Exploring university students’ online self-presentation techniques and self-disclosure behaviors as predictors of staff response

ABSTRACT


INTRODUCTION
Particularly since the COVID-19 lockdowns, universities have identified the usefulness of the online environment within higher education; this has resulted in online communication becoming an integrated component of university life (Office for Students, 2022).Many educational platforms exist providing opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous communication both publicly (e.g., forum posts on Moodle) and privately (e.g., emails via Microsoft Outlook).Online self-disclosure, revealing information about the self via online platforms (Kim & Dindia, 2011), is required to communicate online.University students are typically motivated by help-seeking when they communicate with staff online (Fan & Lin, 2023) and so online self-disclosure is required in order to outline the help needed.Online selfdisclosure via educational platforms has many benefits such as increased speed and ease of accessing information (Nikolopoulou, 2022;Paechter & Maier, 2010), but there are also risks, particularly over-disclosure (revealing inappropriate/too much information to a misjudged audience; Kim & Dindia, 2011).Online over-disclosure is facilitated by the online disinhibition effect, the reduction of non-verbal cues (e.g., vocal tone, eye contact) easing online communication (Suler, 2004).Students' online self-disclosure may be facilitated by the online disinhibition effect, and this could result in over-disclosing to university staff.The use of self-presentation techniques (Lee et al., 1999) to manage impression management online may be associated with online self-disclosure.For example, we know that ingratiation (e.g., flattery; Lee et al., 1999) is associated with positive responses from others (Gordon, 1996).For students, utilizing online selfpresentation techniques to facilitate impression management (Michikyan et al., 2014) may be useful for eliciting positive responses from staff.However, students are at risk of overdisclosing using self-presentation techniques; for example, excuses (minimizing responsibility associated with negative events; Lee et al., 1999) are often associated with negative responses (Tsai et al., 2010).Ultimately, over-disclosing via educational platforms can result in offending staff (Waycott et al., 2010) and this may shape how staff respond.

OPEN ACCESS
Importantly, research considering students' online selfdisclosure and self-presentation techniques is limited.Understanding these behaviors may help university staff to support students in communicating effectively online.The potential repercussions of this may benefit students in both their academic experiences and future careers.With this aim, this study aims to explore the following research question: do students' online self-disclosure behaviors and selfpresentation techniques predict staff response?A mixed methods approach will be adopted within this study drawing upon a deductive thematic analysis (qualitative) and path analysis (quantitative).Findings will identify whether students' online self-disclosure behaviors and selfpresentation techniques inform staff response.

