Graduate School of Communication Persuasive Communication
Master Thesis
#WARNING: Instagram is not real
Investigating the effect of different types of forewarnings on user’s self-esteem and life satisfaction and the mediating role of state social comparison
Author: Hannah Lotz Student ID: 11823003 Supervisor: M. L. Fransen Date: 1st February 2019
Abstract
In today’s world, where social media is omnipresent, researchers increasingly pay at-tention to the negative effects that social networking sites can have on users’ self-esteem, body image and overall wellbeing. Some studies suggest that Instagram in particular has char-acteristics that make users susceptible to experience negative consequences for their wellbe-ing. These threats have been attributed to upward social comparison: the process of compar-ing yourself to unattainable ideals and assumcompar-ing that others are better off. This is why the pre-sent study tested two types of forewarnings and their effects on self-esteem and life satisfac-tion. Additionally, the mediating role of social comparison was investigated. One forewarning message focused on the unfair manipulation occurring on Instagram due to the predominance of positively biased content, while the other message revealed the persuasive intent of the source as convincing the viewer that this positive content is representable of everyday life. One hundred thirty-three 18- to 25-year-olds completed an online experiment, but no statisti-cally significant effects were found for the assumed relationship between type of forewarning and self-esteem or life satisfaction, as well as for the mediating role of state social comparison in this relationship. Due to Instagram’s increasing popularity, implications for future research are examined.
Introduction
The smartphone application Instagram was launched in 2010 and continues to list rising user numbers. Instagram is a platform and social networking site for editing and sharing pho-tos and videos and then grouping them by using hashtags (#), so that other users can find them later on (Sheldon & Bryant, 2016). The constant addition of new engaging features makes the app ever more addictive, which does not come without downsides (Sheldon & Bryant, 2016; Kim, Sin & Tsai, 2014; Yang, 2016). Recently, Instagram emerged as the social networking site most popular for self-presentation (Yang & Brown, 2016; Kim & Lee, 2011; Mehdizadeh, 2010). Users tend to share only the most positive and favorable aspects of their lives online, which results in a platform-wide positivity bias where highlights are presented as the new nor-mal (Weinstein, 2017; Steers, Wickham, & Acitelli, 2014). This positively biased self-presen-tation results in the portrayal of mostly unattainable ideals, to which users often compare themselves to. Research therefore suggests that social media usage poses threats to users’ mental health and wellbeing. Adolescents (aged 16 to 25) are believed to be especially vulner-able to experiencing detrimental consequences of social media use in regard to their overall life-satisfaction and self-evaluation (i.e. self-esteem), since adolescence is characterized as the phase of identity exploration and formation in which individuals are prone to social compari-son (Reece & Danforth, 2017; Sheldon & Bryant, 2016; Arnett, 2004; Mullin, 2017). The negative emotions elicited by social media usage affect more than just a person’s mood and may eventually result in limited cognitive capacity and ability to concentrate, associated with sleep deprivation or the development of depression among other psychological disorders such as social media addiction (Brusilovskiy, Townley, Snethen, & Salzer, 2016; Park et al., 2016). Therefore, it is important to examine how these negative effects can be prevented.
As mentioned above, the majority of Instagram users create an idealized picture of themselves and thereby try to convince other users of the fact that this accurately portrays their life. When warned about this deceptive tendency, users might be able to resist biased
evaluations. Hence, the present study will compare the effectiveness of interventions in form of two different types of forewarnings: (1) forewarning of the persuasive intent and (2) fore-warning of the manipulative nature of Instagram content. Essentially, the study aims to reduce the process of social comparison with help of the warnings. This means that the negative con-sequences of comparing yourself to unattainable ideals on Instagram should be limited. Even though studies on forewarnings are commonly conducted in marketing contexts, the mechanisms should be applicable to Instagram, since similar processes are at work: namely interpreting and evaluating available information and forming a subsequent affective reaction. According to research, forewarnings are especially effective in informing people about the deceptive nature of (advertising) messages and in activating people’s cognitive and affective defense mechanisms (Petty & Cacioppo, 1977; Cialdini & Petty, 1981; Lee, 2010; Fransen, Smit & Verlegh, 2015). In this context, the forewarnings should make users aware of the positivity bias on Instagram so that they resist falsely evaluating content as being purely realistic. Ultimately, users who read the warning should be encouraged to engage less in so-cial comparison. Once this is achieved, people are believed to compare themselves to unat-tainable ideals less strongly which should ultimately result in a milder and less critical self-evaluation and therefore less negative impact on people’s self-esteem and life-satisfaction. The overall aim of this study is examining the following research question:
What effects do different types of forewarnings have on self-esteem and life satisfac-tion of adolescents who browse positive Instagram content? Are these effects mediated by state social comparison?
Theoretical Framework
Just as with the emergence of the Internet, social media and social networking sites (SNS) have gradually changed our culture and society over the past years (Hanna, Rohm & Crit-tenden, 2011; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter,
and Instagram are highly popular because they offer a variety of functions and are satisfying different motives – such as pastime, entertainment or being up to date (La Sala, Skues, & Wise, 2014). These networks allow us to reach out to anyone on the planet and are connecting people and companies all over the world. Through user generated content on social media we nowadays pay attention to minor details of people’s lives: We look at intimate family photos and share information with a vast amount of people – often also strangers – at a level previ-ously reserved for family and friends only. Social networking sites provide us with a new type of support system and enable us to share thoughts and talk freely about problems and joys. SNS can also give access to a vast number of tips, reviews and tutorials and thereby acceler-ate social learning (Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). The open source ap-proach of the Internet allows for shared knowledge across all possible dimensions and en-hances creativity and inspiration. Most importantly, through social media everyone can partic-ipate (Eid & Al-Jabri, 2016; Ito et al., 2010).
While SNS clearly entail all those positive aspects, research is paying an increasing amount of attention to its dark site: frustration, envy and sometimes even depression. SNS and particularly Instagram often give off the impression that others are living a better life, are more popular and more successful than oneself (Chou & Edge, 2012; de Vries & Kühne, 2015). Usually there is a gap between the presentation of oneself on SNS and the real self, due to the self-selection of favorable material to represent the individual (Brunskill, 2013). In this context social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) is helpful to determine the effects In-stagram has on self-esteem and life satisfaction of those who are exposed to these biased con-tents.
