The effect of selfie-making in a social context on materialism and the role of (friendship contingent) self-esteem

(1)

The effect of selfie-making in a social context on materialism and the role of

(friendship contingent) self-esteem

(2)

The effect of selfie-making in a social context on materialism and the role of

(friendship contingent) self-esteem

Master thesis University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Msc Marketing Management

June 20th_{, 2016} Supervisor: dr. Yannick Joye Second supervisor: dr. Jenny van Doorn

Christien te Velde Verlegde Hanckemalaan 7

(3)

Abstract

The purpose of the present thesis is to gain a better understanding of the effects of selfie making on the value that people place on material possessions. By distinguishing selfies and photographs in two social contexts (i.e., alone or accompanied by others), materialism is measured.

Furthermore, this thesis includes self-esteem and friendship contingent self-esteem as mediators. It was hypothesized that making selfies alone would increase materialism because of the focus on the self . Results of an online survey with 111 respondents reveal no significant results and provides further insights in these relationships. Limitations and future research and practical opportunities are described.

(4)

Preface

This present master thesis marks the end of my student life in Groningen. With this thesis I tried to gain more insights in the effects that selfies have on people.

I would like to thank my supervisor Yannick Joye for his support during the process of writing the thesis. Also great appreciation for my mother, family, friends, boyfriend for emotional support. Also thanks for my job and colleagues for their flexibility.

(5)

Introduction

Background problem and problem statement

In 2013, ‘selfie’ was awarded as Word of the Year by Oxford (Oxford University Press, 2013). In practice there is an increasing number of people who makes a selfie, especially people with lower ages. Surprisingly, there has not been a lot of research in the topic of making selfies and the what and how.

Because selfies are such a common thing among consumers, it probably could be a useful and easily accessible marketing tool for marketers. Therefore it is interesting to know which psychological processes people are going through when making a selfie. If deeper insights are gained through future research, more knowledge is gained in how to use selfies as a marketing tool. In this way, customers could be better served through personalized marketing actions.

In this thesis I will specifically look at the social context in which selfies are made and the effect that it has on the value of material possessions people have. People can go through different psychological processes when making a selfie of their own compared when making a selfie with other people. Making a selfie on your own is an isolated experience while making a selfie with other people can be seen as a shared experience, which contains more emotional importance. This could affect the values that people place on materialism; since materialism is often a result of unmet needs (Burroughs et al., 2013)

(9)

context on materialism, where I make a distinction between selfies and photos and being alone or with others.

In this paper self-esteem will be taken into account as possible mediator in the relationship between selfie making and materialism. The negative relationship between self-esteem and materialism has already been supported by a lot of previous studies (Mick, 1996; Richins and Dawson, 1992; Kasser et al, 2004). When self-esteem is high, people place lower value on material possessions. In this thesis this relationship will be tested in new specific conditions. One part of the paper is to investigate the relationship between making pictures and self-esteem. Overall, it is expected that when pictures are made of someone, the self-esteem of this person will increase. Within this relationship, a distinction is made between photos and selfies. Selfie making is a relatively new behavior for consumers and not much is known yet about the psychological processes that people go through when making a selfie. It is expected that there is a positive relationship between selfie-making and self-esteem, in that sense that people who make more selfies boost their self-esteem. Individuals can decide what they want to show in the picture and have more control over it. The same applies for photos; when a photo is made of someone, his or her self-esteem will increase. However, I expect that this relationship is weaker since the person does not have full control over it.

Also interesting is the question what happens with self-esteem when taking into account the social context of picture making. Hereby I distinguish between shared making and isolated selfie-making. It is expected that when people have a picture with more people on it, it has a strong positive relationship with self-esteem. Since it is a shared event, people can receive affirmation of others. This is not possible when the picture is made when someone is alone. Therefore it is not clear which psychological processes people are going through and which effect is has on self-esteem. It is expected that it still has a positive effect on self-esteem, but that the relationship will be much weaker.

(10)

Theoretical and social relevance

Although selfies are an upcoming trend and used by many persons, there is not much research available regarding making selfies. A big part of the research which exists on this topic relates to selfie-posting behavior on social media (Lyu, 2016). The main focus in these articles is in combination with sharing selfies on social platforms (Lyu, 2016; Sorokowski, 2016). However, sharing selfies is something different than making selfies and thus leads to different psychological processes. Most often, when people make a selfie it is to capture a moment which the attach value to. When people share it with other, it is because they want to show their happiness and receive approval from others. Surprisingly there is almost no research on the selfie-making process itself. Why people make – or don’t make – selfies and which variables relate to this process remains unclear from existing research.

