1 Introduction
The transition to a mobile web that incorporates the
global positioning system (GPS) has provided the necessary conditions for
location-based social networks (LBSNs) to emerge. The subsequent overlaying of physical environments with digital information produces “hybrid space,” which users can access with their smartphones as they move through their physical environments [
27]. A hybrid space affords individuals the ability to form social networks pertaining to their location in the physical world through location-tagged media content, such as photos, video, and text [
70]. Notable examples of LBSNs include Foursquare,
1 Glympse,
2 and, more recently, Swarm.
3Following the ascent of locative media, a significant body of research has gradually built around locative applications. For Saker and Evans [
57], research in the field has predominately focused on the ability of locative applications to coordinate social interactions in space and place [
34,
41,
52,
69], increasing the sense of co-presence [
12,
49], altering how people approach their physical environment [
41,
42,
67], turning everyday life into a game [
20,
30,
36,
54], and reshaping how mobile media is understood [
10,
11,
61]. And as Saker and Evans [
27] similarly note, studies on locative media have revolved around the more performative aspects of LBSN use, which has implications for how users might present themselves through these applications.
Studies examining self-identity and LBSN have concentrated on performance through marking one's location in the context of impression management [
26,
35,
58], self-representation and identity [
21,
63], friendship performance [
4,
8], and reflection and memory [
59]. Although self-identity, then, has been the focus of scholastic circumspection, only a handful of studies (e.g., [
27,
60]) have touched upon the relationship between locative media and the evolution of self-identity performances and narratives over time. Likewise, studies that do examine the concept do so through theorizations about the topic based on various psycho-socio frameworks (e.g., [
27,
59,
60]). What is missing from these discussions is a more granular examination of how time-based evolution or temporality
4 affects self-identity performances “in the wild” over a specific period. Addressing this connection is important because it can help us better understand the implications of LBSN usage and what influences user connections with them over time.
Through a study of 42 users over a period of 6 weeks, our research builds upon previous work [
51] and contributes to the understanding of temporality and LBSNs. It does this by providing two things. First, our study provides an understanding of (1) how self-identity forms in LBSN and how it impacts LBSN use over time, and (2) that users comprehend temporality as being an explicit part of their “self” and as such go to great lengths to curate it as their LBSN self-identity changes over time. Next, our study provides an affirmation that temporality is not only a central concept in understanding LBSN use, but also that (1) it is intertwined with the performative nature of user-to-user and user-to-place interactions, and that (2) it can prompt the activation of the user contribution to the LBSN and instigate interaction across users.
These contributions manifest through an examination of user behavior in GeoMoments, an LBSN we designed and developed, and contribute to the models of locative media and identities by adding a “temporal” dimension. It should be mentioned that to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first study that touches on the topic, as previous studies on the topic have explored self-identity in the context of LBSN utilizing one-off approaches to explore self-identity in LBSN, and for the most part, they have not explicitly touched upon the interplay of temporality and self-identity in an LBSN context.
In the following section, we provide a brief but detailed overview of related LBSN literature, describing the works on self-identity, and highlighting the importance of studying how expressions of self through LBSN evolve over time. Following this, we explain our methodology. This begins with an introduction of our LBSN, GeoMoments, before describing how it differs from other LBSNs, as well as how the affordances of our LBSN are commensurate with the underlying research objectives of this work. Moving forward, we then illustrate our findings, elaborating on the different ways that self-identity is manifested throughout our study in the context of LBSN. We conclude with a discussion of our findings, the limitations of this work, and potential future research directions.
2 Background
Early research examining the interplay between self-identity and LBSN has tended to frame the performative side of LBSN [
19,
67] using Sutko's and de Souza e Silva's conceptualizations of “presentation of place” and “presentation of location,” exploring the experience of being within and belonging to virtual communities, alongside identity formation in online and offline spaces (e.g., [
33]). As illuminating as this research has been, it has not sufficiently focused on how users construct their identities within a mixture of physical and digital settings. More recent studies of LBSN and the performance of identity have consequently primarily drawn on Goffman's division between “front stage” and “back stage” behaviors [
32].