Social psychologist Leon Festinger proposed the theory in 1954 and described a hu-man innate quest for accurate self-evaluations (i.e. the assessment of beliefs, skills and social status) by comparing oneself to others (Festinger,1954; Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). Social comparison is a pervasive phenomenon in which fairly everyone engages from time to time and can be described as a fundamental social psychological process of evaluating oneself and
others (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). Upward (or negative) social comparison often results in feelings of inadequacy, envy, and depression. However, not everyone engages in social com-parison and those who do vary in the intensity and consequent evaluation of social compari-son information – the degree to which they feel they are better or worse off than others (Lee, 2014; De Vries, Möller, Wieringa, Eigenraam & Hamelink, 2017; De Vries & Kühne, 2015; Lup, Trup & Rosenthal, 2015). This is an important factor to keep in mind when thinking about the design of effective intervention strategies.
Like no other platform, Instagram encourages the use of techniques to optimize self-presentation by allowing users to carefully curate their profiles. By selecting specific content in which positive attributes of oneself are highlighted or by associating oneself with certain people, symbols and material objects, users virtually manage their impressions and present an idealized self (Ellison, Heino & Gibbs, 2006; Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Dominick, 1999; Schau & Gilly, 2003). This bias could possibly be corrected with more balanced and realistic information, which can be communicated through forewarning interventions (Chou & Edge, 2012; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).
Forewarning messages should respectively inform the users of (1) the persuasive in-tent of the source and (2) the distorted reality portrayed on Instagram, or in other words the manipulative character (Ellison et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2014; Marwick, 2015). Persuasion ap-plies to Instagram content and its tendency of showing only the most favorable aspects of user’s lives and manipulating or enhancing images to convince others of those idealized ver-sions of themselves. Forewarnings of persuasive intent should make people aware of this. Ad-ditionally, forewarnings of manipulative intent do not only warn people about the fact that they might be persuaded but also that this might occur in a deceptive manner (Rozendaal, Buijs & van Reijmersdal., 2016; Fransen & Mollen, 2017; Fransen et al., 2015). The process works by arousing the unpleasant feeling of being unfairly manipulated (Rozendaal et al., 2016; Sagarin, Serna, Cialdini & Rice, 2002; Fransen et al., 2015). This is expected to func-tion as a defense mechanism that leads to a decreased desire to comply with the portrayed
norms and reduced favorable thoughts about them (Rozendaal et al., 2016). According to this reasoning it is assumed that the forewarning of manipulative intent will have a stronger (more positive) effect on users’ self-esteem and life satisfaction.
Generally, Instagram content should not be interpreted as a compelling information source and valid scale for comparison. Essentially, the myth of photographic truth should be discredited, and people should engage less in social comparison (Ellison et al., 2006). The goal of an intervention in form of forewarnings is to make users less susceptible to engage in (upward) social comparison by presenting them information about the nature of Instagram content (= manipulative nature) and the highlighted content as such (= persuasive intent). Us-ers should compare themselves to unattainable ideals less strongly – for the sake of their well-being. Here, the term wellbeing refers to self-esteem and satisfaction with one’s life, which are the dependent variables of this study (Diener & Chan, 2011; Verduyn, 2017; Diener, 2009; Myers & Diener, 1995).
The most influential conceptualization of self-esteem was introduced by Rosenberg (1965) who also provided a questionnaire to measure the concept. He divided people into two groups: (1) those who evaluate themselves as “very good” and (2) those who evaluate them-selves as “good enough”, compared to the average person (Rosenberg, 1965; Yamasaki, Uchida, Yokoshima & Kaya, 2017). People in the second category usually think they are among the average population and are overall satisfied with themselves. However, they acknowledge their own inadequacies, which they hope to eventually overcome (Yamasaki et al., 2017). Pope and colleagues defined self-esteem as the evaluation of information regarding one’s self-concept (Pope, McHale, & Craighead, 1988). According to James (1980), this eval-uation consists of both the perceived self (how you think you are like) and the ideal self (how you would like to be). Regarding a person’s overall mental health, self-esteem is negatively associated with depression and therefore an important factor to study in the context of detri-mental social media effects (Sowislo & Orh, 2013; Yamasaki et al., 2017)When a person has low self-esteem, or feels like there are discrepancies between who they are and who they
admire to be, they are susceptible to suffer feelings of inadequacy and anxiety (Buunk & Gib-bons, 2007). Evaluating oneself in comparison to the positive images commonly encountered on Instagram is therefore likely to be detrimental for one’s self-concept (Chou & Edge, 2012; Fox & Moreland, 2015; Santarossa, 2015; Valkenburg, Peter & Schouten, 2006).
Life satisfaction refers to the extent to which individuals evaluate and experience their lives as positive or negative (Busseri, 2018; Kjell et al., 2016; Diener et al., 1984). Hence it is a global and subjective judgment concerning one's life as a whole (Busseri, 2018; Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999). Diener et al. (1984) assume that life satisfaction is the main cognitive construct for a person’s well-being and ultimately requirement for happiness (i.e. being satisfied with your life in all aspects). Similar to self-esteem, life satisfaction empha-sizes and compares the actual (what a person has achieved so far) and expected circum-stances (what a person wants to achieve) of one’s life quality (Kjell et al., 2016, Diener et al. 1985). When exposed to positive content on Instagram, where people are frequently bet-ter looking than you and appear to be more popular and successful, such impressions can be used as references for comparison which results in negative consequences for your own life-satisfaction (Brunskill, 2013; Busseri, 2018; Chou & Edge, 2012; Verduyn et al., 2017). The use of forewarnings seems like a valuable strategy to limit the experience of those before mentioned negative consequences for self-esteem and life satisfaction. Research on forewarnings was first conducted in the context of cognitive motivational models of persua-sion and information processing such as Chaiken’s (1989) heuristic-systematic model (HSM) or Petty & Cacioppo’s (1983) elaboration likelihood model (ELM). The models’ overall as-sumption is that information processing can be based on peripheral cues (i.e. heuristics) or be more systematic and central (i.e. more elaborate) and occupy a respective amount of cognitive capacity (Chen, Reardon, Rea & Moore, 1992). In heuristic processing, judgments are made less effortful and more quickly. Whenever individuals do not have the motivation or ability to systematically process information, heuristics can be helpful. However, those heuristics might additionally bias processing and ultimately enhance persuasion. Additionally, message
processing can differ if a viewer is made aware of the persuasive intent of a message – ide-ally, people will then evaluate message and source more critically and resist persuasion (Lee, 2010). Instagram content is usually viewed and evaluated using mostly heuristic processing. The number of likes and comments as well as overall image characteristics (i.e. scenery, con-tent and mood) function as cues (= heuristics) that get falsely attributed to personality traits of the source rather than the situations or highlights they actually are and thereby eventually re-sult in skewed impressions and assumptions that others are living better lives (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973; Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Weinstein, 2017). For example: If a post has a lot of likes, people might assume that the person posting the image is also very popular in real life even though there is no direct link or evidence for this assumption. Another assumption could be that people who frequently post images from their luxury vacations must be more successful and happier than the average person. Relying on the available heuristics of Insta-gram content is problematic, since they produce biased images of what is real. This bias should be targeted in the specific intervention designed for this study.
