The Social Self and Social Media (Lecture Notes)
The Self: Core Concepts
The self is fundamentally social; our self-image is shaped by how we think others view us and by our social context (past vs. present, comparison to others).
Self-evaluation constructs include self-esteem (global self-worth) and self-perceptions of ability or value in specific contexts.
Measurement issues in psychology: many variables rely on self-report, which can be biased or biased by the respondent’s interpretations; researchers seek methods to reduce self-report bias.
Self-Esteem vs. Self-Efficacy
Self-esteem
Broad, global evaluation of oneself; how we feel about who we are.
Traditional measures are global; contemporary approaches look at context-specific self-esteem.
Self-efficacy (Bandura)
The belief in one's ability to perform a specific task or behavior.
Can operate independently of actual ability; high self-efficacy can boost effort, persistence, and performance regardless of objective skill.
Associated with persistence in face of obstacles; lower self-efficacy linked to reduced effort after negative feedback.
Key distinction
Self-esteem: global feeling about self-worth.
Self-efficacy: belief in capability to perform specific tasks; predictive of effort and persistence.
TraHope (Hope Theory): Pathways and Agency Thinking
Core assumption: most people are goal-oriented and regularly attempt to accomplish tasks (studying for exams, completing jobs).
Two components:
Pathway thinking: ability to generate multiple routes to achieve goals; high pathway thinkers map out alternative plans if one path is blocked (e.g., university admission alternative routes like a TAFE course).
Agency thinking: motivation to pursue those pathways; the determination to explore and enact the alternatives.
Interaction: both pathways and agency are needed; a person may identify multiple routes but must be motivated to pursue them.
Predictive validity: higher TraHope predicts better outcomes across domains (academic performance, sports, etc.).
University example (research referenced): in year 7, Treahope (TraHope) predicted later outcomes (year 12 performance); self-esteem did not reliably predict later outcomes in that longitudinal design.
Self-Affirmation and Self-Comparison
Self-affirmation theory
When identity is threatened by poor performance in one area, individuals may bolster self-worth by asserting or emphasizing strengths in other domains.
Example given: many people dislike statistics; if they perform poorly in stats, they may bolster self-image by labeling themselves as not good at stats, thus maintaining overall self-worth.
Self-comparison theory (Festinger, 1950s)
People evaluate their performance by comparing with relevant others (e.g., classmates).
Example: a quiz score of 7/10 may feel good if peers score 5/10, but not if peers score 9/10.
“Relevant others” are the appropriate benchmark for evaluation, not arbitrary comparisons.
Self-Perception, Self-Presentation, and Social Monitoring
Cooley’s Looking-Glass Self (1902)
Our self-image reflects how others see and treat us; we infer others’ judgments from their behaviors and interactions.
Classic study on labeling vs. persuasion (two conditions: labeling kids as neat and tidy vs. persuasive encouragement) suggested labeling can be particularly effective at changing behavior—consistent with attribution processes.
Attribution theories and cross-over with attribution research
Similar ideas emerge across separate lines of research, illustrating how people infer and label causes behind others’ behavior.
Self-presentation / Self-monitoring
Self-monitoring: variability in monitoring and adjusting behavior to fit social contexts; high self-monitoring individuals actively manage impressions to elicit positive responses.
Potential pros: higher likelihood of positive evaluations or promotions; cons: ongoing social vigilance can be distressing.
Spotlight Effect
Tendency to overestimate how much others notice our appearance or behavior.
Barry Manilow T-shirt study: participants overestimated the proportion others would notice the T-shirt; actual noticed rate was ~23–24%, while participants predicted ~50% would notice.
The Self in Technology and Social Media: History, Uses, and Impacts
Caveat about research tempo
Technological change is rapid; research lags behind, but general principles often generalize across platforms.
Early social networking history (brief, high-level timeline)
1960s: Licklider (and colleagues) envisioned thinking centers and networked databases; a forward-looking view of connected information resources.
1970s–1980s: community memory and public bulletin boards (early online communities); practical listings (ads, work, trading) evolved into forums for ideas and conversations.
Koala Country (Australian site, 70s–90s): one of the earliest graphics-based online communities; public boards for sharing ideas and preferences.
Email and text-based bulletin boards defined early online interaction; the Well (U.S., launched 1985) considered by many as the first virtual community; dial-up constraints limited global access, making online life partly offline due to costs and proximity.
Transition to modern social media
The Well is often cited as the precursor to modern online communities; dial-up limits meant geographically proximate users engaged more readily.
The birth of modern social networking is often linked to Facebook-era research, with 2010 moment where Facebook visits briefly surpassed Google in daily traffic.
Psychological insights about social media use
Self-presentation: social media enables curated self-presentation; users can craft a stylized life image via posts and profiles.
Underwood’s two broad motives for social media use:
Communicators: seek to maintain and develop relationships; focus on quality of social connections.
Broadcasters: seek to expand reach, show off, gain likes and followers; often less focus on deep relationships but more on visibility.
Online stalking: passive surveillance of others’ content without overt interaction; easier to monitor others online than offline.
Narcissism, Big Five, and social media use
Narcissism: higher narcissism associated with more online friends and self-promotion; emphasis on quantity (number of friends, posts) rather than depth of relationships.
Big Five personality traits and social media use:
Extroversion: consistently linked to higher Facebook use and broader social activity.
Neuroticism: also linked with higher Facebook use in some studies, possibly reflecting reactive tendencies.
Openness to experience: initially predictive of Facebook use, but replication failed; novelty effects likely diminished as social media became ubiquitous.
Security, privacy, and real-world consequences
Notable cases illustrating privacy and security risks:
A woman’s Facebook post about being out at night led to a burglary because potential thieves knew the home would be unoccupied.
