“Virtual Masks” and Online Identity: The Use of Fake Profiles in Armenian Social Media Communication

Abstract

The goal of the study is to reveal the reasons (strategies) behind the use of “virtual masks” (fake profiles and altered identities) by real (human) users of social media networks (SMNs) within a cultural context, specifically in Armenia. Applying Erving Goffman’s Dramaturgical Theory and concepts of virtual identity, the research explores how users construct their online personas, either reflecting their real identities or modifying them to achieve specific communicative goals. A statistical analysis of the most popular SMNs in Armenia, combined with semi-structured interviews with 400 users, reveals diverse approaches to virtual communication. While SMNs facilitate news consumption, socializing, and professional networking, many users deliberately conceal personal information or engage in deceptive practices. Approximately 35% prefer anonymity when following others, and 24% of men and 11% of women admit to posting false information. Additionally, 26% of men and 12% of women alter their online appearance to enhance attractiveness. The study also highlights the role of anonymity in expressing controversial opinions, particularly in political discussions. Men are more inclined than women to create fake accounts and manipulate information to avoid social repercussions. Ultimately, the study highlights how “virtual masks” in Armenia reflect both cultural attitudes and broader global digital communication trends.

1. Introduction

Social Media Platforms (SMPs), with their ever-growing “populations” (approximately 3.06 billion users on Facebook, 2.70 billion on YouTube, 2.35 billion on Instagram, etc., as of September 2024; Howarth, 2025), represent an expanded domain that coexists with, and in some ways partially replaces, the offline spaces where humankind has existed for centuries. Engaging with SMPs today, much like the mass consumption of newspapers in the 20th century as discussed by Marshall McLuhan, has become a daily ritual. As McLuhan (1969) put it, it is as commonplace as “stepping into them every morning like a hot bath” (p. 1). Expanding on McLuhan’s quote, we might say that, just as stepping into a hot bath involves shedding one’s clothes, users “strip away” their everyday identities and “get naked” in the realm of social media. This “getting naked” online can take various forms, ranging from mirroring offline behaviors and attitudes to donning “virtual masks” and adopting new roles—much like medieval masquerades—to maintain anonymity and pursue hidden agendas. SMPs, or Social Networking Sites (SNSs), facilitate these dynamics.

SMPs or SNSs are defined as “web-based services that allow individuals to (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, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections, as well as those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site” (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 211). Key functions of SNSs include informing, entertaining, sharing, and facilitating social interaction (Gaile, 2013, p. 54). Additionally, feedback plays a central role in these functions.

In recent decades, the widespread use of online communication in political processes has prompted discussions about social media’s role as an innovative tool for political mobilization and propaganda during elections and mass protests—both in support of and opposition to political elites (Chen et al., 2021; Atanesyan, 2019). Social media platforms have also been scrutinized as instruments for external interference in domestic politics (Fujiwara et al., 2021; Marcellino et al., 2020).

From a sociological perspective, an increasing body of research compares the status, functions, symbolism, and perceptions of friendship in offline and online social networks, highlighting both the advantages and drawbacks of virtual friendships and the potential differences in social capital between these realms (Amelia & Wibowo, 2023; Chan & Cheng, 2004). Sociopsychological studies have also pointed to the addictive nature of social media, particularly among children and adolescents (Monacis et al., 2017; Andreassen, 2015). Furthermore, the circulation of information and the variety of communication tools available on SNSs suggest their educational potential, particularly in online teaching and the integration of social media platforms as innovative teaching components (Manca & Ranieri, 2017).

As SMPs expanded, researchers and industry experts, as well as social media companies like Facebook and Twitter started noticing the presence of fake accounts on SMPs, often referred to as “bots” or “spammers” (Ward & Wylie, 2014). In 2012, Facebook noticed an abuse on their platform including publishing fake news, hate speech, sensational and polarizing, and some others (The Associated Press, Facebook shares drop on news of fake accounts, 2012). Over the years, there has been a growing body of academic literature, industry reports, and media coverage focusing on the problem of fake users in social networking sites, reflecting the increasing recognition of this issue among scholars and practitioners alike (Hakobyan, 2019).

