• No results found

Investigating the role of audience and feedback in the relationship between posting different types of content on social media and young adults’ self-esteem

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Investigating the role of audience and feedback in the relationship between posting different types of content on social media and young adults’ self-esteem"

Copied!
39
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Between Posting Different Types of Content on Social Media and

Young Adults’ Self-Esteem

Natalia Wojacka 11108452

University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication

Communication Science: Entertainment Communication Thesis Supervisor: Annemarie van Oosten

February 3, 2017

Graduate School of

Communication

(2)

I would like to gratefully and sincerely thank my thesis supervisor, Annemarie van Oosten, for all her help, guidance, and patience (especially in terms of my statistical skills). I would also like to thank my parents who through their ambitions, determination and hard

(3)

Previous research on social networking sites (SNSs) has indicated the relationship between social media use and self-esteem. However, most research within this field has focused on social media use in general, omitting the importance of the content published by users themselves. Furthermore, still little is known about the impact of online reactions on young adults’ self-esteem, and the perceived audience that provides this feedback. In response to these gaps, the present study classifies published content as entertaining and meaningful, and further investigates the relationships between types of content and self-esteem, along with exploring the role of perceived audience and its feedback. In order to answer research questions a survey among 105 young adults (18-33 years old) was conducted. Overall few relationships were found. As indicated, positive feedback on published content enhances users’ self-esteem. Secondly, the type of audience that provides feedback matters while posting meaningful content, whereas it is not significant while publishing entertaining content. It has been shown that feedback on meaningful content received from best friends increases self-esteem. Conversely, feedback on meaningful content received from strangers decreases young adults’ self-esteem. Last but not least, this research provides a classification of different types of audience.

Key words: Social media, social networking sites, content, feedback, perceived

(4)

Introduction

The development of modern ways of communication based on Internet usage is constantly attracting an increasing amount of people, especially in emerging and developing economies (Poushter, 2016). In a nutshell, younger and well educated people with higher income are more likely to have greater access to the web (Poushter, 2016). According to

research, young people spend approximately 12 hours each day engaged with different types of media (Coyne, Padilla-Walker, & Howard, 2013), including 3.5 hours using the Internet, with most time being spent on communication and social networking sites (SNSs), entertainment, or activities related to education or work issues (Padilla-Walker, Nelson, Carroll, & Jensen, 2010). The primary feature of modern technologies and social networking sites is the chance to appear in the media and “broadcast” oneself to the globalised world by presenting online content consisting of photos, videos or status updates (Krämer & Winter, 2008). Due to the possibility of controlling and editing content users have the chance to decide what information they want to share or which pictures they want to publish, therefore they have greater impact on

presenting themselves online compared to face-to-face presentation (boyd, 2007; Krämer & Winter, 2008).

Despite the opportunity of possessing a control over online self-presentation, users are still susceptible to the influence of social media, especially in regard to the evaluation of one’s own values. By being continuously inherent on social media young adults activate the

processes related to perception (Bem, 1972), and furthermore present their online self-presentations on the evaluation of others, what may influence their level of self-worth. Receiving “likes” on pictures or other published content may provide a sense of

accomplishment and community acceptance, what also contribute to the overall well-being and self-esteem. Therefore, it is not surprising that several studies have found a relationship

(5)

between the usage of SNSs and self-esteem (e.g., Greitemeyer, Mügge, & Bollermann, 2014; Gonzales & Hancock, 2011; Shaw & Gant, 2002; Thomaes et al., 2010; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006; Vogel, Rose, Roberts & Eckles; 2014; Wilcox & Stephen, 2013).

However, the majority of previous studies have focused on social media use in general, neglecting the importance of the valence of published content. Due to the rapid growth of digital technologies the boundaries between being a recipient and a creator of a message have blurred, allowing users to create and publish their own content. User-generated content is constantly and increasingly created by regular people who voluntarily contribute data, information, or media that then appears in a useful or entertaining way (Krumm, Davies, & Narayanaswami, 2008). Therefore, in order to fulfil the gap in literature regarding the types of user-generated content, in this research it is assumed that users of SNSs share two types of content, which can be classified as entertaining and meaningful. The first type refers to

individual experiences (e.g., selfies), whereas the second one relates to social issues (e.g., press articles about current political situation). The assumption is that these two types may affect self-esteem differently. In regard to entertaining content, self-worth is rather based on users’ appearance and their tendency to present events from their lives which they considered as worth presenting. In terms of meaningful content, self-esteem is rather based on knowledge, experience, and world-views. Thus, by posting different types of content young adults may reinforce various aspects of their esteem. Perhaps, entertaining content may influence self-esteem stronger, as it is directly related to users’ own lives. However, no research has focused on this before, therefore the effects of different types of content on self-esteem remain

unknown.

Furthermore, previous studies have largely been omitting the receivers of users’ online self-presentations. Thus, this study attempts to fulfil the striking gap in literature which is the

(6)

lack of research conducted on perceived audience for whom the online content is published. So far no study has investigated the specific types of audience in relation with social media use, therefore this exploratory research distinguishes, specifies and names different types of receivers, along with investigating the role of feedback received from audiences, as it seems crucial in regard to users’ self-esteem. As previously indicated, valence and quantity of

feedback may affect the level of esteem. Positive feedback or many reactions enhance self-esteem and well-being, whereas negative feedback and small amount of reactions unfavourably affect the satisfaction of psychological needs related to self (Greitemeyer, Mügge &

Bollermann, 2014; Miura and Yamashita, 2007; Thomaes et al., 2010; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006).

The present state of knowledge about the impact of social networking sites on self-esteem, and the gaps in literature regarding types of published content, perceived audience and its feedback, lead to the main question of this study: What is the relation between the type of published content on social media and young adults’ self-esteem, assuming that the valance of feedback received from perceived audience along with the type of audience influence this relation? Answering this research question seems crucial in terms of understanding the psychological mechanisms behind social media networks, hence contributes to the

development of the theoretical understanding of social media. Furthermore, broadened theory may be applied in practice, and be used by industries related to Internet usage and social media, for instance in modifying the features of SNSs to further attract people, and in the same time to help them in presenting their online self in a beneficial way, what may have a positive effect on their self-esteem.

(7)

Theoretical Background Self-Esteem In Relation to Social Media

The rapid growth of social media has provided the opportunity to create and share content on a massive scale what has become a daily routine of millions of people around the world (Romero, Galuba, Asur & Huberman, 2011). As prior studies have shown, SNSs can have significant effects on users’ behaviour, and furthermore provide a psychological benefits or damages, which can be derived from using social media (Wilcox & Stephen, 2013).