Goffman uses the theatrical metaphor of “front stage” and “back stage”, and defines the individual as an actor, and his social interactions as dramaturgical externalized performances shaped by environment and audience, aimed at creating specific impressions. The result is a series of “masks” that an individual wears according to the social situations. The “masks” according to Goffman is “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” [
32].
Goffman's metaphors have been used extensively as analytical frameworks when studying the self-identity and humans' social interactions online as part of LBSN (and more traditional social network sites) as individuals (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system, (4) interact with individuals within the system, and (5) produce context for consumption by other individuals [
4]. It should be noted that for the most part, the literature that uses Goffman's metaphors as an interpretative framework for exploring self-identity and interactions in social media focuses only on the “front stage” behavior, which is behavior that is externalized in social networks, and not in “back stage” behavior, which is behavior that is not (or cannot be) externalized in social media (e.g., thought process and internal schemas associated with the externalizations) [
5,
37,
56].
As a corollary to this, then, and as Saker [
58] rightly point out, related research has primarily attended to the performative side of marking one's location through LBSN in the context of impression management [
26,
35,
58], self-representation and identity [
21,
63], friendship performance [
4,
8], and reflection and memory [
59]. What these studies illustrate is that LBSN can contribute new “front stage” ways of performing a particular identity and self-representation narrative as an “on-going project that is constantly being modified, updated and safeguarded” [
51].
The motivations for actions (e.g., location disclosure as well as non-disclosure) of individuals through LBSN are imbued with identity-based representations. This is due to the majority of users (if not all) considering their actions in LBSN as part of their presentation of “self” [
62]. Accordingly, these actions tend to be highly curated and undertaken to present a certain depiction of the self: the type of places users choose to “check in” to, take photos in, or walk through hold valuable meaning beyond their abstracted physical location [
28,
39,
53].
Through Goffman's division of “front stage” and “back stage” or Butler's notion of performativity, Schwartz and Halegoua propose the “spatial self” [
62] as a cogent conceptual framework to be used to understand the interplay between identity performance and locative media usage. The spatial self is a theoretical lens that comprehends the presentation of the self as involving geographic traces recorded through locative media. The spatial self refers to and interprets “a variety of instances (both online and offline) where individuals document, archive, and display their experience and/or mobility within space and place in order to represent or perform aspects of their identity to others” [
62]. Studies that acknowledge the spatial self, for the most part, discuss self-identity in LBSN in a more lived, fluid, and experiential manner. Importantly, these studies do so by (1) highlighting the dynamic interplay between virtuality, spatiality, and materiality of self-identity and LBSN, (2) by considering LBSN as a device of self-representation, and user activity as the main vehicle of user narratives, and (3) by positioning “embodied LBSN use” as the main catalyst behind behaviors and interactions associated with self-identity performances and narratives in the visible and invisible of the hybrid spaces that are created through LBSN [
18].
What this work suggests is that (1) there is a clear interplay between self-identity and activity/actions of individuals, and this has the potential to affect behavior, perception, and interaction in both the virtual and the ordinary [
58,
62], (2) self-identity narratives and performances through LBSN can affect the polysemic meaning of physical places and have the potential to disrupt hierarchical or hegemonic modes of understanding physical space and place [
23,
31,
55], and (3) individuals safeguard their LBSN self and places that hold valuable meaning to them through playful antagonistic behavior that oftentimes manifests through territorial claims [
16,
41,
54,
54].
Although the “spatial self” does address spatial connections between locative activities and self-identity in LBSN usage, this relationship is nonetheless abstracted from a more meaningful understanding of temporality. It does not explicitly address the preservation of temporal features of LBSN usage [
59]even though the archival aspect of the spatial self is touched on by Schwartz and Halegoua [
62]. The most prominent studies that have attended to this dimension are those of Saker and Evans [
27], as well as Drakopoulou [
22]. Saker and Evans explored the archival function of the LBSN Foursquare, positing that it effectively enabled the locational past to permeate the present on a daily basis, as well as to forge an orientation to the future that felt more congruent with the locational self thus recorded [
27]. Following this vein of thought, Drakopoulou [
22] asserts that LBSN with time-based interfaces can be viewed as “durational objects in the sense of presenting a complex relation of past, present, and future as [archived] memories,” and that they affect identity by providing a retrospective view of the recent past. This position resonates with Parika [
44], who argues that memories supported by digital technologies, such as LBSN, force a rethinking of memory perception and organization. Hoskins refers to this as the connective turn. As he explains, “the formation of memory is increasingly structured by digital networks, [with] memory's constituting agency [being] both technological and human” [
38].
