “the orator has before him an audience that is a true audience, a collectivity” [45]? That could be the results of “feedback” which will be discussed below (see Section 3.3). The feedback from the face-to-face audience is so plentiful compared to online audience, which makes the offline audience more approaching the “real” situation. There will be information being “given off” by the audience [40], which cannot be controlled by both the performer and the audience, and online information cannot even approach the richness of the face-to-face communication. It is like moving from 3D to 10D when discussing the different degrees of richness. Following this metaphor, online mediated communication represents limited information, sometimes only in the form of text, sounds, and/or pictures [1]. Similarly, media producers [46] and television producers have imagined audiences [47].

Further, Iacoviello and Spears assert that the social approval stemming from imagined audiences could possess equivalent potency to the influence exerted by actual or physically present audiences [48]. Even the physical absence of other ingroup members can lead to a stronger group identity for the salience of that group identity. Similarly, “conscious and explicit or unconscious and invisible” [49] norms may influence individuals’ behaviors. Massanari agrees that the “average person us[es] the imagined audience to guide interpersonal communication” [50]. Litt finds that “the imagined audience has long guided our thoughts and actions during everyday writing and speaking”, and furthermore, “mere imagined audience can be just as influential as the actual audience in determining behavior” [51].

An imagined audience is the perceived audience that leads to individuals’ behaviors. Some researchers focus on one aspect of imagined (perceived) audiences, such as important others [48], social norms [49], and altruism [27], and so on.

3.2 React to the “the advantage” of the reactor

Based on their imagined (perceived) audience, individuals behave to their own advantage naturally, for the purpose such as “present[ing] themselves appropriately” [44], “to create a desired impression” [9], “to instill the desired image in the minds of others” [7], “expend[ing] considerable social energy attempting to get others to like and to appreciate them” [40], “present[ing] an ‘idealized’ rather than authentic version of herself” [52], “to be fully accepted as group members and avoid social punishments”, “to appear as a good person and achieve a positive image of themselves in the eyes of important others, generating a positive self-esteem…by feeling that they are good group members” [48], “the goods that they can attain from them…love, money, respect, and so forth” [53], and similar considerations.

The concept of “advantage” is a broader concept for it derives from the individual’s own value system—as explained by Horne and Mollborn, “because people value their relationship, they want to behave in ways that attract positive social reactions” [49]. Similarly, from a perspective of social norms, individuals engage in certain behaviors because they perceive that people significant to them anticipate their participation (subjective norms) or due to the potential imposition of social penalties if they fail to comply (injunctive norms) [54].

Miller and Holmes emphasized the reaction and expectation of certain situations and others, but without mentioning the direction of the choices. They argue that the participants’ dispositions may interact with their situational perceptions, influencing both their stated expectations and goal choices. As such, the relative weights of dispositions and situational perceptions may vary, contributing differently across various conflict situations [55]. However, Mischel et al. found that individuals often credit their achievements to personal factors, like their own skills, while attributing any failures to external factors, such as the complexity of the task. Moreover, individuals tend to exhibit a predisposition toward becoming more benevolent in their self-reward practices, selectively acknowledging positive information about themselves, and demonstrating helpfulness toward others. This inclination is associated with experiencing success and subsequently experiencing an increase in self-esteem, perceived competence, and other related benign tendencies. In fact, their test can be explained as the results (feedback) of behavior after feedback from earlier reaction cycle and find that “success leads to more benign reactions to the self as well as to others” [56]. Likewise, Horne finds “rewarding encourages a future return of rewards”. In addition, in reasoning their behavior, they confirm the impact of the situation. When the situational manipulations were powerful, individual differences had no impact, even though they were expected to have an effect in the control conditions where the treatment effects were minimal [53].