Structure of the thesis

(11)

Theoretical framework

Materialism

Material possessions have practical and instrumental use in our daily lives but can also function as symbol or signal for peoples’ status or identity and self-expression. (Karabati and Cemalcilar, 2010). Materialism is often linked with negative consequences, such as diminished well-being (Kau, Kwon, Tan and Wirtz, 2000), weak concern for the environment (Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008) and even racism (Roets, Van Hiel and Cornelis, 2006). Research also indicates a negative effect of material possessions on happiness/wellbeing (Karabati and Cemalcilar, 2010; Kasser et al, 2014; Lee and Ahn, 2016). It can be due increasing higher desires and expectations that people are never satisfied on long term compared to non-materialistic people. Consumers can use material possessions to give others a signal of their status. An underlying motive for this phenomenon is the motive to protect one’s self-integrity (Sivanathan and Pettit, 2010). Despite many people acknowledge that placing much value on material possessions is unhealthy, it is difficult to resist for most of them (Mick, 1996).

The article of Burroughs and colleagues (2013) proposes a research agenda to reduce materialism in society. Burroughs et al. (2013) use the motivation theory which is the major perspective for interpreting materialism. According to this theory, “materialism is the product of a failure to meet higher-order psychological needs” (p.2). Materialism is defined as “the centrality of material objects and possessions in one’s life, fundamentally an outward manifestation of deeper unmet needs and psychological insecurities” (p.1). If core needs become unfulfilled, feelings of anxiety will arise which people tend to fill up with material possessions (Burroughs et al, 2013). Karabati and Cemalcilar (2010) also found this relationship between the value people place on materialism and their subjective well-being. However, material possessions cannot replace all core needs (such as love and affection), resulting in false and improper feelings. In other words, people belief that they are getting happier from material possessions, but the opposite seems to be true.

(12)

materialism (Richins and Dawson, 1992). The definition of Belk originally tries to measure personality traits, whereas the definition of Richins and Dawson constructs materialism as a consumer value. The latter application is used in this thesis. Richins and Dawson (1992) explain personal values materialism under three dimensions, which are acquisition centrality, acquisition as the pursuit of happiness and possession-defined success. People high on materialism are expected to place possessions at the center of their lives (centrality), to give priority to personal relationships, experiences and achievements (happiness) and that they define materialism as a function of achievements and status (success).

Picture making

Different types of pictures

Pictures have always functioned as a form of self-expression and self-presentation. If you wanted a picture of yourself, you used to need someone to make it of you in the past. These pictures are called photos in this thesis. An upcoming new way to get a picture of yourself is the selfie. Selfies are a relatively new phenomenon which are part of the digital era. A selfie is “a self-portrait photograph of oneself (or of oneself and other people), taken with a camera or a camera phone held at arm's length or pointed at a mirror, which is usually shared through social media” (Sorokowski et al., 2015). Compared to photos, individuals have more control over the picture when making a selfie. They have the freedom to choose their face visibility, emotional expression and camera position (Qui et al, 2015). Individuals use selfies for socially desirable self-presentation and to obtain positive feedback via their social networks (Bazarova et al., 2013; Manago et al., 2008). A selfie reflects the owners’ personality traits, but only the trait ‘degree of openness’ can be significantly predicted based on the selfie. Other cues found in selfies related to agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism were no significant predictors for personality (Qiu, Lu, Yang, Qu and Zhu, 2015).

(13)

2005; Karabati et al., 2010). This implies that people high on self-enhancement, place more value on material possessions. Therefore it is expected that people who make selfies are more materialistic.

Social aspect

The definition of a selfie implies that pictures include both photos taken alone as well as a photo taken with someone else or a group of other people. Van Boven and Gilovich (2003) make a distinction made between experiential possessions and material possessions. They state that the goal of an experiential purchase is acquiring life experiences and understandings. Experiental possessions differ on three main levels: motivations for experiential purchases, different forms of experiences and the social dimension of experiences (Burroughs et al., 2013). The making of a picture can be seen as an experience, which includes a social dimension. Looking at existing literature of the social aspect of experiences, I expect that the psychological processes which a person goes through when making a picture differs when it is a selfie of the person alone, or together with other people. Making a picture can be a shared experience if it is made together with other people. This can be with friends, colleagues, family, famous people, or even with strangers. For most people, a photograph in which are multiple people contains more emotional importance because it reminds of shared events than a picture of someone alone (Burroughs et al., 2013). On the other hand, it can be an isolation experience if the picture-taker is the only one on the picture. This suggests that that the social context has effects on the psychological processes that results from making a picture, since shared pictures contain more emotional importance that pictures of a person alone.