Studies that have explored the temporal dimension of self-identity in LBSN have shown that the present (time) can be restructured and reconsidered by the projection of the past into the future through locative media [
22,
27,
60]. This suggests that the practice of LBSN can potentially configure durational mediated memory objects that organize and archive digitally externalized “memories” [
27,
66]. Such an approach allows the interpretation of historical location-based data in terms of their social functions, intentions, context, and situations under which they are produced as self-knowledge that has the potential to modify the self [
55].
Moreover, these studies illustrate that identity is thought to be malleable, and that future self-identity narratives and performances depend on past memories, which are comprised of archived activities enabled through the interface of the LBSN. This results in individuals treating their archived Foursquare check-ins, for example (their geo-coded traces of activity and self-identity narratives), as memories and oftentimes reflect upon them and use them to change their future behavior [
60]. This illustrates that memories can become interconnected in ways that were not originally intended while facilitating reflection beyond the extent of the regular users of LBSNs [
22,
60].
Overall, the literature on self-identity and LBSN illustrates that LBSNs have created novel modes of interaction that have in turn led to new forms of narration, identity formation, and identity maintenance. Although this is the case, only a handful of studies have touched upon temporality and self-identity narratives. Accordingly, within the canon of locative media, there is a need to further address the use of LBSN as it develops and forms over time. Doing so not only has the potential to provide new insights and understandings regarding LBSN use but could also provide meaningful information about how individuals engage, effect, and are affected by LBSN. To this end, our 6-week study of GeoMoments research advances along two lines. First, our research explores how self-identity performances through LBSN form and develop over time. Second, our research examines to what extent this temporal process reshapes the behaviors, practices, and self-reflections of users.
3 Methodology
The present research is focused on performativity in LBSNs. This performance, which we have operationalized through the dramaturgy of Goffman [
32], offers us a unique lens through which to understand how self-identity manifests within the context of LBSN. Through this lens, we are able to critically explore and understand the roles and impacts of mobile media. These impacts are manifest through the use and design of public space, urban infrastructure, mobility patterns, local sentiment, and experiences of place [
40,
58,
62]. To get at these processes, we created an LBSN called
GeoMoments. Our process from beginning to end can be seen in Figure
1. Of note in Figure
1 is the reciprocal nature of our initial research and our prototyping stage. Once those steps were complete, our study, the present research, was able to be performed. This section outlines (1) the design of GeoMoments, (2) our study design, (3) our data collection processes, and (4) how we analyzed our data. To examine self-identity and temporality in LBSNs, we designed, developed, and implemented GeoMoments.
3.1 GeoMoments
We developed a bespoke LBSN from scratch (rather than using existing ones) for three reasons. First, our study takes place in a large urban center of China. Mainstream LBSNs (e.g., Foursquare, Swarm) and the mapping services associated with these (e.g., Google Maps) are mostly unavailable or limited in this region. Second, using a custom-made application means it possible to have full control over the design and LBSN variables that need to be gathered. Not only does this set our study apart from extant research on LBSN but it also means we can adapt and modify this LBSN in accordance with the findings of our study for future projects. Finally, working with an LBSN other than Foursquare enables the pluralization of the LBSN literature and helps minimize potential bias stemming from the use of a single application.
GeoMoments can be seen in Figure
2 and affords for the following activities based on the concept of creating a hybrid space:
•
Creation of “moments” through geo-tagging of text and images—with the ability to delete or edit them;
•
Creation of a user profile with a picture and other personal information;
•
Friend list with the ability to add or remove friends;
•
Comment system that enables threaded interactions with other users;
•
“Mention” system that enables users to “tag” other users in moments and comments;
•
Notification mechanism that informs the users of comments, mentions, tags, and updates to moments from friends;
•
Archive of all moments posted, interactions, GPS traces, and so forth (please note that the user can only see his/her archived information, which differs from other LBSNs).