As social media has gained popularity, there has been a corresponding rise in automated programs designed to mimic human behavior in this digital space. These “social bots”, or virtual agents, are used to generate automated posts for various purposes, such as creating promotional content (both targeted and non-targeted), often referred to as “spam”, or providing support for political candidates. Social bots essentially replicate the actions of real users by utilizing artificial intelligence algorithms. For “real” (human) users, creating a social media profile is a simple process that typically involves providing basic personal details (such as gender, location, etc.). In contrast, creating a social bot account is more complex, as automated methods may struggle to generate convincing information. However, bot creators may draw on research identifying socially desirable traits to make the bot’s profile more realistic. This information can be gathered from other accounts or generated randomly (Appling & Briscoe, 2017).

Researchers have found that modern bots replicate human behavior (Seifert et al., 2022), leaving emotional traces that closely resemble those of real people, making them even harder to identify: “traditional bots compared to social spambots or fake followers, present lower sentimental (positive and negative) mean values. Also, social spambots and fake followers demonstrate higher positive sentimental values compared to the majority of the human accounts” (Andriotis & Takasu, 2018, p. 4).

Based on their spam tactics, the authors categorize bots into certain types, including 1. Displayer: bots that do not post spam messages themselves but instead show spam content on their profile pages. 2. Bragger: bots that share messages on their own feed. These messages vary depending on the platform: on Facebook, they are usually status updates, while on Twitter, they take the form of tweets. The outcome is that the spam message appears on the feeds of all the affected users. 3. Poster: bots that send direct messages to individual victims. The method for doing so varies across different social networks. 4. Whisperer: bots that send private messages to their targets. Similarly to “poster” bots, these messages are directed at specific users, but unlike the “poster” type, only the recipient sees the spam message (Stringhini et al., 2010, p. 5).

On the positive side, bots can produce harmless and informative content, such as news updates or blog posts, which helps spread information more widely. They can also benefit account owners by curating content from various sources that align with their interests. On the negative side, bots can be misused by spammers to attract followers from legitimate accounts, allowing them to manipulate search engine rankings, influence trending topics, spread unwanted messages, and direct users to harmful websites. Beyond undermining user experience and trust, malicious bots can have more severe consequences, such as causing panic in emergencies, skewing political opinions, or damaging a company’s reputation (Oentaryo et al., 2016, pp. 92–93). Surprisingly, while blaming the circulation of bots as threats that spam communication, SMPs often use bot technologies themselves, benefiting from their advantages. To conclude, bots are regarded as good by those who administers them, and bad by those who dislike them and are (or think they are) cheated (misled) by them, while taking a bot as a real person.

While bots are technologies created to automatize and optimize online communication, fake accounts on SMPs are created by real users (humans) for various purposes, partially not covered by bots. In other words, users who represent themselves on SMPs via fake profiles prefer to continue communicating as humans but prefer to hide their real identity, such as real name, gender, country, visual characteristics, age, etc. Creation of a fake account is a multiple step process, and going through authentication procedures takes time and efforts. As a result, a fake profile on a SMP like Facebook or Twitter, including fake name, fake photo, fake personal information of a user, are the user’s choice to communicate with other (fake and non-fake) users online, so there must be reasons and goals for it.