In relation to the extent to which an individual views the self as worthwhile and

component, commonly known as self-esteem (Cooperrsmith, 1967, in: Vogel, Rose, Roberts, & Eckles, 2014), it was found that Internet use along with online conversation with anonymous partner reduce depression and loneliness, while self-esteem and perceived social support increase significantly (Shaw & Gant, 2002). Moreover, as demonstrated by Valkenburg, Peter and Schouten (2006), the frequency of using social media sites has an indirect and positive influence on users’ social self-esteem and well-being, through the number of relationships formed on the platform, the frequency of receiving feedback on social media profile, and the tone of this feedback (Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006). Noteworthy, it has been shown that social networks only increase self-esteem in individuals focused on strong ties (e.g., best friends and family) while browsing Facebook (Wilcox & Stephen, 2013). Additionally, it has been indicated that selective self-presentation in digital media influences impression of the self, thus increases self-esteem (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). Furthermore, due to the possibility of selective presentation, users often remove the negative information in order to present a positive view to others, consequently browsing social network briefly boosts their self-esteem (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011).

(8)

However, negative influences of social media have also been found, especially in terms of social comparisons. Users of SNSs who confront themselves with people characterised by a high activity social network, or by healthy habits (upward comparison), report lower self-esteem and relative self-evaluation, compared to the situation when the target persons’s online profile contains downward comparison information (Vogel, Rose, Roberts & Eckles, 2014). Furthermore, it has been shown that Facebook use may negatively impact emerging adults’ well-being by stimulating negative social comparisons and encouraging

negative-self-perception, especially among people who reported to be dissatisfied with their lives (de Vries & Kühne, 2015). Additionally, Wilcox and Stephen (2013) demonstrated that enhanced self-esteem produced by self-presentation on social networks, is associated with poor self-control in domains of health, mental persistence, and finances (Wilcox & Stephen, 2013).

As shown previously, there is a significant effect of social media on psychological well-being, consisted of both benefits and disadvantages. Generally, engagement in social

interactions provides the positive effects through social capital and positive feedback, whereas looking at the content published by others may have negative effects on well-being through social comparisons (de Vries & Kühne, 2015). Noteworthy, as this study covers only user-generated content, the emphasis is on the feedback and not on the online comparisons.

The freedom of planning and building the digital presentation through selection of different types of content provides the possibility of creating an idealised self, what may affect users’ self-esteem. However, besides the research done by Gonzales and Hancock (2011), the majority of studies omitted the importance of valence of content published by users

themselves. Previously, no study has focused on the differences between types of messages posted by social media users and the influence on self-esteem, therefore this study offers a

(9)

possible distinction of published content and explores the relation of each type of content and young adults’ self-esteem.

The Influence of Expressing Certain Types of Content on Self-Esteem

According to the theory presented by Oliver and Raney (2001) individuals are seeking for different types of media to fulfil two basic needs: pleasure-seeking (hedonic approach) and truth-seeking (eudaemonic approach). Therefore, people are consuming media in order to gain pleasure, amusement and positive valence, or to fulfil the general need of looking for life’s sense, truths and purposes (Oliver & Raney, 2001). Based on this theory it was assumed that people are not only looking for these two types of media content, but are also actively creating and publishing pleasurable and entertaining content, or thought-provoking and meaningful messages. In order to distinguish the valence of published content two terms are used in this study: “entertaining content” and “meaningful content”. First type refers rather to content related to oneself and individual experiences, whereas the second type concerns more social issues which also apply to other people.

Despite the fact that user-generated content is a relatively young field of research, it has been shown to have significant effects on society and individuals themselves (Wyrwoll, 2014). For instance, it empowers people to spread news through social media, and it plays an

important role in democracy movements in countries with a lack of freedom speech and censored media (Wyrwoll, 2014). In relation to individual experiences, user generated content may be considered as every type of message related directly to the self, such as selfies or tagging oneself in current locations or in different events. Previous research and theories on user-generated content and self-presentation have mostly investigated the presentation of content that directly refers to the self (e.g., Qiu et al., 2015; Sorokowski et al., 2015; van Oosten, Peter & Boot, 2015; Weiser, 2015). Although, people may also build their identities

(10)

based on their political, economical or societal interest, hence posting content related to these issues may also affect their self-esteem.

According to self-perception theory the lack of initial attitudes or emotional responses is the main reason why people start to develop them thanks to the observation of their own behaviour, followed by the conclusion explaining what attitudes and emotions must have driven these behaviours (Bem, 1972). Applying this theory into the digital world basically means that the way of how users present themselves online through published content, influences how they perceive themselves. Therefore, it can be expected that posting either entertaining or meaningful content may influence young adults’ self-views, thus self-esteem differently.

The effects of different types of content on self-esteem have never been studied, therefore in order to acquire an insight on this relationship, the first research question of this study is:

RQ1: Is there a difference between posting entertaining content and meaningful content in the relationship with young adults’ self-esteem?

The Role of Perceived Audience and Received Feedback

As mentioned previously, the influence of social media on self-esteem is also influenced by social interactions and feedback (de Vries & Kühne, 2015). The process of adjusting a message to the perceived audience is intended to cause reactions and evaluations by others. In the literature the term “feedback” is described as verbal or non verbal confirmation or disconfirmation of another person’s message, however it also refers to evaluative comments that characterised positively or negatively the value of another individual (Koutamanis, 2016). Noteworthy, previous research in the field of social media and online communication has barely focused on feedback and its possible impact on self-concept among users (Koutamanis,

(11)

2016). So far, scholars have documented that reactions to the content published on users’ social media profiles can be perceived in terms of frequency and valence (Greitemeyer, Mügge, & Bollermann, 2014; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006). Importantly, self-esteem was affected by the tone of reactions received on social media identities, thus positive feedback boosted self-esteem level, whereas negative feedback decreased self-esteem (Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006). Additionally, another study showed that responsive Facebook friends affect the needs for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful experience more than great number of friends on this particular social media portal (Greitemeyer, Mügge, & Bollermann, 2014). Furthermore, a research conducted on preadolescents indicated that peer disapproval on Internet profile decreased self-esteem, especially among children with high level of narcissism, whereas peer approval increased self-esteem (Thomaes et al., 2010). A survey done on

Japanese teenagers showed that positive reactions on blogs’ content has increased the level of satisfaction with oneself and feelings of acceptance. In contrast, negative feedback decreased these two constructs (Miura & Yamashita, 2007).