An employee’s negative post about a boss was exploited when the boss discovered the post and the employee ended up losing their job.
Recruiters and online information:
In a 2006 executive survey, 77% of recruiters used search engines to check candidates; 26% reported finding information that ruled out a candidate.
Narcissism, the Big Five, and information disclosure
Higher narcissism linked to more정보 share and less secure privacy settings; similar patterns found with Big Five dimensions.
Research methods exemplified: structural equation modeling (SEM)
SEM used to model how motives for using Facebook relate to disclosure behavior and privacy settings, showing indirect effects through motives rather than direct effects from personality traits alone.
Social media and health: anxiety and well-being
Early literature suggested online interactions could reduce social anxiety for some individuals by providing alternative social avenues.
The literature discusses a nuanced view: social skills in offline contexts often transfer to online contexts, but online environments can still contribute to social anxiety or have buffering effects depending on individual differences.
Attachment styles and online behavior
Attachment styles (secure, anxious-ambivalent, avoidant) influence online behavior and social media use.
Secure attachment: easier to form relationships online; positive outcomes.
Anxious-ambivalent attachment: greater need for reassurance; online interactions can be protective but may also foster dependency.
Avoidant attachment: less likely to seek interaction; passive use reminiscent of online stalking; however, data indicated that self-reported avoidance did not consistently map onto self-reported stalking behaviors, suggesting measurement complexities and possible social desirability effects.
Summary point
The psychology of social media intersects with personality, motivation, attachment, and behavior; online environments create opportunities for self-presentation, relationship building, surveillance, and new forms of risk—yet individual differences shape how beneficial or detrimental these contexts are.
Health Psychology: Stress, Hardiness, and Optimism
Mind–body links and the social environment
Social support and enriching environments are associated with better health outcomes and stress coping.
Environmental and social factors influence physiological health; the mind–body connection is a core theme in health psychology.
Stress: definition and dual aspects
Psychological definition: perceived demands exceeding available resources, leading to feelings of being overwhelmed and stressed.
Physiological perspective (Cannon): fight/flight (and freeze) responses mobilize the body in face of threat, involving increased heart rate, breathing, adrenaline, etc.; short-term responses can be adaptive, long-term exposure is harmful.
Early experimental evidence on stress and health
Animal studies showed stress exposure could affect disease progression (e.g., rats given cancer cells under stressful vs. non-stressful conditions showed different cancer development rates).
Human epidemiology: workers in high-stress environments had higher risk of certain cancers (e.g., colon cancer) even after controlling for age, smoking, and other confounds.
Hans Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome (alarm, resistance, exhaustion)
Alarm stage: recognizes threat; activation of physiological arousal (increased heart rate, adrenaline).
Resistance stage: continued mobilization to cope; sustained arousal.
Exhaustion stage: potential collapse of physiological resources; risk of health decline if stress remains unresolved.
Individual differences in stress reactivity: Kobasa’s hardiness
Hardiness: a set of dispositions that buffer stress effects; three core components:
Commitment: sense of purpose and involvement in work, relationships, life tasks.
Control: perceived influence over work and environment; belief that one can shape outcomes.
Challenge: viewing stressors as opportunities rather than threats; willingness to engage with stressors.
Hardiness predicts lower sickness in high-stress occupations (e.g., executives) beyond demographic factors like education or background.
Perceived control: higher perceived control linked to better well-being; in nursing homes, resident control over routines is associated with higher well-being, while low control correlates with greater stress.
Optimism and explanatory style
Optimism relates to self-serving explanations for outcomes: failures attributed to external, unstable factors; successes attributed to internal, stable factors (and these attributions often perceived as persistent).
This explanatory style can influence how people cope with and interpret events and may relate to longer-term health and resilience; the course notes hint at ongoing exploration of optimism and lifespan effects.
Practical implications
Interventions to enhance hardiness (commitment, control, challenge) and perceived control may improve health and reduce sickness in high-stress contexts.
Encouraging adaptive anticipation and coping strategies can modulate stress responses and health outcomes.
Key Connections Across Topics
The self (esteem, efficacy, hope) shapes goal pursuit, persistence, and performance across academics, work, and social contexts.
Self-affirmation and attribution styles influence how people recover from or reinterpret failures, maintaining self-worth while motivating future behavior.
Social media provides opportunities for self-presentation and social interaction but also introduces new risks (privacy, stalking, online reputation) that interact with personality traits like narcissism and the Big Five.
Health psychology links psychological processes (stress, control, optimism, hardiness) to physical health outcomes, with social environments and perceived control acting as important moderators.
Formulas and Key Numbers (LaTeX)
Longitudinal academic outcome example (TraHope):
Notation: TraHope_t predicts academic performance later (illustrative).
Empirical result: TraHope predicted year 12 outcomes when measured in year 7; self-esteem did not reliably predict later outcomes. (No explicit equation provided in transcript.)
Self-efficacy and persistence (conceptual):
If a person’s self-efficacy is high, persistence is increased and task performance tends to improve, even when actual ability is limited.
Trust and privacy study (recruiters):
In 2006, 77% of recruiters used search engines to screen candidates; 26% reported information that ruled out a candidate.
Spotlight effect ( Barry Manilow T‑shirt):
Perceived notice rate: ~50% of participants; actual notice rate: ~23–24%.
General Adaptation Syndrome stages (Selye):
Alarm → Resistance → Exhaustion
Hardiness components (Kobasa):
Commitment, Control, Challenge
If you’d like, I can reorganize these notes into a printable study sheet or tailor a version focused on a specific topic area (e.g., Health Psychology vs. Social Media Psychology) with a quick-reference glossary and a set of practice questions.