GeoMoments is an Android application that was developed by two programmers using the Android native API. We have released an open source version of GeoMoments under the GNU General Licence V3.0. The open source version of GeoMoments includes both the back-end and front-end elements, is well documented, is modularized, has a lot of locative and social functions implemented, and works in pretty much all versions of Android right out of the box. It can be requested from the authors or found at the following link:
https://bitbucket.org/Geomoments/.
The design process for GeoMoments focused on creating a technological probe and not a commercial product. Or to put it another way, we wanted to evaluate bundles of affordances to amplify LBSN user performativity. The result of this probe development was as such that we did not take into consideration usage scenarios outside the scope of the main functionality of GeoMoments. To wit, as GeoMoments does not requires high-granularity GPS tracking to function as expected, we did not test or optimize for high data loads, high movement speeds of users, or GPS tracking complications caused by buildings or other environmental disturbances.
The desire to understand the performance aspects of users in the design of LBSNs, we based our design on the affordances of other LBSNs. For example, the affordances of GeoMoments are analogous to those of Foursquare, but also we draw from design trends and concepts already popular in other SNSs in China, such as Weixin
5 and Sina Weibo.
6 We did this because the behavior of the users of LBSN is believed to be shaped by the the social affordances it provides [
43]. That is not to say that different affordances in different LBSNs will result in completely different behaviors, but rather that these affordances play an active role in “heightening” or “quietening” certain behaviors. To achieve the goals set forth in this study, we designed the mechanics and affordances of GeoMoments to “amplify” the playful antagonism and territoriality expressed by the participants as these would additionally amplify performativity.
This may have caused some findings to be more prominent than others. For example, the design changes that were aimed at encouraging “playful antagonistic behavior” and “territoriality” may have elicited stronger expressions of territoriality than we would have otherwise observed if we had implemented different design affordances. Similarly, these changes may have “quietened” the expression of other behaviors, such as collaboration. Modifying the design to elicit a specific behavior to study aligns with the relevant literature on the topic and is a common practice when one explores multidimensional phenomena, such as performativity and self-identity [
3,
7,
71]. The present research should not be interpreted in a vacuum in relation to the design of GeoMoments, but rather in parallel with existing discourses, literature, and understandings of LBSNs more generally.
As we designed GeoMoments, we carried out a series of extensive tests in a controlled laboratory environment to test its viability and stability. Each component of GeoMoments was tested individually and with respect to other components. After testing GeoMoments in the laboratory, we recruited 20 individuals to test the performance and stability of our LBSN in a multi-user scenario, using different devices over a period of 4 weeks. Following the testing phase, we conducted extensive discussions with the participants in an informal setting and critically.
Once this initial design or testing phase was complete, GeoMoments allowed us to enable interactions both in the wild and in specific locations. Put differently, the user experience depended not only on the events on the screen but also on the players' position in the physical world. The interface was familiar in terms of look and feel, and as such our users could transfer their knowledge of other social networking platforms. This enabled a space of actions that encompasses not only what the participants can be involved in but also what they act on as they “do the city” in their everyday lives. We believe our product allowed us to amplify the aspects of LBSNs that center on performativity to examine it in depth. Figure
2 provides screenshots of GeoMoments.
3.2 Study Design
As noted, we sought to understand how the self, specifically the performance of the self, was realized through our application. As we had created GeoMoments using popular affordances from other products, we felt that we had created a tool that could help us realize that goal.
3.2.1 Deployment. .
Once the testing phase was over, we began a study involving a total of 42 students (20 men and 22 women, with an average age of 27 years) was conducted over the course of 6 weeks in the
Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP)7 in the province of Jiangsu, China. The participants were recruited through flyers we handed out at the campus of the
Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU). Each participant was offered 150 CNY (approx. 22 USD) in Taobao vouchers to participate in the study. As soon as individuals expressed interest, we conducted a short pre-screening discussion with them to ensure the following:
•
That their phone met the technical requirements of GeoMoments (e.g., correct version of Android, over 2 GB of phone memory);
•
That they were enrolled into a mobile plan with adequate data;
•
That they understood what was required from them and the terms of the study.