Knowing that there is a link between receiving positive or frequent feedback on social media and positive esteem, and further between disapproving reactions and negative self-esteem, the second research question was created in order to replicate findings from previous studies. Additionally, it was followed by two hypothesis:

RQ2: Does the valence of feedback influence young adults’ self-esteem? H1: Positive feedback predicts higher self-esteem among young adults. H2: Negative feedback predicts lower self-esteem among young adults. Previous research has also investigated the role of feedback as a moderator between publishing messages and self-esteem (e.g., Miura & Yamashita, 2007), therefore to replicate these findings third research question was formulated:

(12)

RQ3: Does the valence of feedback moderate the relationship between posting different types of content and young adults’ self-esteem?

Every message spread through social media has a group of target receivers, however, due to the absence of palpable audience on SNSs, users are forced to imagine the community to which they direct their messages (boyd, 2007). Therefore, they create for, and attend to an imagined audience during their everyday online interactions (Litt, 2012). Due to the fact that receivers of published messages are potentially limitless, users of social media construct their individual concept of audience to present themselves appropriately (boyd, 2007; Marwick & boyd, 2010). In order to target own’s self-presentation to particular receivers, they select language and style of message, along with adequate cultural referent (boyd, 2007).

According to the Reach-Intimacy-Model (Wyrwoll, 2014) there are different levels of audience, in relation to reach and intimacy. “General public” occurs when there is no specific receiver of the message created by user, and it is available for everyone (e.g., Instagram or Twitter account available for everyone). The second level is “limited public” what means that no receiver is specified by the contributing user, but the audience is limited. This level can be divided into known-limited public (e.g., friends on Facebook) and unknown-limited public (e.g., friends of friends on Facebook). The third level refers to the private communication (e.g., message on Messenger) and is not considered as a user-generated content (Wyrwoll, 2014).

The levels of audience differ from each other in terms of strength of users’ connections to other people in social networks. The concept of tie strength describes the degree to which people are involved in a particular relationship by being close to other person and by value that relationship (Granovetter, 1973). Therefore, friends with whom people share personal

connection are considered as strong ties, whereas weak ties are people with whom users have more distant relationships (Ryu & Feick, 2007). A research conducted by Wilcox and Stephen

(13)

(2012) showed that users experience increase of self-esteem only when they focus on the image they are presenting to people with whom they have strong ties. The results suggest that even though users are publishing the same content for different types of audience on social media, they feel better about themselves when the message is received by strong ties than by weak ties. This may be explained by study carried by Nekmat (2012) which revealed that individuals are using more emotion-based approaches while creating messages for people who they

consider as similar others then for unknown receivers. Therefore, content that require greater emotional commitment, targeted for people with who users share a closer bond, may affect the increase of self-esteem, as individuals may be deeply involved in the process of creating these message, thus care about it more, and further about received feedback.

Putative disparity between different types of audience along with reactions to published content, and users’ self-esteem, lead to the fourth research question of this study:

RQ4: Is there a difference between the type of perceived audience, which provides feedback in the relationship with young adults’ self-esteem?

Additionally, in order to check whether the relationship between entertaining or

meaningful content, and young adults’ self-esteem differ for each particular type of public, the fifth research question was created:

RQ5: Does the relationship between types of content and young adults’ self-esteem differ for different type of perceived audience?

Do Perceived Audience and Valence of Feedback Predicts Type of Published Content?

According to Nekmat (2012) the type of receivers of a message may influence the way of how people engage with published content and how they express it. Additionally, publishing online content is a complex process of a carefully planned actions regarding whether and what type of message should be published, and who are the receivers of this message. The effects of

(14)

online content can be enhanced by only anticipating or pondering publishing such a massage, and furthermore, by own opinion about the reactions of receivers of this message (Pingree, 2007). According to the General Model of Bidirectional Message Effects (Pingree, 2007) there are three different effects that occur while elaboration of a possibly published content. First of all “anticipation effect” is characterised by the desire to deliver the message in an optional way. The process of using previously acquired knowledge while expressing the content and

wondering how it might be received by the audience is considered as “composition effect”. The last component of this model — “effect of sending the information” — is related to thinking about whether and how a message is received by audience (Pingree, 2007).

By sharing different types of content people have the ability to fully and accurately express themselves, according to what they want to present to other people. The process in which individuals attempt to control the impression others form of them is called impression management (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Due to the fact that impressions made on others have implication for how others perceive, evaluate, and treat oneself, along with affecting the self-concept, people act in ways that will fit into certain, socially desired scheme (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Selective content publishing on social media provide an opportunity to control self-presentation to a greater extent than in face-to-face communication, which assure a convenient possibility to manage it in a more deliberate and strategic way (Krämer & Winter 2008). The exploratory study consisted of a survey and content analysis of the respondents’ profiles, showed that self-efficacy with regard to impression management is related to the number of virtual friends, profile details, and style of the profile photo (Krämer & Winter, 2008).

(15)

The elaboration on others’ evaluation of users’ online behaviour and its possible

influence on adjusting published content to the expectations of perceived audience, leads to the sixth research question:

RQ6: Does the type of perceived audience and the value of the feedback that is generally received influence the type of content published by young adults?

Methods

An online survey was conducted among young adults (18-33 years old), using Qualtricks software. The questionnaire was divided into four parts which included questions related to frequency of posting entertaining and meaningful content, the perceived audience of the published content, frequency and valence of received feedback, along with questions regarding self-esteem (see Appendix).

Participants

Data was collected from 105 young adults between 18 and 33 years of age (M = 24.18, SD = 2.56), from fourteen different countries (50.5% Poland, 19% the Netherlands, 10.5% Australia, and 20% from other countries). The participants were approached through two social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter), and asked to forward the survey to other people who fulfil the criteria of the research (snowball sampling). The sample consisted of 66.7% female (N = 70), and 33.3% male (N = 35). The majority of participants had an educational level of either bachelor (44.8%) or master (38.1%). Almost every participant was using Facebook (98.1%, N = 103). The second most commonly used social networking site was Instagram (74.3%, N = 78). Participants also admitted to use Snapchat (59%, N = 62), Pinterest (29.5%, N = 31), Twitter (28.6%, N = 30), Tumblr (7.6%, N = 8), and others (11.4%, N = 12).