H1: When browsing positive Instagram content, people who are exposed to either the forewarning of manipulative intent or the forewarning of persuasive intent, will have higher self-esteem and be more satisfied with their life than people in the control condition with no forewarning.
With the daily updates posted on SNS such as Instagram, rich layers of personal infor-mation and suitable material for social comparison is provided (Yang & Robinson, 2018). However, in previous studies the assumed role of social comparison that occurs on social me-dia has been ambiguous so far. While some researchers see it as a rather affective emotional state (Verduyn, 2017; Stapleton, Luiz & Chatwin, 2017; Lup et al., 2015), others define it as a pre-existing character trait (De Vries et al., 2017; Lee, 2014; De Vries & Kühne, 2015; Yang & Robinson, 2018). The former perspective will be applied in this particular study due to the
assumption that social comparison is determined by online browsing behavior and in turn shapes subsequent evaluations of oneself and one’s life. When exposed to a forewarning, us-ers are believed to evaluate themselves (self-esteem) and their lives (life satisfaction) differ-ently (namely more positive), because they compare themselves less to the persons posting images on Instagram. On account of this, state social comparison (SSC) is assumed to mediate the relationship of forewarnings and their effect on user’s self-esteem and life satisfaction. In the digital context, social comparison is operationalized as comparing with others’ popularity and social skills or generating an overall assessment of their lifestyle in regards of whether oneself is doing better or worse relative to those others (Feinstein, Hershenberg, Bhatia, et al., 2013; Vogel et al., 2015; de Vries & Kühne, 2015). This assessment is based on the online available information, in this case Instagram posts. Individuals who heavily com-pare themselves to others on Instagram experience more negative feelings, poorer self-evalua-tion and lowered self-esteem (Lee, 2014; Vogel et al., 2015, Yang & Robinson, 2018). The overall consequence is poor mental health and wellbeing (Feinstein et al., 2013). Various re-searchers have already established that social comparison has important implications for well-being, among which self-esteem and life satisfaction (Yang & Robinson, 2018; Lee, 2014; Vogel et al., 2015; Brunskill, 2013; Fox & Moreland, 2015). Social comparison on Instagram might elicit particularly strong and negative (psycho-emotional) reactions because of the rich visual context in which most users selectively present more positive and favorable infor-mation about themselves as previously termed “positivity bias” (Yang, 2016; Yang & Brown, 2016; Gardner & Davis, 2013; Yang & Robinson, 2018; Greenwood et al., 2016). Previous research supports this idea by showing that on social media typically negative or upward so-cial comparison occurs (Johnson & Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014; Vogel et al., 2015). On the other hand, a study by Yang & Robinson (2018) provided proof that social comparison is not necessarily detrimental but can also facilitate the exchange of useful infor-mation and act as a positive drive. However, in this context the detrimental effects of state so-cial comparison (SSC) for self-esteem and overall life satisfaction are of interest, since they
pose a threat to a person’s wellbeing (Feinstein et al., 2013). It is assumed that state social comparison (SSC) mediates the effect forewarnings have on self-esteem and life satisfaction in a way that the forewarnings will limit the process of SSC, so that the people are less sus-ceptible to detrimental social media effects. People who are exposed to a forewarning will compare themselves to others less strongly and will therefore benefit from the forewarning interventions with higher self-esteem and life satisfaction. Overall, users should be enabled to develop a better understanding and more accurate interpretation of the positively-skewed con-tent Instagram presents them to ultimately be less susceptible of evaluating their own lives as worse off.
H2: People who are exposed to a forewarning will experience increased self-esteem and are more satisfied with their lives as compared to people who do not see a forewarning, because they engage less in state social comparison.
As stated before, the main goal of the intervention is to encourage users to engage less in social comparison by shedding light on Instagram’s function as highlight-reel rather than realistic criterion to assess people’s happiness. The success of these interventions however de-pends on the exposure to a forewarning and the subsequent extent to which users compare themselves to the Instagram images. The expected effects as described in the hypotheses can be found below in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model Forewarning
State Social Comparison
Self-esteem Life satisfaction
Methodology Participants and design
The experiment used a between-subjects design in which the independent variable had three levels: (1) forewarning of manipulative intent, (2) forewarning of persuasive intent and (3) control condition. The dependent variables of the study were self-esteem and life-satisfac-tion. Additionally, state social comparison was measured as a mediator. Besides those
measures, control variables such as age, gender, ethnicity and intensity of personal Instagram usage were measured. In total, 221 individuals participated in the study. However, not all of them fulfilled the requirements (N = 42) or finished the survey (N = 46). All respondents were required to be registered on Instagram and fall into the age range of 18-25 years in order to be eligible to take part in the experiment. After cleaning the data set, the sample consists of 133 respondents who fulfilled the requirements and completed the whole survey. 81.2 % of them were females and 18.8 % were males. On average, the respondents were M = 23.53 (SD = 1.57) years old. 61.7 % of the respondents completed a bachelor’s degree and 45.9 % of the respondents came from Germany, while 20.3 % were of Dutch nationality. The total number of respondents was divided fairly equally to the three experimental conditions (forewarning of manipulative intent (n = 46), forewarning of persuasive intent (n = 44), control condition (n = 43). Respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions. The sampling method that was used is termed convenience sampling, since the participants were recruited in the researcher’s personal network of friends and acquaintances on Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram, as well as within social network groups centered around recruitment of research participants. Recruit-ment took place solely online by distributing the link to the online experiRecruit-ment built in the software Qualtrics. No incentives or compensation was offered in exchange for participation. Materials
The experiment was conducted within the digital platform Qualtrics and could be com-pleted on any device with internet access such as smartphones, computers and tablets. All re-spondents completed a list of questions before and after being exposed to images that were
specifically designed for this study. A total number of 12 photos were designed to look like Instagram posts. Six images portrayed women, one showed a couple and the remaining five pictures displayed men. All images can be described as positive content because the scenery and people are presented in a generally favorable way. The bodies are slender and trained and the settings include popular travel destinations with paradise like attributes such as oceans, beaches and exotic landscapes. The source of the photos was a fictive account named “in-staphotos”, which was anonymous and not linked to any personal information or attributes (such as profile picture or indication of gender, age or country of origin). All images came from the same fictive source, featured a constant number of likes (eight-thousand) and made use of various hashtags describing the content. This was chosen to make the images look as realistic and authentic as possible. The material can be found in the appendix.