Self-Disclosure via Online Educational Platforms
Online self-disclosure is required in order to communicate online (Kim & Dindia, 2011).The facilitation of online selfdisclosure due to non-verbal cues is defined as the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004); for example, communicating with someone face-to-face involves interpreting eye contact, vocal tone and body language as well as the content but online the lack of these cues removes the need for interpretation placing the focus solely on the content, this may ease the process of communicating.Nguyen et al. (2012) argue that self-disclosure forms the basis of information exchange and that due to the online disinhibition effect removing extra cues even more information is required in order to communicate online.The majority of university students globally are aged 18-24 years (HESA, 2023); this age group is defined as the developmental stage of 'emerging adulthood' (Sawyer et al., 2018).Emerging adults have only ever known a digitally connected reality (Stockdale & Coyne, 2020) and we know that using the internet is integrated into their daily lives (Horgan & Sweeney, 2012).Students are therefore regularly communicating in an environment that both facilitates and requires online self-disclosure.Further, it is evidenced that online help-seeking behaviors increase during emerging adulthood (Horgan & Sweeney, 2012;Stockdale & Coyne, 2020) and even more so amongst students specifically (Fan & Lin, 2023;Lattie et al., 2019).When we consider that students have only ever known a digital world, where online selfdisclosure both is facilitated and required, and that they typically present more help-seeking behaviors, it is possible that students are at a greater risk of over-disclosing online.
The majority of university staff are generationally different to students particularly in terms of digital exposure.Unlike students, staff have known a time without the integration of digital technology in everyday life.As a result, it is evidenced that students and staff's perceptions of online communication differ.Through focus groups, Waycott et al. (2010) found that students' perceptions of appropriate online contact via educational platforms differed from staff.Similar findings are highlighted elsewhere (Lohnes & Kinzer, 2007;Park, 2010).The disparity between students' and staff's perceptions of online communication emphasizes the risk of student overdisclosure; this risk is heightened by students' online helpseeking behaviors.
Online educational platforms such as Moodle, MS Teams and Blackboard are used by students as a tool for sourcing information (Er et al., 2015); to achieve this, help-seeking behaviors are used (Aleven et al., 2003;Fan & Lin, 2013).Rooted in self-regulated learning strategy (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2012), students help-seeking behaviors are used to independently source information that meets their academic goals (Aleven et al., 2003).Online educational platforms are an effective tool for help-seeking behaviors as they offer more time to curate a question or request (Cheng et al., 2013) as and when the student seeks the information (Koc & Liu, 2016) often receiving a response in a timely manner (Broadbent & Lodge, 2021).We know that students with better self-regulation skills are more successful in sourcing information through help-seeking behaviors (Dunn et al., 2014).We also know that when online help-seeking behaviors receive positive responses from staff students report greater satisfaction.
In order to ask for help, one must disclose relevant information (Vogel & Wester, 2003) but this can make an individual feel vulnerable and thus be off-putting (Adams et al., 2022).In fact, university students report worrying about asking for help for fear of being viewed as incompetent (Martin-Arbos et al., 2021) Facilitated by the online disinhibition effect and generational differences in online communication, emerging adults are more likely to seek help online than offline (Pretorius et al., 2019).However, compounded by generational differences in perceptions of appropriate online communication, students may be at risk of over-disclosing (revealing inappropriate information to a misjudged audience; Kim & Dindia, 2011) whilst help-seeking.Subsequently, staff may respond negatively and in turn this may dissatisfy students and impact their academic experience.

Impression Management Theory & Online Self-Presentation Techniques
Impression management theory conceptualizes social interactions as a method of how we wish others to perceive us (Schlenker, 1980).Our desired goals inform our impression motivation and the tools we use to hopefully achieve that goal inform our impression construction (Schlenker, 1980).According to Goffman (1959), we adapt our behavior through impression construction, and it is therefore performative: the better the performance, the more likely we are at achieving our impression motivation.How we shape this performance, however, is based upon the discrepancy between the real and ideal selves (Goffman, 1959;Schlenker, 1980).If there is a large discrepancy between the real and ideal selves, our performance (impression construction) will require greater curation in order to reach our desired goal (impression motivation).
Self-presentation techniques are a common tool within impression construction.Self-presentation techniques fall into two categories: assertive (actively trying to construct other's impressions) and defensive (defending an impression already constructed; see Table 1 for full list of Lee et al.'s, 1999 self-presentation techniques).The online disinhibition effect (facilitation of online self-disclosure due to non-verbal cues; Suler, 2004) facilitates the use of self-presentation techniques for impression construction within an online environment (Michikyan et al., 2014(Michikyan et al., , 2015)).Online, an individual can draw upon a wider range of tools to construct an impression.For example, one can use filters or editing software to present an ideal self (Hong et al., 2020;Michikyan et al., 2014).Importantly, the discrepancy between the real and ideal selves is easier to manage online due to the wider range of available tools.For example, trying to present the false self is very challenging in-person (e.g., wearing a disguise), whereas online it is easy to create a fake profile or avatar and subsequently present a false self (Michikyan et al., 2015).The performative element of impression construction is therefore much easier via online self-presentation techniques and can make managing impression motivations more successful.
Assertive and defensive self-presentation techniques can reap different responses online.For example, assertive selfpresentation techniques are typically associated with aggression (Abell & Brewer, 2014;Reed & Saunders, 2020).Further, Hart et al. (2019b) found that all assertive selfpresentation techniques (except for supplication) were closely linked with dark triad traits (particularly narcissism).Detection of assertive self-presentation techniques can thus receive a negative response (Burusic & Ribar, 2014;Highhouse et al., 2016).Ingratiation, supplication and enhancement, however, tend to be viewed more positively than other assertive self-presentation techniques (Ahmed, 2014;Wong, 2012).Cheng et al. (2019) identified ingratiation as a selfpresentation technique typically used by emerging adults who rated high in autonomy.They also identified ingratiation, exemplification and supplication as self-presentation techniques typically used by emerging adults who rated highly on motivation and self-determination.Autonomy, motivation and self-determination are linked to increased help-seeking behaviors (Karabenick & Puustinen, 2013;Newman, 2008).Students may therefore draw upon the assertive selfpresentation techniques of ingratiation, exemplification and supplication when communicating via online educational platforms, but staff may only respond positively to ingratiation, supplication and enhancement.If true, this means that students who use the assertive self-presentation techniques of intimidation, entitlement, exemplification and blasting may be more likely to receive negative or less informative responses from staff.
Defensive self-presentation techniques may be viewed more positively than assertive self-presentation techniques (Gillespie, 2020).Defensive self-presentation techniques are typically viewed as more socially acceptable than assertive self-presentation techniques, both by the individual using the technique and the audience (Øverup & Neighbors, 2016).Defensive self-presentation techniques are also often more subtle than assertive self-presentation techniques (Cohen, 2001;Schmid & Betsch, 2019).However, defensive self-presentation techniques (particularly excuse and justification) can be associated with irresponsibility and dishonesty (Hart et al., 2019a(Hart et al., , 2019b;;Schlenker, 1980) resulting in negative feedback from the audience (Sadler et al., 2010).Students may use defensive self-presentation techniques due to feelings of imposter syndrome (Shahani-Yeilaghi et al., 2007) or shame of potential academic failure (Ferrari & Dúaz-Morales, 2007).If viewed as indicators of irresponsibility or dishonesty, staff may respond negatively.