In conventional offline communication, individuals typically discern the identity attributes of their interlocutors, including gender, approximate age, and other contextual cues. However, the online space affords users the ability to craft identities markedly divergent from their actual personas, commonly termed “fake users” in the digital lexicon (Pennycook et al., 2020, pp. 5807–5828; Atanesyan et al., 2021). Notably, these fake users can be categorized into two primary groups: overtly fictitious personas, whose fabricated nature is openly acknowledged or even emphasized, and covert personas, which strive to emulate genuine users or existing individuals (Brown & Davis, 2023). Moreover, the motivations driving fake user creation vary, encompassing personal, political, and promotional objectives, among others (Wilson & Garcia, 2024, pp. 112–125). This phenomenon introduces heightened user vulnerability and diminished security, particularly with regard to children and adolescents, who are shown to be disproportionately susceptible. As underscored, disparities between online communication and real-world interactions underscore the importance of understanding these nuances (Karapetyan, 2020; Karapetyan & Gardner, 2023).

The issue of fake accounts on SMPs is a significant concern globally. For example, Facebook has estimated that around 4–5% of its active accounts may be fake, which corresponds to approximately 103.6 million to 129.5 million accounts. In late 2022, the platform reported removing 1.3 billion fake accounts, a number that dropped to 426 million in the first quarter of 20231.

Previous research on the typology of SMN users suggests a basic classification of social media profiles into four categories: human users, or alter egos (accounts manually controlled by the person they are linked to, either using a real name or a pseudonym), social bots (computer algorithms that automatically generate content and interact with humans on social media), sybils (manually controlled accounts intentionally disconnected from their operators, often referred to as sock puppets or catfish), and digital ghosts (social media profiles that remain online after a person’s death, sometimes memorialized or reactivated for posthumous use) (Moore, 2023, p. 7).

Fake account technologies can be used simultaneously and have both human and technical characteristics. In particular, sock puppets can be differentiated from several related and often overlapping phenomena: (1) Alternative accounts (alts): pseudonymous identities created by the same individual, either openly (with clear connections) or in different contexts. Alts serve various purposes such as humor, self-expression, exploring different identities, protecting privacy, and keeping social roles distinct (e.g., managing separate work and personal social media accounts). (2) Fake identities (fakes): pseudonymous identities that deliberately misrepresent key aspects of the person behind them. These include impersonations of specific individuals (e.g., public figures or celebrities). When these identities are used to form close relationships, it is often referred to as “catfishing”. (3) Bots: automated accounts, typically created and controlled in large numbers (Paterson, 2024, p. 464).

While goals of applying bot technologies are clear and well described, the reasons (strategies) for real (human) users to communicate via fake accounts (fake profiles) are less studied and have cultural context. While the form of communication on SMPs is the same for all users, the way they fill in the form varies from culture to culture and depends on real (human, social) communication habits brought to SMPs.

2. Conceptualizing “Virtual Masks”

The explanatory study of using fake profiles (“virtual masks”) on Social Media can benefit from theoretical frameworks such as Erving Goffman’s Dramaturgy explaining communicating via “masks” in offline communications and interactions.

Goffman likens social interactions to theatrical performances, wherein individuals engage in role-playing based on social context. In this framework, individuals present a “front-stage” persona to conform to societal expectations, while reserving their authentic selves for “back-stage” interactions, away from public scrutiny (Goffman, 1959).

Just as individuals wear different masks in real-life social contexts, fake accounts function as digital masks, allowing users to manage their online personas in ways that may diverge significantly from their offline identities. Users of SMPs craft “virtual masks” or fake personas, adopting front-stage behaviors designed to fit the expectations of specific online audiences. This allows them to perform roles that either exaggerate certain traits or conceal undesirable ones, much like actors on a stage. The anonymity afforded by online spaces enables individuals to manage the impressions they convey, presenting idealized versions of themselves or concealing their real identities to avoid social repercussions. This aligns with Goffman’s concept of “impression management”, where users control the information, they share to influence how others perceive them (Goffman, 1959, pp. 17–36).

The conceptualization of virtual identity construction helps to “virtualize” Goffman’s theory by bridging the models of “front-stage” and “back-stage” performance in both offline and online communication. A digital identity is shaped not only by the information an individual publicly shares but also by the perceptions and interpretations of others. People form opinions about someone by analyzing various aspects of their online presence, including their profile, activities, and interactions with other users (Papaioannou et al., 2021).