(14)

Self-esteem

Self-esteem refers to the extent to which one likes, values, accepts, and respects oneself at a general level (Brown, 1993; Rosenberg, 1979). Traditionally, self-esteem is the extent to which an individual takes a positive or negative orientation towards themselves and the extent to which individuals function well psychologically (Baranik, Meade, Laky, Lance, Hu, Hua and Michalos, 2008). Compared to persons with low self-esteem, persons with high self-esteem reveal greater happiness (Harter, 1993), experience less negative affect in response to failure (Kernis, Brockner and Frankel, 1989) and greater optimism toward meeting goals (Scheier and Carver, 1985). Self-esteem is added in this paper to further explore the relationship with materialism and picture making. Literature found a negative effect from self-esteem on materialism (Chaplin and John, 2007; Mick, 1996; Richins and Dawson, 1992; Kasser et al., 2004). This can be explained by the fact that material goods can function as compensation for or a way to cope with insecurity or feelings of unsafety, resulting from low self-esteem. (Chang and Arkin, 2002; Kasser, 2002; Braun and Wicklund, 1989; Chang and Arkin, 2002; Solberg et al., 2004). Research shows that people with low self-esteem tend more to attach themselves to people and material things that are perceived as having significant value (Brown, Collins and Schmidt, 1988). Park and John (2011) show the link between self-esteem discrepancy and materialism, which is based on the idea that “large self-esteem discrepancies motivate consumers to self-enhance using material possessions”. Still, not all relationships around self-esteem are scientifically proven. Correlations vary widely and the direction of relationships have not been established (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger and Vohs, 2003).

Existing literature did not found evidence for a relationship between self-esteem and selfie-posting behavior (Sorokowska et al., 2016), but no research has been done for the relationship with selfie-making. This differs from sharing the picture as explained before.

Friendship Contingent Self-esteem

(15)

that target will lead to a positive self-feeling whereas not reaching the business target will lead to negative feelings of the self. Feelings of worth can be based on friendships, which is named friendship contingent self-esteem. Friendship contingent self-esteem is conceptualized as “feelings about the self that are dependent on how well relationships with friends are going” (Cambron, Acitelli and Steinberg, 2010, p. 385). Hereby the focus is on the quality of the relationships with friends. Friendships can give affection, emotional support and instrumental support (Berg, 1983; Ginsberg, 1986; Hartup and Stevens, 1997). Friendship contingent self-esteem relates to a feeling of security based on the social environment. Therefore I expect an effect of the social context in which pictures are made on friendship contingent self-esteem.

Literature found a positive correlation between social insecurity and materialism (Schroeder and Dugal, 1995; Rindfleish, Burroughs, Wong, 2009), which indicates that lower social security leads to higher materialism. In this context, I investigate the possible mediating role of friendship contingent self-esteem in the relationship between picture making and materialism.

Control variables

To test whether results are really the results of the manipulation, some variables are controlled for. These are gender, age and current mood and they are described in this paragraph.

Gender

Gender is a much used variable to control for. Previous research suggests a relationship between gender and materialism, self-esteem and selfie-making. Boys are found to be more materialistic and place greater importance on financial successes than females do (Goldberg et al., 2003; Kasser and Ryan, 1993; Beutel and Marini, 1995; La Barbera and Gürhan, 1997; Ryan and Dziurawiec, 2001). Another study found that males were indeed more materialistic but only on the success and happiness dimensions of materialism. Females were found to be more materialistic on the centrality dimension (Browne and Kaldenberg, 1997).

(16)

appearance (Kling et al., 1999). This implies that gender could have a moderating effect on the relationship between selfies and materialism, and self-esteem and materialism.

Sorokowska and colleagues (2016) found that female posted more selfies online than men did. This can be explained by the fact that men and women differ in self-presenting behaviors on social media in a way that women have a stronger need for physically attractive self-presentation in the case of group selfies (Manago, Graham, Greenfield and Salimkhan, 2008). Because of these natural differences between men and women, I expect differences for gender on the picture-making, self-esteem and materialism questions.

Age

The results of research for materialism and age are mixed. Robert and Clement (2007) found a negative relationship between materialism and age, while Roberts (2000) found a positive relationship and Golberg et al. (2003) and Ryan and Dziuraqiec (2001) found no relationship. Because of the digitalization electronical devices are having increasing importance for younger people. It is therefore expected that younger people make more pictures.

Current mood

The mood that people have play a role in how they feel and how they react on situations. Therefore this variable could influence the value that people place on material possessions, even if situations are equal. The same holds for making a picture or not, and for the value that people place on possessions. Therefore, I insert mood as control variable.