Independent variable: Type of forewarning
The forewarnings were manipulated by means of two images that displayed written warning messages, which should help users to engage less in social comparison when brows-ing positive Instagram content. (1) The forewarnbrows-ing of manipulative intent reads: “Be aware: Images on Instagram only portray highlights of a person’s life”, while (2) the forewarning of persuasive intent reads: “Be aware: People on Instagram want you to believe that their life is as perfect as their pictures”. According to the title, the forewarning of manipulative intent fo-cuses on the platform’s positivity bias and its function as a highlight reel rather than the re-flection of realistic standards which unfairly manipulates those seeing the images. The fore-warning of persuasive intent focuses on the senders attempt to make others believe that one’s life is indeed as perfect as the images on Instagram and trying to convince them of unattaina-ble ideals. The layout of the forewarning messages was inspired by a recently introduced fea-ture of Instagram, where users are notified as soon as they have seen all posts of the last two to three days. The exact design of the manipulation can be found in the appendix. Next to those two experimental conditions (i.e. the two distinct forewarnings), a third condition was present that featured no forewarning but only showed the simulated Instagram posts and
therefore functioned as a control condition.
Mediator: State social comparison (SSC)
To measure the state of social comparison, respondents indicated whether or not they compared themselves to the persons on the photos on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The average extent of social comparison that oc-curred within the sample is M = 3.39 (SD = 1.79), which is a low to medium value. Further-more, the participants were asked with which of the adjectives in a total of 11 items they agree or disagree. The items all began with “In comparison to the photos I just saw, I feel…” and then gave both positive and negative adjectives such as less talented, more attractive, more likeable and undesirable, which could all be rated on a seven-point Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. This scale was taken from Allan & Gilbert (1995) and adapted to measure the state immediately following the exposure to experimental stimulus. For the purpose of further analyses, items 1, 3, 4, 8 and 10were reverse coded. A confirma-tory principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted with the 11 items to form a uni-di-mensional scale: only one factor is extracted (eigenvalue 4.35) that explains 39.53% of the variance in the original items. All 11 items load positively on this component, the variable "In comparison to the photos I just saw, I feel less talented" has the strongest association (factor loading is .83). The scale proved to be reliable with Cronbach’s alpha = .83. Therefore, it ap-pears the scale measures the state of social comparison as intended so that all items were com-bined by summing up their mean average to form a scale.
Dependent variable: Self-esteem
To measure participant’s self-esteem the renowned Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965) was adapted to measure a specific state at a moment in time. The scale was limited to 4 items (number 3,6,7, and 10 of the original scale) as previously done by Geukes et al. (2017) who in turn took it from Nezlek and Plesko (2003) and Denissen, Penke, Schmitt and Van Aken (2008). The negatively phrased items 1 and 4 were reverse coded and a principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted. The PCA shows that the 4 items form a single
uni-dimensional scale where only one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.50) that explains 62.44% of the total variance in the original items. Additionally, the scree plot shows a clear point of inflexion after this component. All items correlate positively with the factor and the variable "At the moment I have a positive attitude towards myself" has the strongest association (factor loading is .83). Afterwards, all items were combined into a scale by their mean average. With Cronbach’s alpha = .79 the scale measures the participant’s self-esteem at the moment in question reliably.
Dependent variable: Life satisfaction
Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin’s Satisfaction with Life Scale (1984) has been slightly altered to focus on the very moment in time after seeing the stimulus material. The goal was to capture respondent’s life satisfaction after being exposed to images and forewarn-ings. Additionally, the last and fifth item was deleted prior to data collection due to its focus on past experiences and an overall assessment of one’s life satisfaction rather than a state. A principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the 4 items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 2.84) and in the scree plot there is a clear breaking point after this component. The factor explains 70.92% of the vari-ance in the original variables. All 4 items correlate positively with the factor, the variable "At this moment in time, I am satisfied with my life" has the strongest association (factor loading is .91). A scale was created with the four items’ mean average, that proved highly reliable with Cronbach’s alpha = .86.
Procedure
Data collection took place for two weeks in December 2018, beginning on 14th and ending on 28th of December. During the data collection period all respondents completed the self-administered online experiment. On average, the completion took around 5 minutes. Af-ter giving their informed consent, the participants were asked basic demographic questions and control variables, as well as the important filter question of whether or not the respondent
uses Instagram. If they did not use Instagram, they were directed to the end of the experiment and excluded from the sample. Other than that, Instagram related user behavior was captured in a range of questions reflecting on the intensity and longevity of use. Afterwards partici-pants were exposed to the twelve images and respective of their randomized group assign-ment they also saw one of the forewarnings between the images. Immediately after exposure to the images, the respondents were asked to answer a few questions measuring the dependent variables and finally the respondents were thanked for their participation and told to close the browser.