Research Focus
Online educational platforms present a unique and greatly nuanced environment for students and staff to communicate.The online disinhibition effect (facilitation of online selfdisclosure due to non-verbal cues; Suler, 2004) facilitates online self-disclosure (revealing information about the self; Kim & Dindia, 2011) and self-disclosure is required in order to connect with others.The online environment provides limited external information (e.g., nonverbal cues) and so more selfdisclosure is required in order to communicate (Nguyen et al., 2012).Online self-presentation techniques are a tool for managing impressions of others within an online space (Lee et al., 1999;Michikyan, 2014;Michikyan et al., 2015).The online disinhibition effect provides greater opportunity for the curation of the online self via online self-presentation techniques (Michikyan, 2014;Michikyan et al., 2015).On the one hand, self-disclosure and self-presentation are linked: we may use self-presentation techniques as a way of disclosing about the self (Chen & Marcus, 2012;Rui & Stefanone, 2013a, 2013b).On the other hand, it is widely argued that selfdisclosure and self-presentation present different constructs due to the variance in motivation and behaviors (Schlosser, 2020).
Drawing upon literature within an educational context, we know that students self-disclose online and that they utilize online self-presentation techniques (Binali et al., 2021;Hall et al., 2014;Horgan & Sweeney, 2012).We also know that students are increasingly using online educational platforms at university (Office for Students, 2022).Yet, an understanding of how students may self-disclose and utilise self-presentation techniques via online educational platforms specifically is lacking from the literature.If successful, online educational platforms can be an effective tool for student help-seeking, whereby staff respond efficiently with informative responses.If unsuccessful, students may over-disclose and receive negative or uninformative responses from staff; this may be detrimental to their educational experience.
To explore this, a mixed methods approach will be adopted within this study.A deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Table 1.Self-presentation techniques & definitions categorized as assertive or defensive as per Lee et al. (1999)