Among the elements of virtual representation on SMNs, enabled by digital communication technologies and reflecting virtual identity in both direct and distorted forms, are a user’s name, nickname, profile picture, gender, age, address or place of residence, education, affiliations, job, personal website, friends’ network, national or religious identity, social class or income, and groups of interests and hobbies, among others (Vgena et al., 2022, p. 13).

The process of virtual identity construction and self-presentation on SMNs is intentional, aiming to create and disseminate a desired impression and an appealing self-image to gain approval from other users and followers (e.g., peers, friends) (Pérez-Torres, 2024, p. 22171). Feedback on SMNs is more influential than in offline communication because it is “more public, persistent, and visible to others (online audiences). Negative feedback can affect self-esteem and one’s subjective evaluation of self-worth, while positive peer feedback can reinforce self-esteem, validate self-concept, and provide a sense of acceptance” (Pérez-Torres, 2024, p. 22172).

Similarly to offline communication, where individuals wear “masks” to shape public perceptions and seek feedback, virtual identity construction on SMNs serves to create a “front-stage” persona (Goffman) that garners public approval, attracts likes, and influences a broader and often unfamiliar audience. Reputation, defined as “the extent to which users are aware of the social status of others and the quality of the content they provide” (Kietzmann et al., 2011, p. 243), is a key element in both offline and online communication (El Yazidi, 2024). Thus, online “reputation management” serves as functional extension of offline “impression management” (Goffman); in both digital and real-world settings, “wearing masks” can, thus, be understood as a way of managing one’s own reputation as well as that of others.

In digital spaces, the creation of fake accounts reflects a similar process of role adaptation and virtual identity performance. Studies on virtual identity, particularly in the context of mass communication on SMNs, suggest that users do not merely represent their real selves but also extend or construct virtual versions of their identities. This phenomenon highlights the growing interrelation—and, in some cases, the divergence—between real (offline) and virtual (online) identities as distinct self-definitions (Morán-Pallero & Felipe-Castaño, 2021, p. 622).

A “virtual mask” in the context of fake user behavior, refers to the digital facade or persona adopted by individuals on online platforms, which differs from their actual identity or characteristics. It is akin to wearing a mask in the virtual realm, allowing users to conceal their true selves or to present themselves in a manner that diverges from reality. These “virtual masks” enable individuals to engage in online interactions anonymously or under a fabricated identity, often for purposes such as deception, anonymity, or manipulation of online discourse. Accordingly, various virtual and fake representations of a real (human) user, such as sock puppets, alternative accounts (alts), and fake identities, can be defined as technological tools used to create and operate “virtual masks”.

Among the reasons enabling real (human) users of SNSs communicate via “virtual masks” (fake virtual identity), are social, psychological, and technological factors.

Social factors include the following: 1. Desire for Self-Expression: the utilization of fake accounts may serve as a mechanism for uninhibited self-expression, shielding individuals from potential real-life criticism. Social networking platforms, pivotal for interpersonal connections, offer a realm where fake users can freely craft fictitious personas, divergent from their actual selves. The impulse to fabricate an alternate image may stem from a desire to accentuate positive attributes while evading adverse real-world assessments. 2. Social Network Standards: the pervasive culture of idealized representations perpetuated by social media encourages the proliferation of virtual identities that deviate from reality. This pressure to conform to constructed ideals fosters the creation of deceptive online personas. 3. Online Engagement: fake accounts enable active participation in virtual discourse sans the repercussions of real-world accountability. From expressing opinions to engaging with others’ content, such activities typify social network engagement. Operating under the guise of anonymity allows users to evade scrutiny and dispense with social constraints. 4. Desire for Observational Engagement: a prevailing societal trend involves an innate curiosity about others’ activities, satisfied anonymously to circumvent the pressures of genuine interpersonal relationships (Wang et al., 2021, pp. 1–5).