(16)

Procedure

Participants were recruited over a 2 weeks period in November 2016. Invitations to participate in the study included a short summary of the research and were sent individually to every participant through Facebook. The general invitation was also published on Twitter in order to approach unknown receivers. The first page of the survey provided information about the study and the main aims, along with a consent of voluntary participation in the research. Moreover, participants were informed that the study is fully anonymous and they had a right to withdraw their consent up to 24 hours after completing the questionnaire. Information about age limits was also provided. In order to be sure that participants were familiar with the rules and consented to their participation voluntary they had to accept the statement “I agree with the above terms and conditions” on the bottom of the page.

Measurements

Published content. Due to the absence of research conducted on types of social media

content, the following distinction of published content was made based on the hedonic and eudaemonic approaches towards media (Oliver & Raney, 2011), and formed on the own

observation of online behaviours at SNSs. Twelve statements have been created referring either to entertaining (hedonic) or to meaningful (eudaemonic) content. Participants were asked how often do they publish each of specified content with the possible answers “Daily” (coded as 5), “Once in a week” (4), “Once in a month”(3), “Few times per year”(2), “Less than once a year”(1), and “Never”(0).

Afterwards, factor analysis was carried out in order to check if the statements load on the appropriate factor. As expected, the analysis extracted two components — first one

gathering items related to more social and global issues (eigenvalue = 4.40, explained variance = 36.7%), and second one referring to rather individual experiences (eigenvalue = 2.61,

(17)

explained variance = 21.8%). One statement has been rejected, as it loads equally high in both components (“Status about yourself; i.e., current mood, emotions”). First component is

considered as a meaningful content, whereas second as an entertaining content.

Specifying, entertaining content consists of six statements: “Photo or selfie of yourself (without other people)”, “Photo or selfie of yourself together with other people”, “Photo or status regarding an event you attend”, “Photo or status regarding your current location”, “Photo or status regarding trip/holidays you participate in”, and “Photo or status regarding your

achievements (i.e. graduation, promotion, engagement)”. These items formed a reliable scale with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79.

Meaningful content is combined by five statements: “Link to music/videos”, “Link to press articles”, “Photo, status or link relevant to current political issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. election, foreign policy)”, “Photo, status or link relevant to current economic issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. unemployment, taxation)”, and “Photo, status or link relevant to current social issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. immigration, racism)”. The items resulted in a reliable scale with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89.

Based on the factor structure and reliability analyses, the means of the items belonging to each category were calculated, resulting in the variable “frequency of posting entertaining content” (M = 1.91, SD = 0.75), and “frequency of posting meaningful content” (M = 1.27, SD = 1.11).

Perceived audience. To acquire an insight about the receivers of published messages

four types of audience have been distinguish based on the categorisation provided by Wyrwoll (2014): Best friends, Acquaintances, People rarely encountered, and Strangers. Additionally, two open questions, related to known and unknown audience, were created in order to provide participants with a possibility to specify their public and briefly describe why they publish

(18)

content for this particular receivers. To measure frequency of the feedback by each type of audience, participants were asked how often they receive reactions on published content from the specific type of audience. Categories of perceived audience have been used in this question with the possible answers “Always” (coded as 4), “Most of the time” (3), “About half the time” (2), “Sometimes” (1), and “Never” (0). The means of frequency of receiving feedback for certain audience are: Best friends (M = 3.31, SD = 0.76), Acquaintances (M = 2.35, SD = 0.94), People rarely encountered (M = 1.40, SD = 0.87), and Strangers (M = 0.87, SD = 0.81).

Valence of feedback. The valence of feedback was measured with the following

question: “The reactions that you receive on your content are mostly…” with response categories range from 0 (negative) to 10 (positive), with 5 indicating neutral feedback. The mean of the valence of feedback was 8.48, SD = 1.23.

Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965) was used in order to measure

self-esteem. A 10-item scale measures self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self (Rosenberg, 1965). The scale consists of statements such as “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”, “I feel I do not have much to be proud of” (recoded) or “I wish I could have more respect for myself” (recoded). All statements are answered using a 4-point Likert scale, (ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree”, to 4 = “Strongly Agree”). The mean of self-esteem among participants was 3.02, SD = 0.43. The negatively worded items were oppositely recoded. The statements concerning self-esteem extracted two components, however the two items that loaded highly on the second component also loaded highly on the first component, therefore only the first component was used in this study. The items resulted in a reliable scale with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84.

(19)

Results

Different Types of Content and their Relationship with Young Adults’ Self-Esteem

In order to test whether there is a relationship between types of published content and self-esteem, and thus answer the first research question (RQ1: Is there a difference between posting entertaining content and meaningful content in the relationship with self-esteem?), a linear regression analysis was conducted. The mean of self-esteem was used as a dependent variable and both means of the frequency of posting entertaining and meaningful content as independent variables. The results indicated that self-esteem was not predicted by the frequency of posting these types of content, as was shown by a non-significant regression model, F(2,102) = 0.46, p = 0.63.

The Positive Impact of Feedback on Young Adults’ Self-Esteem

A linear regression was conducted in order to investigate whether there is a relation between the valence of feedback and self-esteem, and thus answer the second research question (RQ2: Does the valence of feedback influence young adults’ self-esteem?), followed by two hypothesis (H1: Positive feedback predicts higher self-esteem among young adults, and H2: Negative feedback predicts lower self-esteem among young adults). The mean of self-esteem was used as a dependent variable, whereas the valence of feedback was an independent variable. The results indicated that self-esteem was predicted by the valence of feedback, as was shown by a significant regression model, F(1,103) = 4.78, p = 0.03.

In terms of valence of received feedback, participants declared that the reactions from perceived audience to publish content were definitely positive with the mean of 8.48 (SD = 1.2, min. = 3, max. = 10) on a 10 point scale, therefore these results enabled to confirm H1, which

(20)

which assumed that negative feedback predicts lower self-esteem was not possible due to the fact that only one person admitted to receive feedback classified as negative (below 5).

Although self-esteem was predicted by the valence of feedback, the relation was weak as only 4% of the self-esteem variable might be explained by received feedback (r² = 0.04). Furthermore, with each increase of feedback for unit (in a 10 point scale), self-esteem increases with 0.07 point on a 5 point scale, what additionally indicated that the influence is not strong (B = 0.07).