Assertive self-presentation techniques
Defensive self-presentation techniques -Ingratiation (presenting self positively to gain an advantage) -Intimidation (presenting self as powerful & dangerous to gain an advantage) -Supplication (presenting self as weak to gain an advantage) -Entitlement (claiming responsibility of positive events) -Enhancement (positively endorsing own behavior) -Blasting (labelling another individual or group as negative) -Exemplification (endorsing own behavior with a specific focus on integrity & worth) -Excuse (minimizing responsibility associated with negative events) -Justification (accepting responsibility for a negative event, but overexplaining reasons to condone it) -Disclaimer (providing an explanation before an event occurs to mitigate potential negative consequences) -Self-handicapping (providing a barrier to success before an event occurs) -Apology (accepting responsibility for a negative event & expressing remorse) Clarke, 2014Clarke, , 2019;;McKibben et al., 2020) will be used to identify instances of students' online self-disclosure and online self-presentation techniques as well as staff's online content disclosure (the informativeness of their response) from 100 Moodle posts (public online educational platform) and 100 Microsoft Outlook emails (private online educational platform).Following this, a path analysis will be conducted to explore the predictive relationship between students' online self-disclosure and online self-presentation techniques upon staff's online content disclosure.Although this study is novel and thus exploratory in nature, based upon previous research it is predicted that: 1. Greater instances of online self-disclosure (indicating over-disclosure) will be associated with lower staff content disclosure (less informative responses).
2. Greater instances of assertive self-presentation techniques: ingratiation, supplication and enhancement will be associated with higher staff content disclosure (more informative responses); the other assertive self-presentation techniques will be associated with lower staff content disclosure (less informative responses).

Greater instances of defensive self-presentation
techniques will be associated with higher staff content disclosure (more informative responses), except for excuse and justification, which will be associated with lower staff content disclosure (less informative responses).
4. Online self-presentation techniques will mediate the relationship between student self-disclosure and staff content disclosure.
Exploring how students may self-disclose and use selfpresentation techniques via online educational platforms and to what extent this may inform staff responses is important in understanding the relationship between students and staff's online communication.Importantly, findings will inform university policymakers and both students and staff how to communicate effectively via online educational platforms.

Data
A-priori power analysis was calculated with an anticipated correlation coefficient of 0.10 and desired power of 80%, resulting in a proposed sample size of 126 (Cohen, 1988).Data were collected using a qualitative archival review of 100 Moodle forum posts and 100 emails from one U.K. higher education institution (HEI).Moodle was selected as it is a public online educational platform, where students communicate with staff via forums available to all students enrolled on that course/module.Emails were selected as they comprise communication within a private and more personal environment.We know that online self-disclosure behaviors are shaped by perception of the audience size (Clark- Gordon et al., 2019) and so it was important to capture data from both public and private online educational platforms so that our data represented the breadth of student-staff online communication.
All data were anonymized prior to analysis for ethical purposes and so we cannot determine specific demographic information.We do however know that from the psychology undergraduate students at the selected U.K. HEI, 57% are aged 18-23 years, 86% are from the U.K., and 88% identify as female.

Procedure
Prior to data collection, this study received ethical approval from a U.K. HEI and was also conducted in accordance with the British Psychological Society ethical guidelines.As the data was collected using qualitative methods, the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research guidelines were followed throughout (Tong et al., 2007) to ensure a robust and reliable methodology.The author is a member of teaching staff at HEI and the research assistant on this project was an undergraduate student also at HEI and this was considered carefully throughout the data collection phase in terms of potential biases.Moodle forum posts were randomly selected from undergraduate modules from the academic year 2021-22 by a technical member of staff who was unrelated to this project; all potentially identifiable data were anonymized by the research assistant.Emails were collated from four teaching staff who were opportunistically sampled by the author; of these staff two were male (identified as White, aged 28 and 30 years) and two were female (one identified as White, one identified as British Asian, aged 26 and 33 years).Teaching staff were asked to anonymize all potentially identifiable data before sending emails across to the research assistant on this project.The text from the posts and emails were copied and pasted into Microsoft Word documents by the research assistant.Following this, these files were loaded into NVivo software (released in March 2020) for analysis by the author.Subsequent data was imported into R Studio (RStudio Team, 2020) for quantitative analysis, also by the author.