Some of the psychological factors making social media users communicate via fake accounts include the following: 1. Anonymity and Liberation: the anonymity afforded by fake accounts offers a sense of liberation from social constraints, appealing to individuals seeking to circumvent societal norms and expectations; 2. Construction of an Idealized Persona: the virtual realm often stimulates a desire to portray an idealized version of oneself. Fake accounts may emerge as a vehicle for realizing this aspiration, enabling users to craft an enhanced portrayal of their lives (J. Smith & Johnson, 2023).

Technological Factors determining the use of “virtual masks” on SNSs include the following: 1. Personal Data Protection: in light of escalating digital security threats, the adoption of fake accounts may be perceived as a proactive measure to shield against potential breaches of personal information, serving as a form of self-preservation. 2. Political Climate Influence: the prominence and frequency of political discourse in the national/global landscape prompt the use of fake accounts as a precautionary measure against the adverse repercussions of expressing political opinions. Such behavior may serve as a means to sidestep conflicts and preserve anonymity (E. R. Smith & Johnson, 2024). The extent of differences between real and virtual self-representations depends on cultural factors and the strategies users employ in online communication. Previous studies demonstrate that, for example, young people in Spayn and Norway, who shift from personal to professional identity representation on social media tend to develop “a paranoid feeling about past self-generated content”, meaning they worry that their previous online activities may be inappropriate for their new professional status, leading them to clean up their social media history (Brandtzaeg et al., 2020, pp. 165–167).

Revealing the gender aspects of wearing “virtual masks” is important in both online and offline communication, as it helps to understand the gender dynamics of communication in general, and specifically on social media networks. Research indicates that countries deploying fake news via social media often exhibit more masculine cultural values, suggesting that specific cultural dimensions could impact the propensity to create or engage with fake accounts (Sample et al., 2018, pp. 56–71). A study conducted in Israel found that young men are more likely to share personal information on social media networks and are more prone to using self-presentation for identity exploration and false representation. In contrast, young women generally exhibit a higher level of awareness and intention when selecting the content they choose to share. The study also suggests that gender norms present in the offline world are reflected in social networking sites as well (Heiman & Zafrir, 2024, pp. 166–167). Additionally, studies have found differences in social media behavior between Eastern and Western cultures. For example, East Asian social media users may focus more on group representation, while Western users emphasize individualism. These cultural distinctions could potentially influence the motivations behind creating fake profiles, although direct correlations require further empirical investigation (Klepper, 2024).

“Virtual masks” represent a complex interplay of anonymity, self-presentation, deception, and social dynamics in the digital realm. Understanding the motivations, implications, and ethical considerations surrounding their use is essential for navigating the evolving landscape of online interactions and promoting a healthy and inclusive digital environment. Revealing the cultural contexts and motivations behind the creation of fake profiles is essential for developing effective strategies to combat misinformation and enhance the authenticity of online interactions.

3. Research Methodology

To explore the reasons for using “virtual masks” (fake profiles on social media networks, or SMNs) in a cultural context, we have selected the case of Armenia. According to Freedom House, Armenia is classified as a partly free country with free internet access,2 which makes online communication on various issues preferable to traditional mass media, with almost no risk of bans or limitations compared to other forms of media.

According to the Digital Armenia 2024 report, at the beginning of 2024, Armenia had 2.14 million internet users, reflecting an internet penetration rate of 77.0%. In January 2024, there were 1.55 million social media users in the country, with 52.5% female and 47.5% male, making up 55.8% of the total population.3 In February 2024, when the fieldwork for this study began, more than half of Armenia’s population (54% of 2.9 million people) was on Facebook. This indicates that nearly all social media users in Armenia primarily use Facebook, in addition to other platforms (see Figure 1).4

Besides exploring the reasons why Armenian users employ “virtual masks” (fake profiles on SMNs), we set forth the following key objectives:

• Examine SMN preferences of Armenian social media users.
• Assess the opportunities and limitations of online communication in relation to users’ objectives.
• Identify Armenian social media users’ preferences regarding online and offline communication with family members, relatives, friends, colleagues, administrative bodies, and in the context of study or work-related tasks.
• Evaluate the likelihood of Armenian SMN users concealing their real identity and using fake profiles, while identifying the objective and subjective factors influencing this behavior.