During pre-screening interviews, we also asked if they know anyone else who was participating in the study and if they know anyone from the research team to ensure that participants did not know each other or the researchers involved with the study. Once we had 60 expressions of interests, we formed a candidate cohort that included participants who answered “no” to both questions. After cross referencing the collected pre-screen information, we formed the final cohort of 42. All 42 participants were students of XJTLU who lived near each other and spent a substantial amount of their day at the SIP area near the campus.
3.3 Data Collection
The participants interacted with GeoMoments 15 to 20 times a day during the study period. The majority of interactions happened between 9 am and 6 pm. We had no inactive participants or dropouts in our study. On average throughout the study the participants spent 16 minutes every day on GeoMoments.
In total, the participants:
•
Created 380 pictorial posts;
•
Created 202 textual posts; and
•
Interacted with each other 1,876 times, making
This made a total of 2,458 points of data collected. For a breakdown of these values by week, please refer to Table
1.
The frequency of posting and overall usage was fairly even among all the users. We believe that this was because of two reasons: (1) it was explicitly mentioned to them that they have to actively use the app everyday for the duration of the study, and (2) and they were getting notifications in their phone from the GeoMoments app every time a new post happened near them or if someone else interacted (e.g., liked) with one of the posts they made, and that “probed” them to use the app.
In detail, the frequency of usage each week is as follows. During week 1, 178/2,458 or 7.2% of the data was collected. In subsequent weeks, the data either remained close to the same with week 2 representing 369/2,458 or 15% of the data, and 371/2,458 in week 3 or 15% again. In week 4, use increased slightly to 498/2,458 or 20.2% of our total data. In week 5, 491/2,458 or 19.9% of our data was collected, and by week 6, 578/2,458 or 23.5% of our data appeared. Such a distribution of interactions is normal and on par with similar studies that involve deployment of technologies in the wild [
14,
42].
To delve deeper into the topics relating to the goals of our study, we interviewed participants using a semi-structured approach during check-ins about the study. Each interview lasted roughly 45 minutes and included questions from a predefined set of topics with additional data made available for probing questions. The interview topics were based on topics relevant to the literature explored. These were as follows:
•
The persona(s) they projected to other participants;
•
Issues around self-presentation and identity;
•
Serendipitous, ad hoc, and playful interactions with nearby strangers;
•
Social norms and public places;
•
Expressions of territoriality;
•
Attitudes toward spaces, places, and time.
Because we had the content that our participants shared during their use with the app, we were able to use it as probes during interviews. For example, the usage statistics or frequency of interactions allowed us to ask about what prompted them to use the app when they did. Further, more unique data such as pictorial or textual moments and interactions with others through likes and comments provided us with ways to probe more deeply than we could have when using proprietary data from apps we did not create. This approach aimed to evoke important moments, people, places, things, and events, and clarify vague or ambiguous answers or when we wanted more specific or in-depth information about a particular situation [
48].
3.4 Data Analysis
After all data collection was complete, we transcribed the interviews and began to analyze the data. Since much of the data we were interested in came from the interviews, we spent most of our time with those data. Each interview was analyzed through thematic analysis [
29].
To relate our data to both spatial and temporal dimensions literature, we did the following. First, we used the “spatial self” and as such defined “moments” as a device of self-presentation and account activity [
62]. Second, we conceptualized the locations marked by user moments in a chronologically recursive fashion to reinforce the spatial and temporal dimensions that contribute to the reflective narrative and performances of a person's self-identity [
27]. Third, we acknowledged GeoMoments as durational objects of “mediated memory” and treated user-generated moments as interconnected points of reference that can shape the present by bringing forward past events and project into the future [
22,
60].
Further, as identity is multifaceted and includes both “external” and “internal” components, we used Goffman's theatrical metaphor of “front stage” and “back stage” metaphors, and we primarily considered in our analysis the externalization (manifestations of self-identity) of individuals through LBSN rather than things individuals do not externalize and require more probing (e.g., thought processes and internal schemas associated with the externalizations).