Data Analysis
A mixed methods analysis was drawn upon following data collection comprising a deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2014, 2019;McKibben et al., 2020), to identify theoretically driven themes of self-disclosure, content disclosure and impression management tactics, and a path analysis (Lleras, 2005) to explore any predictive pathways between these themes.

Deductive content analysis
Data were numerically coded to create variables of student self-disclosure, staff content disclosure and each selfpresentation technique per Lee et al.'s (1999) categories: ingratiation, intimidation, supplication, entitlement, enhancement, blasting, exemplification, excuse, justification, disclaimer, self-handicapping, apology.Each of Lee et al.'s (1999) self-presentation techniques were included in order to measure the breadth of both assertive and defensive selfpresentation techniques (see Table 1 for definitions for each technique).Student self-disclosure comprised the extent to which students revealed information about the self.Staff content disclosure comprised how much information the staff member disclosed.For student self-disclosure and staff content disclosure variables, data were coded as either zero (no occurrence of self-disclosure/content disclosure), one (one occurrence of self-disclosure/content disclosure), or two (more than one occurrence of self-disclosure/content disclosure).See Appendix A for examples of data coded as student selfdisclosure and staff content disclosure.For each selfpresentation technique, data were coded as zero (no evidence of this technique used) or one (evidence of this technique used).

Path analysis
To explore whether student self-presentation techniques and self-disclosure behaviors predict staff content disclosure, a path analysis was conducted.A path analysis was selected to explore the strength of both direct and indirect relationships between observed variables (Grapentine, 2000).Following the deductive content analysis, numerical data was imported into R studio (RStudio Team, 2020) for quantitative analysis in R using path analysis via the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012).Mean scores were calculated for each variable.For student self-disclosure, continuous mean scores ranged from zero (no self-disclosure) to two (high self-disclosure).For staff content disclosure, continuous mean scores also ranged from zero (no content disclosure) to two (high content disclosure).Each selfpresentation technique (ingratiation, intimidation, supplication, entitlement, enhancement, blasting, exemplification, excuse, justification, disclaimer, selfhandicapping, apology) was entered as individual variables; these were coded as continuous variables with mean scores ranging from zero (no evidence of this technique) to one (evidence of this technique).
Preliminary analyses were conducted to explore descriptive information including assumptions.Following this, the path analysis was conducted with student selfdisclosure, ingratiation, intimidation, supplication, entitlement, enhancement, blasting, exemplification, excuse, justification, disclaimer, self-handicapping and apology as predictors, and staff content disclosure as the outcome.Maximum likelihood was included as the estimator.The fit indices of the path analysis were checked against recommendations of good fit indices including comparative fit index (CFI) of >0.85 (Carlback & Wong, 2018); Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of >0.90; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of <0.05; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of <0.05 (Browne & Culdeck, 1993).

RESULTS
Following confirmation that assumptions were met, descriptive information was explored.See Table 2 for correlation coefficients between all variables.On average, students disclosed some but not too great a deal of information when communicating via online educational platforms (mean [M]=0.60,standard deviation [SD]=0.74)and utilized an average of one to two self-presentation techniques (M=1.57,SD=1.23).Of these self-presentation techniques, ingratiation (n=61), disclaimers (n=51) and supplication (n=44) were the most frequently used.On average, staff responded to students with some information via online educational platforms (M=1.12,SD=0.73); typically not a great deal of information but also not too limited.Overall, both students (M=1.00,SD=0.78) and staff (M=1.23,SD=0.73) self-disclosed more via private online educational platforms (emails).
See Table 3 and Table 4 for a full breakdown of descriptive data including examples of each self-presentation technique.

DISCUSSION
This study provides a unique exploration of students' online self-disclosure behaviors and self-presentation techniques via online educational platforms and to what extent they may predict staff response.These findings build upon limited literature of this nature within an educational context.Importantly, these findings highlight that certain self-presentation techniques may be facilitated via the online disinhibition effect resulting in over-disclosing via online educational platforms; in turn, this is associated with less informative responses from staff.University policymakers and student-facing staff should consider these findings when supporting students in appropriate online communication with staff.Further, these findings should be used to help staff to recognize students' online behaviors and consider this when responding online.