3.3 Feedback and revising

When discussing the concept of “identities are meanings,” Burke indicates that “the meanings of the self are learned by the person because others respond as if the person had an identity appropriate to that particular role performance,” furthermore “such responses provide cues to appropriate role performance and, by implication, to an appropriate identity for one who performs in appropriate ways…one’s actions develop meaning through the reactions of others” [6]. As to the way of responding, “reflexivity is nothing more than feedback to the self of the consequences of the process”. Performances are influenced by identities, and the self evaluates these performances based on the type of identity they represent. Burke mentions the action of assessing feedback by monitoring and comparing it with the actual identity and then “by altering outputs of performances until there is some degree of correspondence between the perceived (feedback) identity and actual identity or between what is later termed image and identity”. When talking about the concept of “identities operate indirectly”, Burke argues that “it is the self-image which then directly influences performance”. According to his viewpoint, the image acts as the “current working copy” of the identity, and it is susceptible to continuous modification, alteration, editing, and enhancement due to fluctuations in circumstances and situational requirements. Additionally, he underscores that it is primarily the image, rather than the identity itself, that performs the role of directing interaction at each instant. He also agrees the “image differs from the identity because of situational contingencies, though it is as close to the identity (idealized picture) as the individual can make it in light of these situational demands” [6]. These processes are similar to the valuable procedures of the “feedback” in the concept/theory of “situational selves” but without using the same expression. However, the differences lie in the purpose of “comparing”, Burke’s self-image means to get “some degree of correspondence”. However, in situational selves theory, it is the whole repertoire, including (see Figure 1) ① (personal values and cultural values) and ② (the features of the settings), ③ (with imagined/imaginary audience), ④ (the advantage of the reactor), and ⑤ (feedback and revising), with the aim of fulfill the reactor’s expression of self. This can also be categorized as a temporary reaction (momentary behavior) [24].

It is also similar to the internalization stage of the knowledge creation circle of SECI, as one example given by Wagner et al. that when an individual posts content (text, audio, or video, etc.) to a community, other community members’ commenting, liking, or rating the content actually helping “the original poster internalizes the results while developing the idea further” [57]. It is also a circle of feedback and revision.

4. Discussion and conclusion

Although the concept of self being multiple (multiple selves) has been accepted more widely, the concept/theory of “situational selves” seems more practical. This chapter provides an in-depth synthesis of the definition and significance of “situational selves” which have been used not only in different research areas but also in different forms.

The concept/theory of situational selves stands together with advocates of situational variables who believe that consistency in behavior alters depending on the situation but not against individual behavior consistency in a particular situation. The application of “situational selves” shows the features of indeterminacy, but the process and temporary reaction of individuals’ behaviors are influenced by both the personality and the involved situations. An individual’s behavior is a temporary reaction based on an entire (individual and situational) repertoire for an imagined audience, then revised with feedback. Thus, behavior is not necessarily a good indicator of an individual’s internal state. People may engage in behaviors for reasons that have nothing to do with their evaluations of their behavior. In conclusion, when focusing on situations, research should pursue similar parts of individuals’ behavior to illustrate the features of that targeted situation. However, when focusing on individuals, research should pursue the individual differences among the different situations involved to illustrate the features of that targeted identity (meaning of self).

Nowadays, there are more situations for the development and/or evolvement of self, which enrich the conception of the self. Situational selves are a theory that not only focuses on both perspectives (individual and situation) to explore the series of links but also to provide more space for new situations, such as the Internet. “Situation” here is in fact a tricky term that can introduce many other relevant factors which can only influence the individual’s behavior when these factors are perceived by the person in that specific situation—“imagined/perceived situation”, not the “real situations.” That is, contextual factors recognized by the “situationer” could influence their behavior. There might be some factors that have not been known/named by the “situationer” but have been perceived/imagined, or more precisely, involved in the imagination-reflection circle of a specific person.

Furthermore, first, the factors of individual differences and organizational similarity could come from other literature, such as in communication or leadership, or in relation to any factors mentioned by the participants. Second, the concept/theory of situational selves is the temporary reaction of the targeted “situations,” thus in order to achieve the relative permanent data, the time dimension should be considered.

5. Limitations

At least three limitations of the present study warrant further discussion. The first is the limited collection of literature. Thus, it was impossible to end this search for relevant studies. Although many new studies can be classified into the established columns of the present study, many more can introduce new columns for new aspects, such as the SECI model used in the study of knowledge-creating processes. The concept of “Ba” could also be seen as a kind of “situation”, which can be “physical, virtual, mental, or—more likely—all three”. More specifically, “Ba” is a shared, enabling, and necessary context for knowledge creation through interactions. Further research on Ba (situation) and knowledge creation (individual behavior) could use the framework established in this study based on the concept/theory of situational selves.

A further limitation of the present study is the lack of a comparison between individuals’ temporary reactions and permanent reactions. The perspective of dividing individuals’ behavior into temporary and permanent reactions is quite novel without further exploration, which could merit another review.

Third, the term used was also a limitation. The use of the term “situational selves,” which differs from situationism and interactionism, also expressing the meaning of multiple selves, may not be perfect for these situation-advantageous choices. However, for communication concerns, we use that term to illustrate these kinds of cognitive-behavioral systems for the sake of relevant research.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Source of Research Funding: An Academic Achievement of Zhejiang Provincial Education and Science Planning Project in 2021 [2021SCG071], General Topics of Zhejiang Provincial Department of Education in 2020 [Y202045407], and the Zhejiang Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project in 2019 [19NDJC096YB].