Hypotheses and conceptual model

(17)

This thesis investigates the effect that picture making has on materialism. Pictures in different situations are distinguished; the social context and type of picture is further elaborated upon. The literature concerning the human being as social and need for valuation (Burroughs et al., 2010) suggests that the social environment has an impact on consumer behavior. Creating shared experiences lowers the need for material possessions. Concerning the type of picture, selfies are linked with self-enhancement and focusing on the self (Burns, 2015). This implies that more importance is attached on self-actualization, and thus also on material possessions. Hence, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H1a. When a picture is made with other people, compared when being alone, less value is attributed on material possessions

H1b. When a selfie is made, compared with a traditional photo, more value is attributed on material possessions

Self-esteem is the extent to which one accepts and respects oneself at a general level. This means that self-esteem is not dependent on external factors. Whether a picture is made with other people or alone, should therefore not influence the general self-esteem. Regarding the type of picture, people have more influence on the picture when making a selfie. People have more control over it, which increases self-esteem. Therefore the following hypotheses are formulated:

H2a. Whether a picture is made with other people or alone has no effect on self-esteem

H2b. When making a selfie, compared with a photo, self-esteem increases

Often, people relate their own self-esteem to external factors. One specific contingent self-esteem is friendship contingent self-esteem (Cambron et al., 2010). When sharing the experience of selfie-making, this could increase the friendship contingent self-esteem. However, isolated selfie-making should boost feelings of loneliness and insecurity. On the other hand, making a selfie or photo should not influence friendship contingent self-esteem. Therefore it is hypothesized that:

H3a. When a selfie is made with other people, friendship contingent self-esteem increases

(18)

When self-esteem and friendship contingent self-esteem are high, a person does not feel the need to get affection or give certain signals of status. The need for material possessions will therefore decrease, which result in the following hypotheses:

H4a: When self-esteem is high, materialism is low

H4b: When friendship contingent self-esteem is high, materialism is low

Literature suggests a relationship between self-esteem and materialism, but it is not known whether this is actually a mediating relationship. In this paper this will be investigated, resulting in the last hypotheses:

H5a. Self-esteem mediates the relationship between selfie-making and materialism

H5b. Friendship contingent self-esteem mediates the relationship between selfie-making and materialism

The hypotheses, resulting in the conceptual model, are illustrated in Figure 1.

(19)

Methodology

In the literature review a framework is given based on relevant existing literature, resulting in the conceptual model and hypotheses. Empirical research will be conducted to test the hypotheses. This chapter elaborates on the research design, procedures and measurements.

Research design

(20)

Figure 2

Visualization of manipulation of the conditions Type of picture Photo Selfie Social context Alone Condition 1 Condition 2 Together Condition 3 Condition 4 Measures

For this research significance is set to α = 0,05. Internal consistency of the different scales is measured using Cronbach’s alpha. The alpha level should be at least α = 0,06, or preferably α = 0,07 to be internally consistent.

PANAS

(21)

Materialism

Materialism is measured in two ways. First, the participant has to choose between high- and low-status products. Two pictures of the same product but with different brands were shown, where they had to indicate their preference. Three times they had to choose between a private label (low-status product) or A-label (high-(low-status product). However, Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is α = .326 which indicates a very low internal consistency, even if items were deleted. Therefore this scale is not used in this research. Second, the Material Value Scale is used to measure materialism on a 5-point Likert Scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5= completely agree. Richins and Dawson (1992) developed a scale to measure materialism as a value that influences individuals’ perspective of life by dividing it in three dimensions which together explain the overall construct of materialism. The dimensions are acquisition centrality, acquisition as the pursuit of happiness, and possession-defined success. 8 of the 18 items are reversed. The scale consists statements such as “Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions”, “I like a lot of luxury in my life” and “I wouldn’t be any happier if I owned nicer things”. Research has proved the scale to be reliable (Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002; Kasser and Ryan, 1996; Pieters, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha for the whole scale is α =.825. For the subscales, Cronbach’s alpha for success is α = .727, for centrality is α = .719 and for happiness is α = .689. All scales are highly internal consistent, which makes it useful for this research.

Self-Esteem

(22)

the scale is seen as reliable in this study. Cronbach’s alpha for RSES is α = .889, which makes the scale internal consistent.

Friendship Contingent Self-Esteem

The Friendship Contingent Self-Esteem (FCSE) scale (Cambron et al., 2010) is used to measure friendship contingent self-esteem. This scale consists of eight items using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. “My feelings about myself are affected when my friendships are criticized”, “I can’t feel good about myself if I feel rejected by my friends”, and “My overall feelings about myself are heavily influenced by how much my friends like me” are three examples of the eight items. Cronbach’s alpha is α = .893.

Procedure

The first questions test the demographic variables: age, education and gender. For age and gender no special constructs are used. Education is askes on a scale of primary education, lower secondary education, upper secondary education, post-secondary non-tertiary education, short-cycle tertiary education, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctorate degree or higher. Also their current mood is measured using the PANAS. Thereafter, the participant is randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. The conditions contains a picture where the participant sees one of the four situations: selfie or photo and alone or with a group. These pictures all consists of the same simple character, all created as minimal pictures to avoid confounds. Participants are asked what they see on the picture and how they would feel in this situation. Right after this manipulation, materialism is measured. Thereafter, self-esteem and friendship contingent self-esteem are measured using scales. In the end, participants are asked how many selfies and photos they take per week.