Assertive Self-Presentation Techniques
Flattery is a form of ingratiation (presenting the self positively to gain an advantage, Lee et al. 1999), and this was prominent within this study's dataset (e.g., "I'd like to say that I really enjoyed your lecture, and I am looking forward to our other lectures on this topic"; email).Previous research suggests that receivers of flattery respond positively (Gordon, 1996); the findings of this study support this as staff did indeed respond more informatively when students used ingratiation selfpresentation techniques.On the one hand, recipients of ingratiation (particularly flattery) align the positive comments with their own self-concept even if they suspect ulterior motives (Pandey, 2022;Vonk, 2002).On the other hand, it is evidenced that flattery can be detected as inauthentic resulting in a negative response (Cheng et al., 2023;Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2023).Politeness is another form of ingratiation (Morand, 2000;Yagil, 2002) and this was also highly evident within this study's dataset (e.g., "thank you for the informative lecture"; forum post).Perhaps the combination of flattery and politeness mitigated the risk of inauthenticity.In fact, Jones et al. (1963) suggest that the combination of ingratiation (particularly flattery) and enhancement (positively endorsing Justification 18 8 26 "I understand that I have not put-up explicit subheadings, so I have followed the template and I have answered every sub-heading asked for" (public).
Excuse 18 6 24 "The marker said that the study I had proposed was not qualitative and that it was quantitative, but there are no scales to measure what I wanted to" (private).
own behavior, Lee et al., 1999) is particularly effective when used by lower status colleagues towards higher status colleagues as they foster perceptions of capability; these findings are further supported in more recent literature and also include politeness (Pandey, 2022;Yang et al., 2022).Thus, in relation to our findings, utilizing ingratiation (especially flattery and politeness) and enhancement may reap informative responses from staff due to positive perception, which align with staff self-concept as well as increased perceptions of student capability.Further, neither ingratiation nor enhancement were associated with over-disclosure, which suggests that utilizing these self-presentation techniques via online educational platforms is a positive and effective tool.
As well as ingratiation and enhancement, entitlement (claiming responsibility of positive events, Lee et al., 1999) was also associated with informative staff response and not associated with over-disclosure, but this came as a surprise.Previous research predominantly highlights entitlement as an aggressive self-presentation technique, which reaps negative responses (Abell & Brewer, 2014;Hart et al., 2019b;Reed & Saunders, 2020).Perhaps, it is the higher education context of this study that shapes the differing findings.If substantiated, entitlement can be viewed positively (O'Mara et al., 2018).Within the dataset of this study, students did often substantiate their entitlement with indicators of responsibility (e.g., "I have found a couple of papers myself on Google Scholar, which may work well", email), and we know that showing signs of responsibility and academic initiative are valued by higher education staff (Amro et al., 2013;Lea et al., 2003).As a result, staff may be more likely to respond positively to students who utilize entitlement.Like ingratiation and enhancement, entitlement was not associated with over-disclosure and thus presents another positive and effective tool for communicating via online educational platforms.
Exemplification (endorsing own behavior with a specific focus on integrity and worth, Lee et al., 1999) also predicted the informativeness of staff response, but over-disclosure poses a risk for students utilizing this self-presentation technique.Within the dataset of this study, exemplification predominantly occurred via public online educational platforms.Utilizing exemplification within public spaces is risky.If viewed as strategically performative (i.e., 'showing off') or exaggerated, responses are likely to be negative (Gardner, 2003).The online space may amplify perceptions of exemplification being performative, particularly where the audience size is large (Ranzini & Hoek, 2017;Rim & Song, 2016;Oeldorf-Hirsch et al., 2017).Exemplification is often used for help-seeking (Cheng et al., 2019), and so an uninformative response may be especially detrimental to the student who is actively seeking information.The findings of this study do highlight that exemplification can be effective, but where over-disclosure occurs it has the opposite effect.Students utilizing exemplification when communicating with staff online, especially via public online educational platforms, should be cautious in how performative or exaggerated their post may seem.It would be interesting for future research to qualitatively explore students' online exemplification techniques and staff's perceptions of these to understand the nuances around when they are perceived positively and when they are perceived as over-disclosure.
Unexpectedly, blasting (labelling another individual or group as negative, Lee et al., 1999) was associated with more informative responses from staff.The instances of blasting within this dataset were all associated with elevated helpseeking behaviors (e.g., "the feedback from the module coordinator just was not helpful and I really could do with a meeting with you for some help", email) and we know from educational literature that elevated help-seeking is associated with poorer mental health (McAllister et al., 2014;Zochil & Thorsteinsson, 2018), namely anxiety (Goodwin et al., 2016).Staff may recognize blasting as a precursor of poor mental health and subsequently provide an informative response to support the student.Over-disclosure, however, presented a risk for students utilizing blasting.Blasting is widely recognized as an aggressive self-presentation technique and is associated with negative responses (Hart et al., 2019b;Ozkan et al., 2022;Reed & Saunders, 2020).The online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004) may facilitate the nature of the blasting and result in over-disclosure.Feeling frustrated or panicked, students may construct an inappropriate message utilizing blasting, which staff may view as aggressive and subsequently respond less informatively.Staff may also view blasting as the student passing the blame rather than taking responsibility and we know from educational literature that this is viewed negatively (Hart et al., 2019a(Hart et al., , 2019b)).When we consider that students utilizing blasting may be responding to a severe situation, an uninformative response from a staff member is highly risky.These findings should be used to support students in understanding how to communicate appropriately with staff via online educational platforms.Further, these findings should also be used to educate staff about students' online blasting behaviors and how to respond appropriately but still informatively.