Results
Manipulation Check
The first question regarding the manipulation check intended to see if participants cor-rectly recalled whether they have been exposed to a warning message. Of the respondents that saw the forewarning of manipulative intent, 33 correctly remembered to have seen a text mes-sage in between the images (49.3%), while 13 did not recall seeing the mesmes-sage (19.7%) (n = 46). With the forewarning of persuasive intent similar results are achieved: 30 respondents correctly remembered seeing the warning (68.2%) and 14 did not recall seeing it (31.8%) (n = 44). The control condition had the smallest error rate, where 39 subjects correctly recalled not to have been exposed to a warning (90.7%) and only 4 respondents incorrectly assumed to have seen a warning (9.3%) (n = 43). A Pearson’s Chi-squared test indicated a strong effect and proved that there was an association between the type of forewarning and recall of seeing that said warning χ2 (2, N = 133) = 43.00, p < .001, V = .569.
The second question in the manipulation check assessed whether respondents could correctly recall which of the two warning messages they have seen. 30 subjects correctly re-membered to have seen the warning of manipulative intent (90.9%), while 3 thought to have seen the warning of persuasive intent (8.8%) (n = 33). All 30 respondents who have been ex-posed to the warning of persuasive intent correctly remembered seeing that said warning (n =
30). In the control group, 3 subjects incorrectly assumed to have seen the forewarning of ma-nipulative intent (75%) and 1 person incorrectly remembered to have been exposed to the forewarning of persuasive intent (25%), while in fact, none of the 4 respondents saw a warn-ing (n = 4).
In conclusion, the manipulation check of the experiment was unsuccessful, because not all respondents correctly indicated if they have seen a warning and which warning they have been exposed to. However, the majority correctly recalled the manipulation and for the remaining respondents it cannot be guaranteed that they have not seen the manipulation after all or that it perhaps influenced them subconsciously. All further analyses were therefore per-formed both with (n = 133) and without (n = 101) participants who failed the manipulation check, but the results were similar. Due to this similarity it was chosen to include the entire sample (N = 133) and report the results of all further analyses without excluding those who failed the manipulation check.
Hypothesis one
A one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) was conducted to assess the influence of exposure to a forewarning message on self-esteem and life satisfaction, thereby testing the study’s first hypothesis. The independent variable, type of forewarning, has three levels: The forewarning of manipulative intent, forewarning of persuasive intent and the control condi-tion, where no forewarning message was included. The assumption of equal variances in the population has been fulfilled for both dependent variables, self-esteem (SE) and life satisfac-tion (LS), and was tested with Levene's FSE (2,130) = .68, p = .507 and Levene’s FLS (2,130) =
1.00, p = .372.
However, no statistically significant effect was found between groups in regard to their self-esteem, F (2, 132) = .73, p = .486, Eta2 = .011, and their life satisfaction F (2, 132)
= 2.10, p = .126, Eta2 = .031. Hence, it cannot be guaranteed that the results occurred due to
This means that there is no statistical support for the first hypothesis of this study. Respond-ents who were exposed to a forewarning message did not differ from subjects in the control condition. The results are summarized in Table 1.
Hypothesis two
In order to test the second hypothesis, two separate regression analyses were con-ducted with the Process Macro (version 3.2.10) for IBM SPSS (version 24). Model 4 for sim-ple mediation was chosen.
In Step 1 of the first mediation model, the regression of experimental condition on self-esteem was not statistically significant, b = -.10, t (131) = -.87, p = .388. Step 2 showed that the regression of experimental condition on the mediator, state social comparison, was also not significant, b = .05, t (131) = .55, p = .581. Step 3 of the mediation process showed that the relationship between the mediator (measured by the state social comparison scale) was significant, when controlling for experimental condition b = -.59, t (130) = -6.55, p < .001. Step 4 of the analyses revealed that, controlling for the mediator (state social compari-son), experimental condition was not a significant predictor of self-esteem, b = -.07, t (130) = -.68, p = .499.No significant indirect effect was found of experimental condition on the
Table 1 Life satisfaction n M SD Forewarning of manipu-lative intent 46 4.71 1.23 Forewarning of persua-sive intent 44 4.14 1.54 Control Condition 43 4.54 1.25 Self-esteem n M SD Forewarning of manipu-lative intent 46 5.57 .98 Forewarning of persua-sive intent 44 5.30 1.19 Control Condition 43 5.37 1.13
mediator, state social comparison. It can therefore be assumed that state social comparison does not mediate the effect of type of forewarning on self-esteem.
In the first step of the second mediation model, the regression of experimental condi-tion on life satisfaccondi-tion came out to be not statistically significant, b = -.09, t (131) = -.61, p = .542.As previously demonstrated above, step 2 showed that the regression of experimental condition on the mediator, state social comparison, was also not significant, b = .05, t (131) = .55, p= .581. Step 3 of the mediation process showed that, when controlling for experimental condition, the mediator (state social comparison) significantly predicted the influence of type of forewarning on life satisfaction, b = -.59, t (130) = -5.11, p < .001. Step 4 of the analyses revealed that, controlling for the mediator (state social comparison), experimental condition was not a significant predictor of life satisfaction, b = -.05, t (130) = -.42, p = .675. Ulti-mately, state social comparison is not assumed to mediate the relationship between experi-mental condition and life satisfaction.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the impact of different types of forewarning messages to self-esteem and life satisfaction of people who are exposed to positive Instagram content. In addition, the role of state social comparison as a mediator of the relationship be-tween forewarnings and self-esteem and life satisfaction was tested. The findings will be dis-cussed in the following section.