Results

(23)

Descriptive statistics

The first step after receiving the data, was to clean up the dataset. Hundred and sixty-seven participants started the survey, of whom hundred eleven finished the questionnaire. All questionnaires that were not filled in correctly or that were not finished were removed from the dataset.

From the 111 participants in the ‘clean’ data set, 34.4% were male and 65.6% were female. The respondents’ average age was 29.3 year (SD = 11.93) and ranged from 13 to 63 years. The distribution of the participants’ education is presented in Table 1. On average, the respondents make 2.85 pictures (SD = 5.89) and 4.71 selfies (SD = 19.89) per week.

Table 1

Demographics (Education Level)

Education level Percentage

Primary education 4.3%

Lower secondary education 4.9%

Upper secondary education 17.2%

Post-secondary non-tertiary education 12.3%

Short-cycle tertiary education 23.3%

Bachelor’s degree 19.0%

Master’s degree 18.4%

Doctorate degree .6%

The respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions, which are a photo being made alone, a selfie being made alone, a photo made with a group, and a selfie made with a group. Due to the deletion of the incorrect questionnaires the distribution of number of participants in each condition was not equal. The distribution of the participants is shown in Fout! Verwijzingsbron

(24)

Table 2

Distribution of Participants to Conditions

Condition N 1 Photo Alone 25 2 Selfie Alone 33 3 Photo Group 29 4 Selfie Group 24 Total 111

To reveal systematic differences in the distribution of participants to the conditions with respect to age, education and gender, an ANOVA and a Pearson’s Chi-squared test were conducted. Age, which is the only metric variable, was tested by a one-way ANOVA. Education and gender, non-metric variables, were tested with Pearson’s Chi-squared test. The results of the tests are presented in Table 3 and show that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected (all p’s > .050). This means that the four conditions did not differ significantly with regard to the demographics age, gender and education.

Table 3

Results of ANOVA and Chi-squared test

(25)

Testing hypotheses

In this paragraph the conceptual model will be analyzed using the data. First the main effects will be investigated, followed by the mediating effects and control variables.

Effect of picture making on materialism

To investigate the effect of the different picture making situations on materialism a two-way ANOVA was conducted where materialism is the dependent variable and Selfie_Picture and Alone_Group are the independent variables. It revealed no statistically significant main effect of Selfie_Picture on materialism (F(1,106) = 0.125, p = .724), nor of Alone_Group (F(1,106) = 0.100, p = .753). Furthermore, the interaction effect between Selfie_Picture and Alone_Group on materialism was not significant (F(1,106) = 1.520, p = .220) as shown in Figure 1. This implies that a significant relationship between selfie making and materialism is not confirmed.

Table 4

Means and standard deviations of materialism per condition

Condition M SD

1 Alone Photo 2.674 0.110

2 Alone Selfie 2.582 0.094

3 Group Photo 2.579 0.100

4 Group Selfie 2.743 0.110

(26)

= .753. The mean and standard deviation values are presented in Table 4. The results show no significance, but a trend is observed that people are more materialistic when they make a selfie in a group than when a photo is made. When people are alone they are more materialistic when a photo is made compared to making a selfie. This trend is illustrated in Figure 3.

To further gain more insights, Pearson correlations of ‘How many selfies do you take per week’ and ‘How many pictures do you take per week’ are investigated. For the selfie question one outlier is removed from the dataset. This respondent made 200 selfies per week, while mean is M = 4,71. There is a marginally significant effect of the amount of selfies that are made per week on materialism (r(107) = 0.178, p = .068) No relationship was found between the amount of photos and materialism (r(107) = 0.009, p = .930). This implies that there is a trend that people who make more selfies, gain more materialistic, however this trend is marginally significant.

Effect of picture making on (friendship contingent) self-esteem

To test for the effect of selfie-making on self-esteem, a two-way ANOVA was conducted, where Self-Esteem is the dependent variable and Selfie_Picture and Alone_Group are the independent variables. The results reveal no statistically significant main effect of Selfie_Picture on self-esteem (F(1,103) = 1.233, p = .269), nor of Alone_Group (F(1,103) = 0.764, p = .384). The interaction effect between social context and type of picture was not significant (F(1,103) = 0.129, p = .720).

2,45 2,5 2,55 2,6 2,65 2,7 2,75 2,8 Selfie Photo E stim ated M ea n s o f M ater ialis m

Figure 3. Line graph showing estimated Means of Materialism

(27)

This suggest no statistically significant relationship between picture making and self-esteem. Planned comparisons reveal no significant differences in the four conditions. These are presented in Table 5.

The pairwise comparison of the type of picture condition was non-significant. The average number of all errors in all selfie conditions combined (M = 3.809, SD = .093) was not significantly higher than those in the photo condition (M = 3.957, SD = .095), F(1,103) = 1.233, p = .269. The pairwise comparison of the social context was also non-significant. The average number of all errors in all alone conditions combined (M = 3.825, SD = .092) was not significantly higher than those in the photo condition (M = 3.941, SD = .096), F(1,103) = 0.764, p = .384.