8The analysis of the data involved the following key stages: (1) familiarization of the data, (2) developing a thematic framework, and (3) coding of the data. In the familiarization phase, we transcribed all interview data. This was followed by the creation of an initial thematic framework based on a priori issues as described in the related literature, and from topics that surfaced during the familiarization phase. During the coding stage, four coders used exact quotes from the participants to inductively identify potential themes and patterns within the data and collated all the relevant coded data extracts within the identified themes.
Once the coding phase was concluded, we further refined our initial thematic framework. This was done by (1) reflecting on our process and discussing individual constructs to identify and resolve issues (e.g., clarifications of broad coding definitions), and (2) collectively reviewing the coded data extracts, and revisiting the whole dataset. This process was undertaken to not only iron-out issues but also to ascertain whether the themes “worked” in relation to the dataset, and whether any additional data within themes had been missed in earlier coding stages.
To examine the inter-coder agreement of the four coders, we used the Cohen's
\(\kappa\) index paired with the
\(\kappa\) coefficient across the coder pairs, and average P(e) values were calculated as well [
1]. The agreement between the coders is shown through a
\(\kappa\) (m) of 0.788 (with 95% confidence intervals of 0.104 to 0.232) and p < 0.0005. Thus, we can say that their agreement was good. According to Landis and Koch [
45],
\(0.7\lt \kappa \lt 0.8\) represents a good strength of agreement, and the confidence interval indicates that the coding is reliable, non-random, and in line with previously published inter-coder reliability estimates obtained from coding similar constructs. The marginal distributions of coding also did not indicate prevalence or bias problems. This suggests that Cohen's
\(\kappa\) was an appropriate index of inter-coder analysis [
25].
Once we were confident that our thematic framework fitted our dataset and we were able to tell a coherent story, we concluded the analysis process.
5 Discussion
Within GeoMoments, the temporality of identity is created and maintained in similar ways as any software with affordances that are social in nature. Upon opening GeoMoments for the first time, users learn how to use it. This is akin to establishing a front stage based on the negotiation between affordance, back stage identity, and knowledge of the platform. Once that front stage is established, it becomes a means through which the platform and user communicate to others on that platform. This process was observed in our users. Accordingly, we will now discuss how this process was established.
As noted, in the first week of our study, participants primarily posted content where prior content existed and their posts imitated this earlier content. GeoMoments fostered a shared creation of identity among users through that mimicry. It also encouraged playful interactions through comments and posts some of which resulted in the creation of a communal identity vis-à-vis a location (neighborhood) in the city. This communal identity led to several participants reconsidering their perceptions about those areas of the city.
As evidenced in our study and the literature, this process has the potential to overwrite the existing meaning of places, and to facilitate social situations where participants can appropriate space, enabling them to reshape its meaning, history, and significance [
12,
49]. Therefore, the interactions afforded through GeoMoments can be used as a way to allow participants to experience familiar surroundings (or surroundings that the user might have strong preconceptions about) in different ways. Just as Saker [
27] observed, for some users the environmental information Foursquare provided allowed those to feel local in an unfamiliar environment. In the context our study, GeoMoments had the power to transform known spaces into environments that were suddenly open to new discoveries.
Put differently, this LBSN was effectively able to “make the familiar strange” [
2]. This bridges the notion that our practices in the urban setting are statements open to interpretation and thus establish the power structures of the city. GeoMoments serves as that bridge in that it can be used in conjunction with other interventions aimed at altering perceptions and can challenge preconceived notions regarding the urban landscape. LBSNs in such scenarios act as an interface that renders practices and interactions between participants, space, and place readable. As a result, this may overwrite (or potentially reinforce) embedded power structures, disrupt habits, and make the familiar strange and negotiable.
During the end of week 2 but mainly in weeks 3 and 4, the mimicry of existing posts lessened and participants engaged with GeoMoments in more diverse and varied ways. This variance in the middle of the study was when our users were curating and starting to safeguard their digital identities. Identity curation in GeoMoments was achieved through how GeoMoments archived their locational moments. In essence, where they went and noted on GeoMoments was the literal, temporal, and actual expression of their identity as a person. At certain points, this created uncomfortable reflections for our participants by reminding them, for instance, how much they had been drinking and how little they had worked out. Our findings echo the literature focusing on the performative side of marking one's location through LBSN in the context of impression management [
27,
62], and self-representation and identity [
4,
24,
63].