The outcomes point out that approximately half of the participants indeed engages in social comparison when browsing the simulated Instagram posts. This process is in line with previous studies and assumptions, which argue that fairly everyone engages in (upward) so-cial comparison when using SNS (Johnson & Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014; Vogel et al., 2015; Yang & Robinson, 2018). However, the types of forewarnings were found to have no effect on users’ self-esteem and life satisfaction and do not affect state social comparison. State social comparison in turn does not mediate the relationship but does influence
self-esteem and life satisfaction of the participants either. When a forewarning message is present, the extent to which people engage in state social comparison does not vary. However, SSC affects both dependent variables self-esteem and life satisfaction in the hypothesized direc-tion. These findings only partially support the second hypothesis of this study but fully sup-port the results of Lup et al. (2015) and Stapleton et al. (2017), who also did not find signifi-cant evidence for the mediating role of social comparison. However, Lup et al. (2015) investi-gated the effects of frequency of Instagram use on depressive symptoms and included social comparison as a mediator and the number of strangers followed as a moderator in their model. Stapleton et al. (2017) also examined the frequency of Instagram use and its effects on self-esteem, with social comparison on Instagram as a mediator. Additionally, they tested the fluence of self-worth approval from others on self-esteem. Therefore, none of the studies in-vestigated forewarnings or interventions which makes exact comparisons problematic. It might be necessary to overthink the role of social comparison accordingly and apply other re-searcher’s conceptualization of social comparison as being a pre-existing character trait and therefore a moderator (Fardouly, Diedrichs, Vartanian & Halliwell, 2015; De Vries et al., 2018; Yang & Robinson, 2018). Further research regarding this aspect is necessary.
Since the aim of testing an intervention to encourage users to engage less in social comparison on Instagram is novel, it is hard to align the present study with concrete research findings from previous studies. To date no such attempt has been made in an effort to limit so-cial comparison on Instagram. The present study therefore adds to the body of research by set-ting a first example. In contrast to the study by Haas et al. (2012), where a media intervention that provided more accurate and truthful facts positively affected respondents’ wellbeing, no such effect was found in the study at hand. This might however be due to the fact, that a dif-ferent media platform as well as difdif-ferent dependent variables were studied. A possible argu-ment to explain the failure of the presented intervention is provided by Chen et al. (1990), where task involvement and distraction were measured as additional mediators from which the success of forewarning messages was highly dependent. In their study, some of the
respondents completed a distraction task after being exposed to the warning. In comparison to the undistracted group, those individuals indicated less resistance to persuasion. The personal involvement (i.e. how important a topic is to you personally) also affected the results: People who were highly involved in the topic and not distracted resisted persuasion more success-fully. Since Instagram is a platform with a lot of features and visual stimuli, it is possible that images can function as a distraction from the warning message, which subsequently lowers their effectiveness. Placing the warning message more prominently so it can stick out from the regular content, might solve this. Furthermore, a measure of task involvement could be added by future research. Due to the insignificant results that were achieved in the present study it would be valuable to replicate this research in order to validate the results and as-sumptions.
Limitations and implications for future research
The current study contains some limitations that are important to consider. First, there were only two types of forewarning messages for which only one message was formulated re-spectively. Future research might examine the impact of more than two forewarnings by for-mulating and including additional messages and comparing several messages in each condi-tion. Based on those different messages future research might find different results that would be interesting for both policy makers and users. Another limitation is the relatively small sam-ple size and the clear overrepresentation of females and highly educated individuals. Findings might differ for males and individuals coming from other academic backgrounds, which is an important aspect to consider. Furthermore, the majority of participants came from Germany and the Netherlands, representing more than half of the entire ethnical division throughout the sample. Generalization of the findings might be problematic due to this overrepresentation of two ethnical groups. Moreover, the use of a convenience sampling method may present threats to the study's external validity. In order to test if the hypotheses hold true in other con-texts (e.g. ethnicity, gender, age range and academic background), a replication of this study
would be valuable.
Even though the respondents were filtered regarding their age, the total age group is older than what was hoped to achieve. As previous researchers pointed out, the effect of so-cial comparison is strongest for young people (Reece & Danforth, 2017; Sheldon & Bryant, 2016; Arnett, 2004; Mullin, 2017. By applying a different age requirement (e.g. 14-20 years) findings might be different. The insignificant findings could be explained by the fact that the success of interventions is believed to be depending on the intensity of social comparison. As demonstrated above, the scores for state social comparison are low in the sample. If social comparison does not occur as strongly as anticipated within a sample, the intervention might not be needed and subsequently not affect the dependent variables in the hypothesized way. Shifting the focus towards a younger age group might solve this.
Since none of the findings were statistically significant and variance is unaccounted for, it might be meaningful to adjust the design for future studies. Self-esteem and life satis-faction are possibly variables for which effects might need more time to solidify. The moment in time immediately after being exposed to the intervention (warning message) might not be an adequate measure for the outcome variables. Future research might want to consider a longer time span to test the effectiveness of interventions. In this regard it is plausible to ei-ther chose a more mood-oriented dependent variable or to adapt the research design accord-ingly and make use of longitudinal methods, allowing to gain deeper understanding of the processes at hand. Generally, evidence of the mediating role of social comparison on Insta-gram might be easier to establish with more precise measures of specific user behavior and the inclusion of psychological traits known to affect social comparison. This could be a start-ing point for other research regardstart-ing Instagram’s threats to personal wellbestart-ing as described by Feinstein et al. (2013). Another possible explanation for the findings could be that people are already aware of the biased content on Instagram but willingly accept it. Maybe the inter-vention has to target other aspects and work in different ways (e.g. reaffirming users of their own positive attitudes and traits).
Instagram is a growing platform and highly popular among a broad age group. Addi-tionally, the concerns about its detrimental potential are rising. Continuing research in this field is therefore critical to help users understand and anticipate the detrimental potential of Instagram and the dynamics of social comparison. With successful interventions in form of forewarnings it might be possible to achieve better coping mechanisms and provide users with more control over their personal consequences of social networking sites usage. However, it is also possible to replicate the present study by testing a different type of intervention: for in-stance, media literacy trainings or the inclusion of counterarguments. Overall, the present study should be seen as a suggestion for the development of effective forewarning messages or interventions regarding negative social media effects of Instagram in general, that would enable officials and individuals to reduce said detrimental impact, attributed to upward social comparison with positive Instagram content, and foster positive outcomes, as outlined by De Vries & Kühne (2015) and Yang & Robinson (2018).