Table 5

Means and standard deviations of self-esteem per condition

Condition M SD

1 Alone Photo 3.875 0.139

2 Alone Selfie 3.775 0.121

3 Group Photo 4.039 0.129

4 Group Selfie 3.843 0.142

(28)

condition (M = 2.947, SD = .120), F(1,103) = 0.840, p = .360. The results the of planned comparisons are presented in Table 6.

Table 6

Means and standard deviations of friendship contingent self-esteem per condition Condition M SD 1 Alone Photo 3.026 0.174 2 Alone Selfie 3.172 0.150 3 Group Photo 2.888 0.161 4 Group Selfie 3.005 0.177

Effect of (friendship contingent) self-esteem on materialism

In order to assess whether self-esteem is related to materialism, the Pearson correlations have been examined. The two variables were negatively correlated r(107) = -.21, p = .02. Hence, as expected, the more self-esteem a person has, the less materialistic this person will be.

To test whether there is a relationship between friendship contingent self-esteem on materialism, the Pearson correlations have been examined. This relationship is marginally significant r(107) = .182, p = .06, which leads to the assumption that there is a positive link between friendship contingent self-esteem and materialism; if friendship-contingent self-esteem increases the value placed on material possessions will increase.

Mediating effect of (friendship contingent) self-esteem

(29)

PROCESS (model 4) developed by Hayes (2013). In this model, X represents the picture making situation (selfie/photo and alone/group), Y is materialism and both self-esteem and friendship contingent self-esteem are included as mediators (M1 and M2). Results are shown in Table 7 and show no significant relationship. The results are further described in the following paragraphs.

Table 7

Mediation Analysis : p-values

X

Relation Type of picture Social context

Direct path

Independent -> Materialism .7923 .5642

Indirect path

Independent -> Self-esteem .2266 .3147

Self-esteem -> Materialism .1161 .1117

Friendship contingent self-esteem -> Materialism

.2269 .2168

Independent -> Friendship contingent self-esteem

.3602 .3062

Type of picture, (friendship contingent) self-esteem, materialism

(30)

Social context, (friendship contingent) self-esteem, materialism

In the second mediation model, alone/group was used as the independent variable. The output of the model shows that all effects are not significant. When taking into account the bootstrapped lower and upper confidence intervals, I see that zero is included and thus not significant.

Mediation on Subscales of Materialism

To test for possible smaller interaction effects on materialism, the mediation model is also applied on the subscales of materialism: success, centrality and happiness. Selfie/photo and Alone/group are used as X, while Success, Centrality and Happiness were dependent variables, resulting in six mediation models. The results are presented in Appendix A. The results show no mediating effect in all conditions.

Correlations

(31)

Table 8

Bivariate Correlations between Main Variables and Control Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Materialism 2. Self-esteem -.206* 3. Friendship contingent self-esteem .182 -.363** 4. Age -.403** .039 -.001 5. Gender .034 -.165 .174 -.102 6. Amount photos .009 -.058 -.185 -.036 -.210* 7. Amount Selfies .009 .086 -.068 -.152 .095 .091 8. Positive PANAS .026 .268** .044 .085 -.102 .054 .058 9. Negative PANAS -.175 .237* -.260** .057 .127 -.017 -.054 -.106 10. Success .850** -.124 .179 -.404** -.090 .016 .007 .054 -.226* 11. Centrality .774** -.144 .118 -.257** .118 -.029 .060 .022 .085 .491** 12. Happiness .719** -.224* .131 -.287** .049 .040 -.057 -.020 -.303** .500** .259** *p <0.05, ** p <0.001

Discussion

(32)

Conclusion

In order to examine the effects of picture making on materialism, the research started with testing the main effects of making a selfie or photo and being alone or in a group on materialism. Also the interaction effect of these factors is assessed. Both main effects and interaction effects show no significance. However, the results of this research confirm that there is a tendency for people who make selfies to be more materialistic when they are in a group, compared to being alone. However, when not a selfie but a photo is made in a group, materialism decreases. A possible explanation for this can be that in this case the focus is on the group and the shared experience. In this situation there is less need for material possessions to fulfill one’s needs. Materialism increases when a photo is made and you’re alone on the picture. Someone else is focusing on you, which could make you feel insecure and have the tendency to fill this gap with material possessions.

Furthermore, it is proposed by literature that self-esteem and friendship contingent self-esteem could have an effect on materialism. This study contradicts this finding. No significant relationship was found for both mediators. This means that the self-esteem variables do not have a direct effect on materialism, and are also not part of an indirect effect. This contradicts existing literature concerning materialism and self-esteem (Jiang, Zhang, Ke, Hawk, and Qiu, 2015; Kasser, 2002; Richins and Dawson, 1992). Interesting is that the Pearson correlations reveal a significant negative relationship between self-esteem and materialism, which confirm the literature. Apparently, this relationship weakens or disappears when taking into account picture making.