For many of our participants, the ability to accumulate locative traces that were outwardly congruent with their inward sense of self. This congruence allowed our participants to perform an expression of self that felt less performative and more authentic as its temporality increased. To wit, the longer their dominance in a space went on, the more authentic that space became as part of their identity. The mediation of self through LBSN therefore adds an extra layer of veracity to the identities performed resulting in participants experiencing their locative identities as articulations of the real self. These articulations are predicated on the digital representations of physical activities performed through GeoMoments. This has been observed in previous studies to a limited extent and has been theorized as happening in order that the “identities feel more consistent by aligning front stage and back stage behaviors” [
59].
It is our belief that this can also be attributed to the interplay of the polysemic nature of place in relation to preconceived notions that individuals have about a particular location and its inhabitants that, for the purposes of GeoMoments, was further mediated by time spent at location or tenure. It is also our suggestion that this interplay was responsible for some of the adversarial conduct we observed, selves attempting to manifest at the same locations in GeoMoments. This antagonism mainly manifested as territorial claims of areas in GeoMoments with textual and pictorial moments. When their “claimed” areas were challenged, the participants exhibited antagonistic behaviors that included posting more moments in their area to legitimize and communicate their claim, or even making posts directly communicating that they had claimed an area. All of the participants in our study tried to claim and “protect” spaces where they lived, their “home territory,” even though the home territory is not a technical affordance featured in GeoMoments.
This wording and protective behavior indicates territoriality and is indicative of an attempt to guard self-identity through the mechanics of LBSN. In many ways, we would suggest this mediated performance offers more reach and authority in making territoriality obvious and accountable than a single person could through everyday physical practice in a space abstracted from locative media. By making virtual claims over a particular geographic area, users do not have to actually exert control over others in a physical sense but by virtually taking over one's connection to a place, which represents power within that area. Encroaching on that power not only threatened identity but also provided enemies, provocateurs, and outsiders with names, faces, and spaces. Loss of those areas represented a certain loss of self, whereas gaining dominance in an area highlighted a shift in power that had ramifications for those around that area that often took the form of notes and moments.
As the study entered its final stretch in late week 4 and throughout week 5, some participants engaged with spaces and places in a way that was shaped by the collective identity and social interactions of individuals they communicated with through GeoMoments. For example, whereas some participants viewed one neighborhood one way communally, this was challenged by other participants who began to encroach on that communal identity. This was the result of a “heightened cognizance of the nexus between place, identity, and surveillance” [
59]. Through our interviews, it became clear that the sharing of moments and geo-traces of activity not only had significant ramifications with regard to the identity of individuals but also to the constructed meanings and perceptions associated with space and place. This behavior can be attributed to the consideration of who might be a potential audience for the user's moments, and to the uncertainty of who is part of this potential audience. As such, it is evident by our study that the way individuals share locational information that contains locative connotations tends to conform to the front stage performance of the “self.” And this results in the ways that the meaning and perception of space changes resulting in certain places becoming more desirable to add entries about than others.
In the last week of the study, the participants who were more deeply engaged with GeoMoments relied on their history of interactions with the system and other participants to maintain their identity narrative. The desire to keep a historical log of moments is indicative of a desire to keep track of an individual's narrative, the individual's journey through space, as captured by GeoMoments. By viewing the log, users are able to curate a self-identity, make one more aware of their actions, and as such provide nudges for reflection and integration into self-narratives. We suggest that the reflection we observed in our study is facilitated primarily through nudges that occur during the use of LBSN as a locational historical diary and the perceived connotations that these actions have in the potential audience of these.