The Moderator Role of the Valence of Feedback in the Relationship Between Types of Content and Young Adults’ Self-Esteem

To investigate whether there is a moderator role of the valence of feedback in the relationship between types of published content and users’ self-esteem, thus answer the third research question (RQ3: Does the valance of feedback moderate the relationship between posting different types of content and young adults’ self-esteem?), a linear regression was conducted with self-esteem as a dependent variable. The predictors were used in the following order: both means of the frequency of positioning entertaining and meaningful content,

audience categories (Best friends, Acquaintances, People rarely encountered, Strangers), the valence of feedback, interactions between entertaining content and audience categories, interactions between meaningful content and audience categories, interactions between entertaining and meaningful content and the valence of feedback. The analysis of regression coefficients (Table 1) showed that the interactions between either entertaining or meaningful content and the valence of feedback were not significant, with the results of p = 0.49, and p = 0.17, respectively.

(21)

Types of Audience That Provide Feedback in the Relation with Young Adults’ Self-Esteem

To answer the fourth research question (RQ4: Is there a difference between the type of perceived audience which provide feedback in the relationship with self-esteem?), and

investigate whether different types of audience which provide feedback affect self-esteem, a linear regression analysis was run. In this case, self-esteem was a dependent variable whereas the frequencies of providing feedback by different audience categories (Best friends,

Acquaintances, People Rarely Encountered, Strangers) were used as independent variables. The results showed that the regression model was not significant, F(4,100) = 1.430, p = 0.230, therefore there is no prediction of self-esteem by any of the types of audience which provide feedback.

The Relationship Between Type of Published Content and Young Adults’ Self-Esteem Differ For Different Types of Audience That Provide Feedback

To answer fifth research question — RQ5: Does the relationship between types of content and young adults’ self-esteem differ for different type of perceived audience?— the linear regression analysis conducted in order to answer RQ3 was used again (i.e., self-esteem as a dependent variable, predictors: means of the frequency of positioning different types of content, audience categories, the valence of feedback, interactions between types of content and audience categories, interactions between types of content and the valence of feedback).

The analysis of regression coefficients (Table 1) showed that the interactions between frequency of posting entertaining content and feedback received on this type of content from different audience categories (Best friends, Acquaintances, People Rarely Encountered, Strangers) do not influence young adults’ self-esteem, whereas the interactions between

frequency of publishing meaningful content and feedback received from best friends and strangers have an impact on self-esteem, with significance on the level of p = 0.01, and p =

(22)

0.03, respectively. The results indicated that when participants post meaningful content their self-esteem increases, but only when they receive more frequent feedback from best friends, (B = 0.20, SE = 0.08, p = 0.01). Conversely, when participants post meaningful content their self-esteem decreases when they receive more frequent feedback from strangers, (B = - 0.13, SE = 0.06, p = 0.03).

Table 1

Model of Regression Coefficients on Dependent Variable Self-Esteem

Interaction terms: Unstandardised B Coefficients Std. Error Coefficients BetaStandardised t Sig.

Entertaining content -.482 .445 -.835 -1.082 .282

Meaningful content .006 .322 .014 .017 .986

Best friends -.170 .224 .-301 .-761 .449

Acquaintances -.82 .186 -.178 -.437 .663

People rarely encountered .102 .223 .206 .456 .650

Strangers .198 .211 .372 .937 .351

Feedback .033 .104 .093 .314 .755

Enter. content * Best friends -.014 .122 -.102 -.117 .908

Enter. content * Acquaitances .178 .117 1.144 1.517 .133

Enter. content * People rarely

encountered -.109 .097 -.579 -1.120 .266

Enter. content * Strangers -.039 .090 -.165 -.432 .667

Mean. content * Best friends .200 .076 1.786 2.625 .010

Mean. content * Acquaintances -.149 .076 -.963 -1.952 .054

Mean. content * People rarely

encouraged .109 .057 .579 1.897 .061

Mean. content * Strangers -.131 .058 -.525 -2.274 .025

Entertaining content * Feedback .031 .045 .492 .687 .494

(23)

The Relation Between Received Feedback from Audience and Published Content

To investigate whether there is a relation between received feedback and published content, and thus answer the last research question (RQ6: Does the type of perceived audience and the value of the feedback that is generally received influence the type of content published by young adults?), two linear regressions were conducted. In the first case, frequency of posting entertaining content was a dependent variable, whereas the valence of feedback was an independent variable. Second regression analysis consisted of frequency of posting meaningful content as a dependent variable, and valence of feedback as an independent. The analysis showed that the frequency of posting either entertaining or meaningful content was not predicted by the valence of feedback, with the results of F(1,103) = 0.703, p = 0.404, and F(1,103) = 0.578, p = 0.449.

Additional Analysis: Qualitative Analysis

The results from the quantitative analysis indicated that types of perceived audience do matter in relation to young adults’ self-esteem, at least when looking at the influence of posting meaningful content. Additional open questions enabled to broadly discover what people have in mind while thinking about different categories of public. Two main categories and a few subcategories were possible to distinguish based on participants’ answers (Table 2).

Known audience. The first type refers to people known personally by users of social

media. It may be further divided into (1a) close relationships, and (1b) moderate relationships. The first category consists of public such as best friends and friends, family, partners, whereas acquaintances, friends and family from abroad, old friends, colleagues are considered as people with whom user have a moderate relation.

Unknown audience. The second type consists of (2a) possible relationships in the

(24)

they do not know personally, they consider a possibility of creating a relationship with them in the future. Thus, they mention audiences such as people with the same interest, potential friends and partners, and future employers and co-workers. Noteworthy, participants were also aware of the existence of companies and brands on social media, and admitted to publish some content to attract them in order to start a cooperation. The second type of unknown audience was not so precisely described. Social media followers (for instance on Instagram or Twitter) are considered as a general public.