For this study, a quantitative survey was conducted. The questionnaire was developed in Armenian and distributed via the SurveyMonkey digital tool among users of the most popular virtual social networks in Armenia between February and July 2024. The total number of respondents was 400, categorized by age and gender. The number of respondents resulted from the free and voluntary participation of Armenian users of social media networks (SMNs). The questionnaire was disseminated through posts on the most popular social media networks in Armenia and was refreshed every week until no more responses were received. Considering the limitations of online mass surveys, including sampling, the findings should be interpreted as trends rather than conclusions about Armenian society in general. The research results will reflect the survey responses and conclusions of Armenian users of SMNs, focusing on the research respondents rather than the general population.

Of the respondents, 66% identified as female and 44% as male. Age distribution was as follows: 8% were under 15, 42% were between 16 and 30, another 42% were between 31 and 50, and 8% were 51 or older.

Regarding place of residence, 79% lived in the capital, Yerevan, or other cities in Armenia, while the remaining 21% resided in villages. In terms of education, 32% had some school education, while 68% had some university education.

Those living outside Armenia, including in diasporas around the world, are largely and strongly connected with residents of Armenia, constantly communicating online and using the Armenian language. As a result, the questionnaire was also made available to them. Only 5% of respondents indicated their place of residence as outside of Armenia, allowing for a distinction between the responses of users residing in Armenia and those living abroad. However, comparative analysis did not reveal any significant differences. As a result, the study’s findings are presented in a unified manner.

4. Research Results and Discussion

According to the survey, primary communication goals of the Armenian users (research respondents) on SMNs include reading news and informational materials (60.5%), communicating with friends (55.6%), viewing others’ posts (34.7%), keeping in touch with relatives and family members abroad (29.9%), spending free time (23.3%), communicating with colleagues (22.5%), establishing professional connections (18.9%), organizing work/studies more efficiently (17.5%), posting photos and/or videos (13.7%), online shopping (12.8%), communicating with classmates (10.9%), sharing personal thoughts (10.1%), selling products or offering services (9%), making new friendships (7.7%), connecting with the opposite sex (7.6%), and sharing daily life updates (5.7%).

As the data show, research respondents primarily use social media to access news and various types of information (60.5%). However, only 33% consider the content disseminated on social networks to be reliable and trustworthy—1% fully trust it, while 32% mostly trust it. In contrast, 60% of Armenian users mostly distrust social media content, and the remaining 7% completely distrust it. This suggests that the majority of respondents engage with virtual social networks in a context of distrust, where the presence of fake information and fake profiles is increasingly perceived as the norm.

The public perception of SMNs as virtual spaces where fake information is more the norm than the exception, and which primarily serve complex goals that are only partially achieved, is reaffirmed by responses to a question about what Armenian users value most in the popular SMNs they use (

Table 1. What Armenian social media users (respondents) value and the reasons they prefer particular SMNs (%).