References
Allan, S., & Gilbert, P. (1995). A social comparison scale: Psychometric properties and rela-tionship to psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(3), 293-299. DOI: 10.1016/0191-8869(95)00086-L
Arnett, J.J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brunskill, D. (2013). Social media, social avatars and the psyche: is Facebook good for us? Australasian Psychiatry, 21(6), 527–532. DOI: 10.1177/1039856213509289
Brusilovskiy, E., Townley, G., Snethen, G., & Salzer. M. S. (2016). Social media use, com-munity participation and psychological well-being among individuals with serious men-tal illnesses. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 232-240. DOI:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.036
Busseri, M.A. (2018). Examining the structure of subjective well-being through meta-analysis of the associations among positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. Personal-ity and Individual Differences, 122, 68-71.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emer-gence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. DOI:
10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.007
Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1983). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 673
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing in per-suasion context. In Uleman, J., & Bargh, J. (Eds.), Unintended thought (p. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
Chen, H. C., Reardon, R., Rea, C., & Moore, D. J. (1992). Forewarning of content and in-volvement: Consequences for persuasion and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 28, 523-541. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(92)90044-K
Chou, H., & Edge, N. (2012). “They Are Happier and Having Better Lives than I Am”: The Impact of Using Facebook on Perceptions of Others’ Lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 117–121. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0324
Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357-404.
Denissen, J., Penke, L., Schmitt, D., & Van Aken, M. (2008). Self-esteem reactions to social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and
na-tions. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 95(1), 181-196.
De Vries, D. A., & Kühne, R. (2015). Facebook and self-perception: Individual susceptibility to negative social comparison on Facebook. PAID, 86, 217–221. DOI:
10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.029
De Vries, D. A., Möller, A. M., Wieringa, M. S., Eigenraam, A. W., & Hamelink, K. (2017). Social comparison as the Thief of Joy: Emotional Consequences of Viewing Strangers’ Instagram Posts. Media Psychology, 21(2), 222-245. DOI:
10.1080/15213269.2016.1267647
Diener, E. Y., & Chan, M. (2011). Happy People Live Longer: Subjective Well-Being Contributes to Health and Longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1-43.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-5.
Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J.F. (2009). Well-Being for Public Policy, New York: Oxford University Press.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
Dominick, J. R. (1999). Who Do You Think You Are? Personal Home Pages and Self-Presen-tation on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(4), 646–658. DOI: 10.1177/107769909907600403
Eid, M. I. M., & Al-Jabri, I. M. (2016). Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: The case of university students. Computers & Education, 99, 14–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.007
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (n.d.). Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2015). Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body image concerns and mood. Body Image, 13, 38–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.12.002
Feinstein B, Hershenberg R, Bhatia V, et al. (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: rumination as a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 161–170.
Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083
Fransen, M. L., & Mollen, S. (2017). Resistance Induction in the Context of Health Decision Making. In J. F. Nussbaum (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Communica-tion (Oxford Research Encyclopedias). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acre-fore/9780190228613.013.524
Fransen, M. L., Smit, E. G., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2015). Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: an integrative framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. DOI:
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01201
Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). Whither digital natives? The American Scholar, 82(4), 14-15.
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Küfner, A., et al. (2017). Puffed-Up But Shaky Selves: State Self-Esteem Level and Variability in Narcissists. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 769-786.
Gilbert, D., Malone, P., & Steinberg, Robert J. (1995). The Correspondence Bias. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 117(1), 21-38.
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016
Haas, C. J., Pawlow, L. A., Pettibone, J., & Seorist, D. J. (2012). An Intervention for the Neg-ative Influence of Media on Body Esteem. College Student Journal, 46(2), 405-418.
Haferkamp, N., Krämer, N. (2016). Social comparison 2.0: examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 14, 309–314.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V.L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the so-cial media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54(3), 265-273.
Hayes, A.F. (2013). PROCESS for SPSS (Version 3.2.10) [Computer software]. Andrew F. Hayes. Available from http://www.process-macro.org/download.html
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, et al. (2010) Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2014). Glancing up or down: Mood management and selective social comparisons on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 33-39.
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportuni-ties of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007
Kim, J., & Lee, J. (2011). The Facebook Paths to Happiness: Effects of the Number of Face-book Friends and Self-Presentation on Subjective Well-Being. Cyberpsychology, Behav-ior, and Social Networking,14(6), 359-364.
Kim, K., Sin, S. J., & Tsai, T. (2014). Individual Differences in Social Media Use for Infor-mation Seeking. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 171-178.
La Sala, L., Skues, J., Wise, L., & Theiler, S. (2015). Chasing the ‘like’: Adolescent use of social networking sites in Australia. Annual Review of Cyber Therapy and Telemedicine, 13, 102-106.
Lee, S. (2010). Ad-induced affect: The effects of forewarning, affect intensity, and prior brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(4), 225-237.
Lee S. How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites?: The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 32:253–260.
Lup, K., Trub, L., & Rosenthal, L. (2015) Instagram #Instasad? Exploring Associations Among Instagram Use, Depressive Symptoms, Negative Social Comparison, and Strangers Followed. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(5). 247-252.
Marwick, Alice E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury Selfies in the Attention Economy. Public Cul-ture, 27(1), 137-160.
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cy-berpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(4), 357-64.
Mullin, A. C. (2017). #Comparison: An Examination of Social Comparison Orientation on In-stagram as It Relates to Self-Esteem and State Anxiety. Scripps College, Master Thesis. Retrieved from https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1043/
Myers, D., & Diener, E. (2018). The Scientific Pursuit of Happiness. Perspectives on Psycho-logical Science,13(2), 218-225.
Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M. (2003). Affect- and self-based models of relationships between daily events and daily well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 584-596.
Park, M., Choi, J-S.., Park, S. M., Lee, J. Y., Jung, H. Y., Sohn, B. K. et al. (2016). Dysfunc-tional information processing during an auditory event-related potential task in individu-als with Internet gaming disorder. Translational Psychiatry, 6(1), 721.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 645-655. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.645
Reece, A. G., & Danforth, C. M. (2017). Instagram photos reveal predictive markers of depression. EPJ Data Science, 6(1), 1-12.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rozendaal, E., Buijs, L., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2016). Strengthening chil-dren’s advertising defenses: The effects of forewarning of commercial and manipulative intent. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI:
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01186
Sagarin, B., Cialdini, R., Rice, W., Serna, S., & Devine, Patricia. (2002). Dispelling the Illu-sion of Invulnerability: The Motivations and Mechanisms of Resistance to Persua-sion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 526-541.