Table 2

Division of Perceived Audience Based on the Results from Open Questions

1. Known Audience

1a. Close Relationships

• “People closest to me (friends and family). I would like to share my important life experiences with people I know, but personally sending them such information seems a bit of a weird thing to do. Through posting it on social media those friends that are genuinely interested can have a look, and those that aren't, don't have to”

• “My friends, because I consider them as the ones who are most interested in my posts”

1b. Moderate Relationships

• “My former colleagues; we share similar perspective on world events, have common interests, and they value the content I share”

• “My friends back in my country. It's somehow a way to share with them my life here”

• “People I don’t like and I would like to make them jealous about my life”

• “My boyfriend's exes. They stalk me sometimes and I'd like to show off a little bit sometimes lol”

2. Unknown Audience 2a. Possible Relationships in the Future

• “People interested in given content type, by using hashtag for example” • “Possible friends. Thanks to social media I can meet new ones”

• “Girls. That's what happens when you don't have time to go to a pub and meet new people”

• “Future employers. I try and tend to not post things which might cast me in a bad light at a later time”,

• “I treat the content which is accessible for everyone as a business card so it might be my future employer or someone whom I would like to impress in some way”

• “Bloggers and companies I might be interested to work with now or in the future”

• “Accounts owners of clothing brands or others. I don't really think they see what their followers post anyway”

• “Fans and/or potential clients for modelling”

2b. General Audience

• “Facebook owners/random people who also comment on a public post and are therefore able to see my comment/activity”

• “On Instagram when I post photos of places I visit/live tourist may search for the hashtags and receive a first hand knowledge about the places they want to visit”

• “Instagram pictures in public access because I like to discover accounts, and I am happy if someone likes some of my pictures too. Also, I share some posts on general matters (environment, world politics, social movement) for everyone to see when I consider it important.”

(25)

Descriptive Statistics

Due to the absence of research conducted on published content and perceived audience, and hardly any studies on online feedback, the following results section is enriched in detailed descriptive statistics in order to understand the examined issues more accurately.

Types of content. Participants of this research published entertaining type of content

more frequently (M = 1.91, SD = 0.75), than meaningful (M = 1.27, SD = 1.11), which means that first type was published approximately few times per year, and second type was published in between few times a year and less than once a year. The difference between frequencies of posting entertaining content and meaningful content is significant, t = 5.44, p < 0.05.

Audience. The analysis indicated that participants published on average almost 4 of the

6 items from the entertaining content items for their best friends (M = 3.99, SD = 2.18) and acquaintances (M = 3.57, SD = 2.14), which means that young adults choose familiar people as an audience for entertaining content. Likewise in regard to meaningful content participants selected close friends as receivers of theirs messages with results of more than 2 of 5 items for best friends (M = 2.16, SD = 2.05) and acquaintances (M = 2.00, SD = 2.04).

Feedback. Frequency analysis showed that 45.7% (N =48) of participants always

received feedback on content they had published from their best friends, and 43.8% (N = 46) received reactions from this audience most of the time. In regard to acquaintances, participants admitted that 42.9% (N=45) received feedback most of the time, and 28.6 (N = 30) about half the time. People they met once reacted sometimes (60%, N = 63) to their content. Noteworthy, strangers did also provide a feedback sometimes (52.4%, N = 55), however there were quite many participants who admitted that they never got any reactions from people they do not know personally (33.3%, N = 35). As previously mentioned, participants declared that the

(26)

reactions from perceived audience to publish content were positive (M = 8.48, SD = 1.2, min. = 3, max. = 10).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between types of published content on social media and young adults’ self-esteem, assuming additionally that the valence of received feedback along with the type of audience is also influencing self-esteem and published content. Furthermore, this research categorises and describes different types of audiences for whom social media users are publishing.

Overall, the results of this study confirmed previous research (Greitemeyer, Mügge & Bollermann, 2014; Miura and Yamashita, 2007; Thomaes et al., 2010; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006), and indicated that the valence of feedback that people receive on their social media posts influences users self-esteem. As has been shown, receiving positive feedback increases the level of self-esteem among young adults. However, the relation is rather weak what seems reasonable as self-esteem depends on many factors such as the general feeling of worth, or the senses that one’s attributes and actions are good, desired, and valued (Bukatko, 2008), and is not only predicted by the feedback received on social media. Participants admitted that reactions received from other people on published content were positive, which in this case enabled to affirm the hypothesis that positive feedback increases self-esteem. However, verifying the reverse hypothesis assuming that negative feedback decreases self-esteem was not possible due to a lack of data on receiving negative feedback.

Predominance of positive reactions on social media may be explained by the attention to ethical and respectful behaviours on social media platforms (e.g., absence of dislike button on Facebook, a single heart-shaped button on Instagram, or a censorship of vulgar content on

(27)

both platforms) which suggest that the reactions should only be positive or none. The lack of negative feedback may also be explained by previous research which revealed that users of social media prefer to remove negative and unfavourable content, and only publish messages which will show them in a good light (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). Furthermore, the

emotional states may be transferred through social media, and therefore lead to experience the same emotions without awareness (Kramer, Guillory & Hancock, 2014). In other words, by eliminating negative messages, the valence of users’ self-presentation is positive, what enhances the positive reactions on published content. Thus, when content is positive, the feedback is also positive. Therefore, due to the lack of data about the negative feedback, future research should focus on the impact of negative reviews and comments received on published content on young adults’ self-esteem. Public online forums where users can remain anonymous might be a potential source of disapproving and unfavourable reactions on posted

messages.The possibility of being undisclosed probably favours providing negative feedback on the content posted by others.

Another important finding is the impact of the type of audience which is providing feedback, on the relationship between published content and self-esteem. Although, the relationship between posting different types of content and self-esteem, along with the relationship between audience and self-esteem were not found, the interaction analysis indicated two interested findings. Firstly, the type of audience that provides feedback only matters while posting meaningful content, whereas it is not important while posting

entertaining content. However, this relationship is valid only when users receive feedback from certain audiences (i.e., friends and strangers). Therefore, whether youth publish entertaining content and whether their best friends, acquaintances, people rarely encountered, or strangers give feedback on it, it does not actually matter for young adults’ self-esteem. This is an

(28)

interesting finding considering the fact that the assumption of this research was that entertaining content also influences self-esteem.

Secondly, in case of meaningful content, the type of audience which reacts on it, does matter. As previously mentioned, the relations were found in regard to reactions received from best friends and strangers. Therefore, the more frequent one receives feedback from friends or strangers, the more posting meaningful content frequently will influence self-esteem. The prediction is positive for best friends, thus when young adults receive frequent feedback on meaningful content from their best friends, their self-esteem increases. However, for strangers the prediction is negative, what means that when participants receive frequent feedback from strangers, their self-esteem decreases. In other words, sharing political views or economic issues on social media with these two particular types of audience, influence young adults’ self-esteem differently.