	Facebook	Odnoklassniki	Instagram	Youtube	Vkontakte	TikTok	Difficult to Answer
Ease of use	41%	1%	27%	14%	0%	7%	9%
Opportunity to earn money	12%	1%	33%	6%	0%	17%	30%
Opportunity to make new acquaintances	39%	1%	27%	1%	2%	6%	25%
Opportunity to gain recognition	14%	0%	28%	3%	1%	35%	19%
Opportunity to receive reliable information	44%	0%	10%	12%	3%	4%	27%
Opportunity for entertainment and leisure	13%	1%	25%	15%	1%	29%	17%
Opportunity to have a quality/educated audience	32%	0%	22%	11%	1%	2%	31%
Adherence to ethical norms in communication	31%	0%	16%	7%	1%	2%	43%
Opportunity to display and present any content without restrictions	20%	1%	16%	4%	1%	18%	41%

). The data illustrate that no SMN is perceived as fully delivering any of these goals in a complete and satisfactory manner, including the opportunity to receive reliable information, yet this does not prevent them from remaining popular.

Although no social media network SMN appears to be the most effective across all the mentioned categories, Facebook and Instagram stand out as the most user-friendly compared to other platforms. They are also noted for enabling new acquaintances, attracting a more literate and educated audience, and maintaining certain ethical norms in communication.

Facebook—and to a much lesser extent, YouTube—is perceived as a more reliable source of information than other SMNs. However, when it comes to earning money, Instagram and TikTok are considered better platforms than Facebook and other social media.

TikTok, followed by Instagram, is seen as the best platform for gaining public recognition. Additionally, both, along with YouTube, provide significantly better entertainment than the other social media networks in the list.

When asked about the negative aspects of SMNs, respondents mentioned that they dislike them for reducing real-life communication (57%), being highly politicized (43%), wasting time (35%), promoting hatred and violence (33%), being overly simplistic (18%), and being uninteresting (5%).

At the same time, despite disliking SMNs for their negative impact—including the spread of violence and hate speech—about 20% of users say they find it acceptable to use hate speech in certain cases when communicating on social media (Figure 2).

Despite criticizing SMNs for their negative impact and partially playing their own role in social media dysfunctions, respondents report benefiting from social media usage, including achieving their personal goals (Figure 3).

The study shows that while attempting to achieve some of their goals, some Armenian social media users hide their personal data and seem to use fake information and fake accounts for certain reasons (Figure 4).

The data show that the majority of Armenian respondents never use fake accounts or information on social media, while most of those who do represent themselves online using “virtual masks” either often or sometimes do so to follow others’ online activities (36%) and to keep their personal information private (34%). One in every five respondents admits to using a “virtual mask” to approach an online user of the opposite sex. Similarly, one in every five respondents is afraid of receiving negative feedback on their political views expressed online and prefers to use a fake virtual identity when communicating about politics.

The findings confirm the conclusion found in studies of other societies that the use of “virtual masks” has both common and specifically cultural explanations. It is a cultural phenomenon to appear under a fake profile in order to meet an admired person on social media. If a user perceives the possibility of being rejected by the opposite sex when approaching them for the first time with a proposition, they may prefer to remain unrecognized to avoid “losing face”. Additionally, in line with the Spiral of Silence theory, which explains “keeping silent” in a group when an opinion is perceived to be unpopular and likely to be heavily criticized (Noelle-Neumann, 1974), individuals might choose to express their opinions on social media while wearing a “virtual mask” (using a fake profile) to avoid the risks of criticism, blame, being “disliked”, or even punishment, especially when freedom is not guaranteed.

A comparison of responses from men and women shows that men are more likely to hide their personal data on social media, use fake accounts, and spread fake information—particularly when trying to meet the opposite sex online or make political statements that are perceived as unpopular and may face widespread criticism. A risk of “losing face” in both cases concerns men more than women (Figure 5).

The data also challenge the traditional stereotype that women put more effort into appearing attractive. In fact, more Armenian men than women admit that they tend to modify their real appearance online to look more attractive (Figure 5).

5. Conclusions

The study demonstrates that popularity, mass consumption, and distrust shape the attitudes of respondents toward social media networks (SMNs). Despite their skepticism—particularly regarding the reliability of information circulating on SMNs—users remain active on these platforms. This suggests that an inauthentic, or “fake”, communicative environment has become commonplace and even normalized in online interactions.