Defensive Self-Presentation Techniques
Only a select few defensive self-presentation techniques were associated with staff content disclosure.As expected, apology was associated with higher staff content disclosure.Apology (accepting responsibility for a negative event and expressing remorse, Lee et al., 1999) is widely evidenced as indicative of taking accountability for one's actions (Bolino et al., 2014(Bolino et al., , 2016;;Meier, 1998;Schumann, 2018).In turn, this is often interpreted as a sign of respect (De Cremer & Schouten, 2008).Apology is often viewed as more sincere (Haugh & Chang, 2019) and therefore typically receives positive responses (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006;Basford et al., 2014).Considering the hierarchical difference between students and staff, it is possible that staff respond more positively to apology as they recognize it as a sign of respect.Staff may be more likely to respond informatively as an indicator of appreciation for the apology.Interestingly, over-disclosure did not pose as a risk for students utilizing apology as an online self-presentation technique.Thus, these findings highlight that apology may be a worthwhile online self-presentation technique for students.
Self-handicapping (providing a barrier to success before an event occurs, Lee et al., 1999) and justification (accepting responsibility for a negative event, but overexplaining reasons to condone it, Lee et al., 1999) were both associated with more informative responses from staff members, but both were at risk of over-disclosure.Self-handicapping can be indicative of low self-esteem (Martin & Brawley, 2002).As educators, staff members are likely to recognize this association and subsequently respond with lots of information to support that student (Chen et al., 2018;Schwinger et al., 2014).Where students over-disclose, however, staff responses become less informative.Both self-handicapping and justification are associated with irresponsibility (Hart et al., 2019a(Hart et al., , 2019b;;Schlenker, 1980) such as procrastination (Barutçu Yıldırım & Demir, 2020;Strunk & Steele, 2011) and disengagement (Van der Velden, 2013).Academic staff perceive procrastination and disengagement very negatively (Kármen et al., 2015;Orpen, 1998) and may subsequently provide a less informative response.Responding less informatively may be detrimental to these students especially if they genuinely are lacking selfesteem.We know that perceptions of irresponsibility vary hugely (Chung et al., 2019;McCabe & O'Connor, 2014).With the addition of the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004) potentially influencing the way in which a student constructs their message, there is the potential of misinterpretation.These findings should therefore be considered by staff when communicating online with students to avoid misrecognizing students' online self-handicapping and justification behaviors, and subsequently providing students with appropriate support.