The possible explanation of this effect may be the familiarity with best friends,

knowledge about their preferences in terms of political or social views, and the confidence that they will most probably agree with the posted meaningful content. Conversely, publishing this type of content for strangers without knowing their world-views may cause the feeling of insecurity, and therefore decrease the level of self-esteem. According to Nekmat (2012) creating content for individuals considered as similar others (i.e., best friends) and for other people is based on different strategies, with message meant for homophilous audience being more emotion-based. Therefore, due to the greater emotional commitment for a meaningful message targeted for best friends, the impact on self-esteem may be positive, as users might be more involved in creating this message, hence care about it and about the feedback to a greater extent. In contrast, posting meaningful content targeted for strangers may be less emotionally involved, thus cause the uncertainty regarding the feedback and leads to decrease of

(29)

self-esteem. However, future research should explore whether people indeed have these ideas about friends and strangers reasoning the same way or differently, and how this affects users’ strength of believes, and subsequently their self-esteem.

Another finding reveals that there is no relation between the type of audience which is receiving a message along with providing a feedback, and the types of content that people post. In other words, receiving frequent feedback from either best friends, acquaintances, people rarely encountered or strangers, does not affect posting more frequently either entertaining or meaningful content. This suggests that the need of publish content of both types is stronger than the possible effects of feedback. Therefore, the suggestion for future research is to investigate other motives for posting entertaining or meaningful content. People may not always post certain type of content in order to receive feedback, but for instance in order to make a good impression on perceived audience. Exploring whether different types of audience would appreciate users to a greater extent if they posted specific content, regardless whether the audience would show this by providing feedback, would be fruitful to the development of the theoretical understanding of social media.

Due to the correlational nature of this study, and the lack of knowledge about direction of relations, the inverse relationships between variables were also analysed, in order to

investigate whether self-esteem influences the frequency of posting certain types of content. However, none of them result in statistical significance. In order to found the direction of the relationships a longitudinal research focused on changes in young adults’ self-esteem after publishing content and receiving feedback might be resultful in the nearest feature.

The last finding concerns the various types of perceived audience, for who young adults are publishing their content. As indicated by quantitative analysis, in some cases it matters who is considered as a receiver of posted messages. Despite the fact that the qualitative analysis did

(30)

not reveal any remarkable findings in regard to known audience, it significantly broadened the category of unknown audience. Interestingly, participants consider unfamiliar audience as not only general audience (e.g., followers or Instagram), but also as individuals with whom they could create a possible relationship in the future (e.g., potential friends or partners, future employees and employers, potential companies or brands to cooperate with). This conforms the existing theories that social media users are aware of the limitless of potential receivers of their content but their behaviour suggest to limit the range of audience (Marwick & boyd, 2010), in order to conceptualise the perceived audience (boyd, 2007). Therefore, even though young adults admitted to publish messages for general audience consisted of the people they do not know, they additionally classified unknown audience as people with whom they can build a relationship in the future, in order to imagine the public and thus adjust targeted messages more easily.

Furthermore, classifying strangers as people with whom establishing potential

relationship is possible, may trigger the processes related to adjusting self-presentation in order to fulfil expected scheme (i.e., impression management), especially when it comes to

meaningful content. Again, the reaction on published content may influence self-esteem. For instance, publishing an article suggesting users’ political views in a Facebook group of newly enrolled students may cause the feeling of insecure and the lack of certainty that others will react positively. This may lead to lower self-esteem. As indicated by the qualitative analysis, young adults have various ideas about the perceived audiences, therefore future research should develop even more specific categories of types of audience, to see which types of perceived unknown audiences influence one’s self-esteem the most.

The results of the following study need to be seen in the context of several limitations. Firstly, the scope of this study covered all commonly known social media platforms, which

(31)

could have affected the results of this research, as different SNSs have various applications. Twitter allows to spread and follow live events (e.g., Bana Alabed - a Syrian girl documenting the siege of Aleppo through Twitter), whereas it would be rather hard to share a political article or social messages through Snapchat or Instagram. This may justify the fact that participants of this research admitted to publish more entertaining than meaningful content in general, as the most commonly used social media platforms in this research were Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Perhaps, if this study focused primarily on Twitter, where more meaningful content is being published, the results would differ slightly. Secondly, the sample consisted of

international people among whom the majority possessed higher education. Due to this, their self-esteem was most probably higher and the influence of social media was not as strong as expected. The results of this research may differ if the sample was more diverse, and consisted from people with different educational background.

Online communication is constantly attracting people in technologically developed countries. Social networking sites especially lure young adults as they enable to communicate instantly and provide the opportunity to fully express one’s self thanks to user-generated content. This study has shed new light on published content by classifying it as messages related to individual experiences (entertaining content) or global issues (meaningful content), and further indicating the differences in the impact of particular type on young adults’ self-esteem. Moreover, the current research has explored the role of perceived audience and introduce the categorisation of online public. Although, investigated issues clearly need more elaboration in the future, this study contributes to understanding the role of different types of content and perceived audience that provides feedback, in relation to young adults’ self-esteem.

(32)

References

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in experimental social psychology, 6, 1-62. Retrieved from http://www.dbem.ws/SP%20Theory.pdf

boyd, d. (2007). Why youth <3 social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. MacArthur foundation series on digital learning – Youth, identity, and digital media volume, 119-142. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119

Bukatko, D. (2007). Child and adolescent development: A chronological approach. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning.

Cooperrsmith, S. (1967) in: Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of popular media culture, 3(4), 206-222. doi:10.1037/ppm0000047

Coyne, S., Padilla-Walker, L.M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood.

Emerging Adulthood, 1, 125-317. doi:10.1177/2167696813479782

de Vries, D., A., & Kühne, R. (2015). Facebook and self-perception: Individual susceptibility to negative social comparison on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 217-221. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.029

Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 79-83. doi:0.1089/cyber.2009.0411

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/ 2776392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

(33)

Greitemeyer, T., Mügge, D., O., Bollermann, I. (2014). Having responsive Facebook friends affects the satisfaction of psychological needs more than having many Facebook friends. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-258. doi:

10.1080/01973533.2014.900619

Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788-8790. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/ content/111/24/8788.full.pdf

Krämer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20(3), 106. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106

Koutamanis, M. (2016). An experimental test of the effects of online and face-to-face feedback on self-esteem. Chapter 5 from Dissertation. Unpublished manuscript.