Concerning the control variables, I see that age has a significant negative influence on materialism and its subscales. When people get older, they place less emphasis on material assets.

(33)

Only negative affect is negatively significantly correlated to friendship-contingent self-esteem, which implies that more friendship contingent self-esteem is related to less negative affect. In combination with the previous finding it could be interesting to gain more insights through future research on the effect that mood has on (friendship contingent) self-esteem.

Table 9

Results of Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses Results

H1a. When a picture is made with other people, compared when being

alone, less value is attributed on material possessions Not supported H1b. When a selfie is made, compared with a traditional photo, more

value is attributed on material possessions Not supported H2a. Whether a picture is made with other people or alone has an effect

on self-esteem Not supported

H2b. When making a selfie, compared with a photo, self-esteem

increases Not supported

H3a. When a selfie is made with other people, friendship contingent

self-esteem increases Not supported

H3b. Whether a photo or selfie is made does affect friendship contingent

self-esteem Not supported

H4a. When self-esteem is high, materialism is low Supported

H4b. When friendship contingent self-esteem is high, materialism is low Not supported H5a. Self-esteem mediates the relationship between selfie-making and

materialism Not supported

H5b. Friendship contingent self-esteem mediates the relationship

(34)

Limitations and Future Research

This research has some limitations. In the first place, the hypotheses are tested using an online questionnaire. It would be better to conduct a qualitative study such as a fieldstudy to gain more realistic insights in real life situations. The questionnaire used may have been too long, resulting in tired participants and answers that do not reflect reality. For participants it also would be more easy to empathize in the situations I tried to create by using the pictures. The pictures may have been not clear or too abstract to really manipulate the participants. Second, this research is limited to only the Netherlands and also mainly younger people have answered the questionnaire. To gain deeper insights, a better age and geographical distribution should be realized. However, since selfies are a relative new phenomenon it would be difficult to investigate this topic at people of higher ages.

Managerial and Theoretical Implications

(35)

Appendix A: Results Mediation Analysis on subscales Materialism

Mediation Analysis Subscales Materialism

Relation X = Success X = Centrality X = Happiness

Selfie/Photo Alone/Group Selfie/Photo Alone/Group Selfie/Photo Alone/Group

(36)

M1 BootLLCI -.6499 -.8268 -.6860 -.6246 -.7051 -.7633

BootULCI .1122 .0836 .0551 .0873 .0424 .0737

M2 BootLLCI -.6653 -.7452 -.6520 -.6914 -.4692 -.5026

BootULCI .0555 .0571 .1070 .0852 .0839 .0686

(37)

References

Baranik, L.E., Meade, A.W., Lakey, C.E., Lance, C.E., Hu, C., Hua, W., Michalos, A. (2008). Examining the Differential Item Functioning of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Across Eight Countries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1867–1904

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44.

Belk, R. W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 291–297.

Berg, J. H. (1983, August). Attraction in relationships: As it begins so it goes. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.

Beutel, M. A and Marini, M. M. (1995) Gender and values. American Sociological Review , 60, 436–448

Bishop J, Inderbitzen H. (1995). Peer Acceptance and Friendship: An Investigation. Journal of Early Adolescence. ;15:476–489

Booth, C.L., Rubin, K.H. and Rose-Krasnor, L. (1998). Perceptions of Emotional Support from Mother and Friend in Middle Childhood: Links with Social-Emotional Adaptation and Preschool Attachment Security. Child Development, 69(2), 427-442

Boven, L. and Gilovich, T. (2003) To Do or to Have? That Is the Question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193-1202

(38)

Brown, J. D. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: Feeling is believing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self , 4, 27–58. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, J.D., Collins, R.L. and Schmidt, G.W. (1988). Self-Esteem and Direct Versus Indirect Forms of Self-Enhancement, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 445-453 Browne, B. and Kaldenberg, D.(1997). Conceptualizing self-monitoring: links to materialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), 31-44.

Burns, A. (2015). Self(ie)-Discipline: Social Regulation as Enacted Through the Discussion of Photographic Practice, International Journal of Communication, 9, 1716-1733

Burroughs, J.E. and Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348–370.

Burroughs, J.E., Chaplin, L.E., Pandelaere, M., Norton, M.I., Ordabayeva, N., Gunz,

A. and Dinauer, L. (2013) Using Motivation Theory to Develop a Transformative Consumer Research Agenda for Reducing Materialism in Society. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(1), 18-31

Cambron, M.J., Acitelli, L.K., & Steinberg, L. (2010). When Friends Make You Blue: The Role of Friendship Contingent Self-Esteem in Predicting Self-Esteem and Depressive Symptoms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 384–397

Carpenter, C.J. (2012). Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 482-486

Chang, L., & Arkin, R. M. (2002). Materialism as an attempt to cope with uncertainty. Psychology and Marketing, 19(5), 389–406

(39)

Geertz, C. (1975). On the nature of anthropological understanding. American Scientist, 63, 47– 53.