Limitations & Future Directions
Despite the novel and applied importance of this study, limitations are evident and require consideration.All data were collected from one HEI based within the South of England due to practical restrictions.It would be useful to conduct a larger replication of this study drawing upon datasets from a wider range of institutions across U.K. to explore whether findings remain consistent or whether differences occur between institutions.This would also be effective in further diversifying the demographics of the student and staff data.We know that cultural differences exist in communicating online in general, let alone via online educational platforms (Liu et al., 2010;Ye, 2006).It would therefore be interesting to explore whether differences occur across a broader range of demographics from institutions more widely.
The staff data extracted for this study was from a younger demographic (aged 26-33 years; considered Millennials at the time of data collection, Dimock, 2019).Generational divides do still exist between this age group and that of the student demographic (aged predominantly 18-24 years; considered as Generation Z, Dimock, 2019).However, it is recognized that both of these generations are prolific users of the online space for communication (Ofcom, 2022) and therefore their perceptions of online communication may be more closely aligned than with older generations (e.g., Boomers;Jiang et al., 2016).It would be interesting to replicate this study with greater diversity in the age range of staff to explore whether the findings remain consistent or whether with older staff members we see differences in response to student online selfpresentation techniques and self-disclosure behaviors.
It would be very interesting to explore the relationship between students online self-presentation techniques and self-disclosure behaviors and staff's response over a period of time.Students go through intense social development at university and so their online behaviors may change over time (Anderson et al., 2017;Comegys et al., 2006;Walsh et al., 2013).Help-seeking behaviors may also vary depending on which academic year a student is in (Cheng et al., 2013;Goodwin et al., 2016;Martin-Arbos et al., 2021); for example, third-year students may seek more support as their assignments are more heavily weighted towards their overall classification.Exploring this relationship over time would be useful for understand whether any nuances in student-staff online communication exist across the course of a university degree.
It would also be useful to conduct a qualitative exploration of students' online self-presentation techniques and selfdisclosure behaviors and how staff respond to these.From the data included within this study, it is identifiable how certain behaviors are associated, but a deeper understanding of why cannot be elicited.From qualitative data, a greater understanding can be fostered regarding the motivations and nuances surrounding students' online behaviors and why staff respond in a certain way.

CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first to explore the predictive relationship between students' online self-presentation techniques and self-disclosure behaviors, and staff content disclosure (informativeness of their response).Drawing upon a mixed methods approach, the findings highlight that there is indeed a predictive relationship between these components.Online self-disclosure behaviors mediate the relationship between self-presentation techniques and staff response, with assertive self-presentation techniques predicting staff response more so than defensive self-presentation techniques.Overall, ingratiation, entitlement, enhancement and apology presented as the only self-presentation techniques that were not associated with the risk of over-disclosure.Whilst blasting, exemplification, self-handicapping and justification were all associated with the risk of over-disclosure, which resulted in less informative responses from staff.Importantly, these findings highlight that students are utilizing online selfpresentation techniques and self-disclosure behaviors when communicating with staff via online educational platforms, and that how they use these techniques and behaviors does inform how staff respond.Findings should be used to support students (e.g., providing guidance) around communicating more effectively via online educational platforms.Further, findings should be used to educate staff (e.g., training workshops) around recognizing students' online behaviors and ensuring that responses remain informative.
Funding: No external funding is received for this article.

Declaration of interest:
The author declares that there are no competing interests.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Path analysis diagram highlighting two pathways: Pathway one is indicated by dashed lines & pathway two is indicated by solid lines; significant relationships are identified in bold with an asterix next to the estimates; assertive self-presentation techniques are shaded in dark grey, defensive self-presentation techniques are shaded in light grey (Source: Author's own elaboration)

Table 3 .
Descriptive statistics highlighting occurrences of student self-disclosure & staff content disclosure at each scoring level (0: no occurrences; 1: one occurrence; 2: more than one occurrence) per online educational platform type (private-emails, public-forum posts), & overall mean (M) & standard deviation (SD) scores

Table 4 .
Descriptive statistics highlighting total occurrences of each impression management technique "Because of everything going on I'm in no state to sit my exam" (private).