These nudges have the potential to significantly alter the self-identity and performance narrative of an individual including moments of being antagonized by outsiders or aggressed by provocateurs (literally a record of war, in those cases). This is further illustrated by individuals deleting past moments that do not align with current expressions of self (or be highlighted when victorious), as there is evidence that they can facilitate reflection and therefore contribute to behavior change. Following this, we believe that LBSN usage, as a “mediated memory object” may support awareness building in temporal terms. This additionally has normative influence on the participants as the locational past permeates into the present and potentially affects their future behaviors. The discussion of temporality, the journal, learning how to use GeoMoments, and how these things changed throughout the study highlight the relevant (and rather limited) literature that the locational past has strong potential to shape the present and future expressions of self. As a result, temporality could potentially (and actually in the case of our participants) affect user behavior and self-expression (e.g., [
26,
54,
67]). Furthermore, our study casts a meaningful light on the “spatial self” [
62] as a suitable framework from comprehending LBSN usage as it pertains to self-identity. Indeed, while Schwartz and Halegoua do touch on the archival aspect of locative media, this affordance is not the focus of their discussions. As a corollary to this, what our study effectively demonstrates is the function of temporality in this context. Here, the use of LBSN does not simply change over time in response to the self-shifting outside of this application. More precisely, documented changes to the self are symptomatic of the self-documentation that LBSNs enable.
6 Conclusion
Overall, our discussion of the interplay of self-identity and temporality in LBSN illustrates that it can be used to describe various person-to-person and person-to-place interactions, as illuminated previously. For many participants, the locative functionality of LBSN allowed them to perpetuate and affirm their territorial ties, and in so doing reflectively set their perceived sense of self. In the context of identity and performances of the self, then, LBSN usage does not simply affirm the self through the presentation of place and the abstracted symbolism different places exhibit. For some participants, at least, what is equally important is the spatial positioning of place in the context of its surrounding environment. The decision to physically and digitally interact with a specific location suggests something about the self that is congruent with this site, just as it serves to territorialize the spatial self within a certain terrain. Consequently, the temporal and digital inscription of place does more than represent the self, thus digitally inscribed; this performance correspondingly asserts the self through the implicit suggestion that the self and the surrounding environment are intimately intertwined. Although previous studies have examined LBSN in the context of identity, the connection between performances of the self, locative media and temporality have not been as explicitly explored as they have been here. Within the canon of locative media, it is important that this connection is made to better understand the spatial implications of LBSN usage. In sum, our work contributed to the discourse of locative media and identities by adding “temporality,” a dimension that connects the hybrid space and people's identity reshaping process through LBSN.
Limitations of this research mainly relate to issues regarding the nature of our study and the designed affordances of GeoMoments. For example, as mentioned earlier, one can argue that the relatively low number of participants and the rather limited area of our study may have affected the participants and as such the shared vernacular, etiquette, culture, and expressions of “self” in relation to territoriality can be partially attributed to “small network dynamics,” “the group norming effect,” or to strong “weak ties” [
68]. Similarly, it can be argued that the designed affordances of GeoMoments may have affected the participants and might have caused some findings to be more prominent than others—for example, the ease of access to the historical geo-traces of activity of a user may have elicited stronger expressions of reflection than we might have otherwise observed. As a resell, the findings that emerged from exploring this study should be treated as exploratory insights that supply a starting point for understanding self-identity narratives through locative performances in the context of durational LBSN usage. We therefore suggest that future research should (1) explore the interplay of LBSN and everyday life of the participants in a broader context utilizing alternative methodologies, study designs, and approaches under different scenarios; (2) investigate of temporal components of a system and the relationship between temporality and identities in locative media; (3) and explore whether temporality is a mediator between the hybrid space and the way people reshape their identity. Likewise, it is also our suggestion that these studies should engage with LBSN usage and performances of the self as it pertains to longer temporalities. These studies should not be explored in a vacuum but rather be linked to and explored in relation to relevant theories (e.g., technology adoption theories [
47]).
Further, it is our belief that since our study sheds light on the interplay of identity and temporality, it can potentially be used as a stepping stone for human-computer interaction and communications researchers to design temporal components of a system. However, further work is required for this. For example, further work is needed to explore whether early application usage functions as a form of social learning where users take their performative cues from other users and so on. It is our contention that by doing so, we will get a better understanding of performative use of LBSN as they are accumulatively embedded in the everyday life of users.
Konstantinos Papangelis, 
Ioanna Lykourentzou, 
Vassilis-Javed Khan, 
Alan Chamberlain, 
Nicolas LaloneAuthors Info & Claims