Ginsberg, D. (1986). Friendship and postdivorce adjustment. In J. M. Gottman & J. G. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of friends (pp. 346-376). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R. R. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 87–116). New York:

Plenum.

Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.

Hayes, A. F.(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420

Hayes, Andrew F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press

Jiang, J., Zhang, Y., Ke, Y., Hawk, S.T., Qiu, H. (2015). Can't buy me friendship? Peer rejection and adolescent materialism: Implicit self-esteem as a mediator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 48-55.

Karabati, S. and Cemalcilar, Z. (2010). Values, materialism, and well-being: A study with Turkish university students. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 624–633

Kasser, R. and Ryan, R.M. (1996). Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(280), 280–287.

(40)

Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C. E., and Sheldon, K.M. (2004). Materialistic Values: Their Causes and Consequences. Psychology and Consumer Culture, ed. Tim Kasser and Allen D. Kanner, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 11–28.

Kau, A. K., Kwon, J., Tan, S. J., & Wirtz, J. (2000). The influence of materialistic inclination on values life satisfaction and aspirations: An empirical analysis. Social Indicators Research, 49, 317–333.

Kernis, M. H., Brockner, J., & Frankel, B. S. (1989). Self-esteem and reactions to failure: The mediating role of overgeneralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 707–714. Kilbourne, W., Grünhagen, M., & Foley, J. (2005). A cross-cultural examination of the

relationship between materialism and individual values. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 624–641.

Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 885–893. Kling, K.C., Hyde, J.S., Showers, C.J., Buswell, B.N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 125(4), 470-500

La Barbera, P.A. and Gürhan, Z. (1997). The role of materialism, religiosity, and demographics in subjective well-being. Psychology & Marketing , 14, 71–97

Lee, M.S.W. and Ahn, C.S.Y. (2016). Anti-consumption, Materialism, and Consumer Well-being, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 18-47

Manago, A.M., Graham, M.B., Greenfield, P.M. and Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29 (6), 446–458

(41)

Park, J.K., and John, D.R. (2011). More than meets the eye: The influence of implicit and explicit self-esteem on materialism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 73-87

O’Cass, A. (2001). Exploring the Relationship Between Self-Monitoring, Materialism and Product Involvement in Fashion Clothing. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 183-189

Ogden, H., and Cheng, S. (2011). Cultural dimensions and materialism: comparing Canada and China. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(4), 431-447

Oxford University Press. 2013. “The Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2013 is...’selfie.’ ” Retrieved May 13th, 2016, from http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/11/word-of-the-year-2013-winner/

Pieters, R. (2013). Bidirectional Dynamics of Materialism and Loneliness: Not Just a Vicious Cycle. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 615–631

Qiu, L., Lu, J., Yang, S., Qu, W., and Zhu, T. (2015). What does your selfie say about you? Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 443–449

Richins, M.L. and Dawson, S. (1992). A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303– 316

Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E., and Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 1–16

Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Cornelis, I. (2006). Does materialism predict racism? Materialism as a distinctive social attitude and a predictor of prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 20, 155– 168

(42)

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books

Ryan, L. and Dziurawiec, S. (2001). Materialism and its relation to life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 55, 185–197

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.

Schroeder, J.E., and Dugal, S.S. (1995). Psychological correlates of the materialism construct. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 243–253.

Sivanathan, N. and Pettit, N.C. (2010). Protecting the self through consumption: Status goods as affirmational commodities, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(3), 564–570

Solberg, E. G., Diener, E., and Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why are materialists less satisfied? In T. Kasser & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world (pp. 29–48). Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association. Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Frackowiak, T., Karwowski, M.,Rusicka, I., and Oleszkiewicz, A. (2016). Sex differences in online selfie posting behaviors predict histrionic personality scores among men but not women. Computers in Human Behavior, 59(2), 368-373

Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T., Huk, A., and Pisanski, K. (2015). Selfie posting behaviors are associated with narcissism among men. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 123–127.

Tafarodi, R.W., Lang, J.M., and Smith, A.J. (1999). Self-Esteem and the Cultural Trade-Off : Evidence for the Role of Individualism-Collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 620-640

(43)

Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of Positive and Negative Affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1020-1030.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social

The effect of selfie-making in a social context on materialism and the role of (friendship contingent) self-esteem

The effect of selfie-making in a social context on materialism and the role of

(friendship contingent) self-esteem

The effect of selfie-making in a social context on materialism and the role of

(friendship contingent) self-esteem

Abstract

Preface

Table of Contents

Introduction

Theoretical framework

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Appendix A: Results Mediation Analysis on subscales Materialism

References