Krumm, J., Davies, N., & Narayanaswami, C. (2008). User-generated content. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 4(7), 10-11. doi:0.1109/MPRV.2008.85

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological bulletin, 107(1), 34. Retrieved from http://

www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/impression_management-a_literature_review_and_two-component_model.pdf

Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who's there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330-345. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.705195

(34)

Marwick, A., E. & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114-133. doi:

10.1177/1461444810365313

Miura, A., & Yamashita, K. (2007). Psychological and social influences on blog writing: An online survey of blog authors in Japan. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 12(4), 1452-1471. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00381.x

Nekmat, E. (2012). Message expression effects in online social communication. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(2), 203-224. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.678513

Oliver, M.B. & Raney, A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61, 984-1004. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., Carroll, J. S., & Jensen, A. C. (2010). More than a just a game: Video game and Internet use during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 103-113. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9390-8

Pingree, R., J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17, 439–461. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x

Poushter, J. (2016). Smarphone ownership and Internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/

2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/

Qiu, L., Lu, J., Yang, S., Qu, W., & Zhu, T. (2015). What does your selfie say about you? Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 443-449. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

(35)

Romero, D., Galuba, W., Asur, S., & Huberman, B. (2011). Influence and passivity in social media. Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on world wide web. 113-114. doi:10.1145/1963192.1963250

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ryu, G., & Feick, L. (2007). A penny for your thoughts: Referral reward programs and referral likelihood. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 84-94. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1509/jmkg.71.1.84

Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defence of the Internet: The relationship between Internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 157-171. doi:

10.1089/109493102753770552

Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T., Huk, A., & Pisanski, K. (2015). Selfie posting behaviors are associated with narcissism among men. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 123-127. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid2015.05.004

Thomaes, S., Reijntjes, A., Orobio de Castro, B., Bushman, B. J., Poorthuis, A., & Telch, M. J. (2010). I like me if you like me: On the interpersonal modulation and regulation of preadolescents’ state self-esteem. Child Development, 81(3), 811- 825. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-8624.2010.01435.x

Valkenburg, P., M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A., P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-ssteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9 (5), 584-590. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584.

(36)

van Oosten, J. M. F., Peter, J., & Boot, I. (2015). Exploring associations between exposure to sexy online self-presentations and adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(5), 1078-1091. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0194-8

Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of popular media culture, 3(4), 206-222. doi:10.1037/ ppm0000047

Weiser, E. B. (2015). # Me: Narcissism and its facets as predictors of selfie-posting frequency. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 477-481. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/

10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.007

Wilcox, K., & Stephen, A., T. (2013). Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks, self-esteem, and self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 90-103. doi: 10.1086/668794

Wyrwoll, C. (2014). Social media: Fundamentals, models, and ranking of user-generated content. Springer.

Appendix Questionnaire

The following survey was used in order to obtain insights about types of published content, perceived audience, received feedback, and to measure young adults’ self-esteem.

Demographics

Q1: Age Q2: Gender

Q3: Country of residence Q4: Educational level

(37)

Q5: What social media platforms do you use?

Frequency of posting different types of content

Q6: How often do you publish on social media each of the following contents? 1. Photo or selfie of yourself (without other people)

2. Photo or selfie of yourself together with other people 3. Photo or status regarding an event you attend

4. Photo or status regarding your current location

5. Photo or status regarding the trip/holidays you participate in

6. Photo or status regarding your achievements (i.e. graduation, promotion, engagement) 7. Link to music/videos

8. Status about yourself (i.e. current mood, emotions) 9. Link to press articles

10. Photo, status or link relevant to current political issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. election, foreign policy)

11. Photo, status or link relevant to current economic issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. unemployment, taxation)

12. Photo, status or link relevant to current social issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. immigration, racism)

0 ( = never) to 5 ( = daily)

Perceived audience

Q7: For who do you publish on social media each of the following contents? (multiple answers are possible)

1. Photo or selfie of yourself (without other people) 2. Photo or selfie of yourself together with other people

(38)

3. Photo or status regarding an event you attend 4. Photo or status regarding your current location

5. Photo or status regarding the trip/holidays you participate in

6. Photo or status regarding your achievements (i.e. graduation, promotion, engagement) 7. Link to music/videos

8. Status about yourself (i.e. current mood, emotions) 9. Link to press articles

10. Photo, status or link relevant to current political issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. election, foreign policy)

11. Photo, status or link relevant to current economic issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. unemployment, taxation)

12. Photo, status or link relevant to current social issues in your country or worldwide (i.e. immigration, racism)

Best friends; Acquaintances; People you once met, but do not see often; People you

don’t know personally; Don’t know

Q8: Please name a person or a group of people you know, who you consider as receivers of your content on social media platforms. Briefly describe why you have these people in mind while publishing your content.

Q9: Please name a person or a group of people you do not know, who you consider as receivers of your content on social media platforms. Briefly describe why you have these people in mind while publishing your content.

Received feedback

Q10: How often do you get reactions to your published content from these groups of people? 1. Best friends

(39)

2. Acquaintances

3. People you once met, but do not see often 4. People you don’t know personally

0 ( = never) to 4 ( = always)

Q11: The reactions that you receive on your content are mostly:

0 ( = negative) to 10 (positive), with 5 indicating neutral feedback

Rosenberg Self-esteem scale

Q12: Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement.

1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself 2. At times I think I am no good at all

3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of

6. I certainly feel useless at times

7. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself

9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure 10. I take a positive attitude toward myself

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Dit onderzoek heeft waarde voor de wetenschap aangezien het een van de eerste onderzoeken is waarbij het effect van gain versus loss frames in Entertainment Educatie op de

Because of its importance, however, we will again mention that even though there are great differences between them, the Anderson model Hamiltonian matrices do have the

This research examines how three elements of informative MGC (information quality, post popularity, and post attractiveness) can lead consumers to like and

It is evident that social contracts determine how buyers and suppliers act in the relationship, and that the content and role of the social contract are influenced by the

In this case, indeed, fitting to the model leads to negative feelings due to customers’ negative self- evaluations (low appearance self-esteem). Therefore,

This is relevant because if route dissemination (phase 3) is caus- ing most of the delay, adding another peer (containing 10.000 prefixes) should cause a greater increase in

This led to the development of human disease mimicking in vitro models advancing from 2D monocultures/cocultures to self-assembled 3D spheroids and patient-derived organoids;

According to the Southern African Development Community’s (SADC) document titled “Land Policy in Africa: Southern Africa Regional Assessment” (2010:5) the SADC countries