Navigating this environment, where people and communication may often be deceptive, users tend to adopt strategies well explained by Erving Goffman’s Dramaturgical Theory. Much like actors preparing for a role, they enter the virtual space by putting on “virtual masks”—representations of themselves that either reflect their real (offline) identity or are strategically altered to align with their communicative objectives on SMNs.

The concept of virtual identity construction bridges Goffman’s “front-stage” and “back-stage” performances in both offline and online communication. A digital identity is shaped not just by the information individuals share but also by how others perceive and interpret them. Key elements of virtual representation on SMNs include a user’s name, photo, personal details, social connections, and interests. The process of creating a virtual identity on SMNs is intentional, aiming to project a desired image to gain approval from others. Feedback on SMNs has a stronger impact than offline communication, as it is more public and persistent, influencing self-esteem and self-worth.

Just as individuals use “masks” in offline interactions to shape perceptions and seek feedback, virtual identity construction online serves to create a “front-stage” persona that attracts approval and attention. Reputation, which reflects awareness of others’ social status and content quality, plays a key role in both offline and online communication. Thus, online “impression management” extends offline “reputation management”.

In digital spaces, users create virtual versions of their identities, highlighting the complex relationship between real and online selves. Wearing a “virtual mask” allows users to interact online anonymously or under a false identity, often for purposes like deception, anonymity, or manipulating online conversations. Therefore, various forms of fake representations of a real user, such as sock puppets, alternative accounts (alts), and fake identities, can be considered technological tools used to create and manage “virtual masks”.

As with social media users worldwide, Armenian respondents primarily use SMNs to read news, communicate with friends, view others’ posts, stay in touch with relatives abroad, pass the time, and establish both personal and professional connections. However, the study reveals that while pursuing these goals, some users deliberately obscure their personal data and engage in deceptive practices, such as using fake information or fake accounts.

Like other studies mentioned here, our findings also suggest that gender norms from the offline world are reflected in SMNs.

Approximately 35% of Armenian social media users (research respondents) prefer to remain unrecognized while following others’ activities. Notably, 24% of men and 11% of women admit to publishing false information about themselves or others on social media. Additionally, 39% of men and 31% of women prefer to keep their personal information private, a tendency largely driven by public perceptions of SMNs as untrustworthy spaces.

Although most Armenian respondents do not engage in such behavior, the use of “virtual masks” is both a common and culturally influenced practice. When attempting to connect with someone they admire, 15% of women and 26% of men report occasionally using “virtual masks” (fake profiles, false information, modified photos, etc.) to enhance their attractiveness and increase their chances of success. In cases of rejection, these tactics also help users avoid the social embarrassment of “losing face”. Interestingly, the study challenges the stereotype that women are more preoccupied with their online appearance—26% of men, compared to 12% of women, admit to altering their appearance online to appear more attractive. Another explanation could be that men confess to using this tactic more easily than women.

Although 33% of users disapprove of social media’s negative impact, including its role in spreading violence and hate speech, 20% still find it acceptable to use hate speech in certain situations. The Spiral of Silence theory provides further insight into users’ motivations for anonymity. Many choose to conceal their identity when expressing unpopular opinions to avoid criticism or backlash—especially in environments where freedom is restricted or where hate speech is prevalent.

Gender differences are also evident in this behavior. Men (30%) are more likely than women (13%) to hide personal information, create fake accounts, and spread false information—particularly when making controversial political statements. The fear of “losing face” in online political debates appears to be a more significant concern for men than women, reinforcing their tendency to adopt “virtual masks” in digital interactions.

The results support the conceptual framework in which we connect Goffman’s concept with virtual self-representation, linking offline and online “front-stage” and “back-stage” appearances with their elements, functions, and forms, akin to wearing “masks”. The studies on social media use within cultural, gender, political, and social contexts provide a perspective bridge between offline and online realities.