Santarossa, S. (2015). #SocialMedia: Exploring the Associations of Social Networking Sites and Body Image, Self-Esteem, Disordered Eating and/or Eating Disorders and the Im-pact of a Media Literacy Intervention. Retrieved from
Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We Are What We Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Web Space. Source: Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404. DOI:
10.1086/378616
Sowislo J. F., Orh U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 213–240. DOI:
10.1037/a0028931
Stapleton, P., Luiz, G., & Chatwin, H. (2017). Generation Validation: The Role of Social Comparison in Use of Instagram Among Emerging Adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(3), 142–149. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0444
Steers, M. N., Wickham, R.E., & Acitelli, L. (2014). Seeing everyone else’s highlight reels: How Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(8), 701-731. DOI: 10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.701
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Dis-closure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend Networking Sites and Their Relationship to Adolescents’ Well-Being and Social Self-Esteem. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9(5), 584–590. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584
Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do Social Network Sites Enhance or Undermine Subjective Well-Being? A Critical Review. Social Issues and Policy Review (Vol. 11). DOI: 10.1111/sipr.12033
Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Okdie, B. M., Eckles, K., & Franz, B. (2015). Who compares and despairs? The effect of social comparison orientation on social media use and its out-comes. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 249-256.
Weinstein, E. (2017). Adolescents’ differential responses to social media browsing: Exploring causes and consequences for intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 396–405. DOI: 10.1016/J.CHB.2017.07.038
Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analytic syntheses of forewarning of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin. DOI:
10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.119
Yamasaki, K., Uchida, K., Yokoshima, T., & Kaya, I. (2017). Reconstruction of the Concep-tualization of Self-Esteem and Methods for Measurement: Renovating Self-Esteem Re-search. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 7(5), 135-141.
Yang, C.C. (2016). Instagram Use, Loneliness, and Social Comparison Orientation: Interact and Browse on Social Media, But Don’t Compare. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and So-cial Networking, 19(12), 703-708.
Yang C. C, & Brown, B. B. (2016). Online self-presentation on Facebook and Self-develop-ment during the college transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 402–416.
Yang, C. C., & Robinson, A. (2018). Not necessarily detrimental: Two social comparison ori-entations and their associations with social media use and college social adjustment. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 49-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.020
Abstract
Start of Block: Introduction
Dear participant,
This study is conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam. The research is about young people’s Instagram use. In this online experiment, a series of questions will be asked. It takes around 10 minutes to complete the whole questionnaire.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Am-sterdam, we can guarantee that:
• Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this
• You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the re-search.
• Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact the project leader Hannah Lotz; hannah.lotz@student.uva.nl. Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
Thank you for your interest in this research project, your assistance is greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Hannah Lotz M.Sc. Persuasive Communication University of Amsterdam
Start of Block: Informed Consent
Q2 Informed consent
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study.
• I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
• If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission. • If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can
contact Hannah Lotz: hannah.lotz@student.uva.nl. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Com-mittee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020- 525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
o
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study.o
I do not want to participate in the research study.Start of Block: Age – Filter Question
Q4 How old are you?
▼ younger than 18 (1) ... 26 and older (10)
Start of Block: Demographics
Q5 Where are you originally from?
▼ AD - Andorra (1) ... ZW - Zimbabwe (250) Q6 What gender do you identify with?
o
Maleo
Femaleo
otherQ7 What is the highest academic degree you are currently holding? ▼ none (1) ... other (5)
Q8 What is your current employment status?
o
Unemployedo
Working part-timeo
Working full-timeStart of Block: Registration Instagram – Filter Question
Q9 Are you registered on Instagram?
o
Yeso
NoStart of Block: Instagram User Behavior
Q10 How long have you had an account on Instagram? ▼ less than a month (1) ... more than 5 years (9)
Q11 Generally, how often do you use Instagram?
o
nevero
almost nevero
sometimeso
fairly ofteno
very oftenQ12 How often do you send DMs (Direct Messages) on Instagram?
o
nevero
almost nevero
sometimeso
fairly ofteno
very oftenQ13 How often do you comment and/or like photos and videos?
o
nevero
almost nevero
sometimeso
fairly ofteno
very oftenQ14 How often do you post something on your Instagram account?
o
nevero
almost nevero
sometimeso
fairly ofteno
very oftenQ15 Roughly how many days a week do you browse Instagram?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q16 Roughly how many times a day do you go on Instagram?
o
0-1 times a dayo
2-3 times a dayo
3-5 times a dayo
5 -7 times a dayo
more than 7 times a dayStart of Block: Briefing Instagram posts
Q17 Now you will see a number of Instagram posts. Take as much time as you want but please pay close attention to the images.
Start of Block: Instagram Control Condition
original source:
@leoniehanne original source:
@gilles_souteyrand
original source:
Start of Block: Forewarning of Manipulative Intent
Start of Block: Forewarning of Persuasive intent
Start of Block: State Social Comparison (Mediator)
Q57 The following questions are about you.
Start of Block: Self-Esteem
Q64 If you think about yourself at this very point in time, how would you evaluate yourself? Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement to the following statements.
strongly disagree (1) disagree (2) slightly disagree (3) neutral (4) slightly agree (5) agree (6) strongly agree (7) Right now, I think I am a to-tal failure.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
At the moment I have a positive attitude towards myself.o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I am currently satisfied with myself.o
o
o
o
o
o
o
At this point in time I feelcom-pletely useless.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Start of Block: Manipulation Check1 – Filter Question
Q61 Have you seen a text message between the images?
o
Yeso
NoStart of Block: Manipulation Check2
Q62 Which message did you see?
o
Be aware: Images on Instagram only portray highlights of a person’s life.o
Be aware: People on Instagram want you to believe that their life is as perfect as their pictures.Start of Block: Debrief
Thank you for your time!
The actual aim of this study was to investigate whether the inclusion of forewarning mes-sages can affect how people evaluate themselves and their own lives after being exposed to seemingly perfect content on Instagram. Since it is assumed that Instagram can be espe-cially detrimental for younger users, it was necessary to be aged between 18 and 25 years. Furthermore, respondents had to be registered on Instagram.
You can now exit the browser or close the tab.
Kind regards, Hannah Lotz
M.Sc. Persuasive Communication University of Amsterdam
