Lecture 5 Notes: Social Media Reality — Online vs Offline Self

Introduction and Context

• Lecture 5 title: social media reality – online vs offline self.
• Acknowledgement of traditional land: Dalaik Nation; emphasis on Indigenous cultures and learning.
• Plan for today: psychology of online self-presentation; platform-specific personality expression; need to belong; application and practice; Indigenous perspectives integrating cultural ways of knowing about identity and belonging.
• Acknowledgement of attendance differences: many students online; encouragement to pause and reflect, discuss with peers (in-person or online), and use worksheets to deepen understanding.
• Emphasis on student responsibility: apply concepts to real clients in the future; lectures/tutorials support but students must develop independent understanding.

Week 4 Recap: Personality Measurement and Digital Environments

• Week 4 covered personality measurement, accuracy of assessments, and implications for algorithmic behavior and personality development in children.
• Core motivation: think critically about how digital environments affect personality expression and social connection; question: are online and offline selves the same?
• Polls from last week (results discussed):
  • A question: “Does Facebook know your personality better than your best friend?” — responses varied; some thought yes.
  • A second question: “How addicted are you?” — mixed responses; notable discomfort when away from the phone.
  • Observed behavior: many participants spend several hours on social media; some remarked on low tolerance for not having access to their phone.

Central Question: Are You the Same Person Online and Offline?

• Intuition: you are not the same across contexts (friends, family, job interviews, this lecture).
• Digital environments create new social environments with audiences, rules, goals, and feedback.
• The ability to adapt to different social moments is healthy; failure to adapt can be challenging.
• Reference point: social environments (audience, rules, feedback) differ by platform (e.g., LinkedIn vs Instagram).
• Introduction to Erving Goffman’s theatrical analogy: backstage vs front-stage personas; traditional theater masks vs authentic self vs performance.
• Online platforms add complexity: TikTok is algorithm-driven; feedback is measured in views and shares, potentially shaping personality expression across platforms.
• Concept of social selection: people gravitate toward platforms that match their preferences (visuals on Instagram, entertainment on TikTok).
• Impression management: ongoing effort to influence how others perceive us online.
• Digital permanence: posts are largely written and persistent; unlike casual in-person mishaps, online mistakes can endure and be visible to mixed audiences (e.g., grandmother seeing a post).
• Amplified feedback loop: likes, comments, and shares expand visibility; platform algorithms determine who sees what, creating amplification effects.

Evolutionary Context and the Pace of Change

• Evolutionary psychology reminds us that human psychology evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, while digital environments are relatively new; there is a mismatch in timescales, making adaptation incomplete.
• Implication: we should not expect instant alignment with online environments; ethical and practical considerations arise from this lag.

Can You Be Both Strategic and Genuine Online?

• Paradox: self-presentation involves performance in many contexts; online platforms invite strategic curation.
• Some people feel more authentic online (e.g., easier self-expression, reduced social anxiety when writing) but algorithms still shape outcomes.
• Conclusion: it is possible to be both strategic and genuine, though balance may vary by individual and platform.

Indigenous Perspectives on Digital Identity

• Indigenous concepts stress identity as relational and community-centered: identity emerges from relationships, community, land, and ancestors.
• Legal perspective: identity is contextual and relational; individuals are always in relationship with others.
• Ancestral perspective (grandparents): identity formation is interwoven with place and lineage; intergenerational wisdom matters.
• Indigenous perspectives challenge traditional Western psychology’s focus on fixed traits; emphasize relational identity and context.
• End-state question: can online platforms support genuinely relational identity without eroding connection to land, community, and ancestors?
• Interactive activity: quick chat with a partner on relational vs. Western individualistic identity models; share one example from a chosen identity frame (grandparent, parent, self, grandchild).
• Several student responses highlighted culture, family, and environment shaping identity; noted that Western psychology often underrepresents relational and community aspects.

Relational vs Western Individualistic Identity

• Contrast: Western psychology often emphasizes individual traits and self-expression; less attention to relational context.
• Real-world implication: online platforms may reinforce individualistic self-presentation, but relational identity remains critical in many cultures.
• Reflection: online platforms’ design and algorithms can either support or undermine relational identity depending on context and usage.

Platform-Specific Expressions and Feedback

• Platforms discussed:
  • Instagram: visually curated, image-first; strong potential for impression management and body image concerns; visual aesthetics can distort self-presentation.
  • LinkedIn: professional network; feedback leans toward career-related content; algorithms increasingly curate feeds for engagement.
  • Facebook: originally relational; current experience often more ad-driven; perceived decline in relational quality for many users.
  • TikTok: algorithm-driven; potential for viral content; diverse expressions across personality facets.
• Core questions about platforms:
  • Do different platforms reveal different facets of personality, or do they create distinct versions of the self?
  • How consistent are Big Five traits across platforms? Extraversion tends to be more stable; openness and conscientiousness show variability; extraversion is relatively consistent, while openness/conscientiousness may fluctuate with platform design and context.
  • How do engagement-driven algorithms shape self-presentation and personality expression? Likely to shift online self toward what the algorithm rewards rather than purely authentic expression.

Theoretical Lenses and Concepts

• Big Five personality traits (common reference point):
  • Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness
  • Across platforms, extraversion tends to be relatively consistent; conscientiousness may be higher on professional platforms and lower on casual ones; other traits show more variability.
• Social influence and algorithms:
  • Traditional social influence: observe friends’ behavior, adopt norms, and adjust accordingly.
  • Algorithmic influence: observe engagement metrics; AI selects content to maximize engagement; users adapt content to maximize engagement.
  • Evocation: certain traits evoke different responses; algorithms amplify those evocation patterns by targeting the most engaging content.
  • Resulting feedback loop: post -> algorithm -> exposure -> engagement -> adaptation -> future content; could shift online personality toward algorithmic rewards.
• Theories for integration into digital identity:
  • McAdams’ life narrative: people construct life stories; social media can serve as a platform for storytelling, but algorithmic curation may distort authentic narratives.
  • Self-Determination Theory (SDT): three core needs: $Autonomy, \, Competence, \, Relatedness.$; two motivational modes: $Intrinsic$ (internal satisfaction) vs $Extrinsic$ (external rewards like grades or social approval).
  • Online SDT questions: are autonomy, competence, and relatedness genuinely fulfilled online, or are they mediated by algorithms and platform design?
• Attachment theory in digital spaces: secure, anxious, avoidant, and disorganized attachments affect online behavior and comfort with self-disclosure; relevant statistics: approx. $60 ext{ extperthousand?}$ (approximately 60 ext{ ext ext%}) secure attachment; about 20 ext{ ext%} more anxious attachment; disorganized around 5 ext{ ext%}; (numbers reflect qualitative discussion from the lecture).
• Additional theories and ideas:
  • McAdams’ life narrative (revisited): digital storytelling can support identity development, particularly in youth and Indigenous contexts where storytelling is central.
  • Narrative identity and belonging: belonging arises from shared stories and place-based identity; digital platforms may both support and disrupt belonging through algorithmic curation and online rituals.
  • The role of place-based identity and intergenerational wisdom: culture is transmitted through both online and offline channels; visual ceremonies and place-based identity are essential for authentic belonging.

Digital Storytelling and Belonging

• Digital storytelling is a means to communicate life stories; it can support sense of self and community, especially among youth and Indigenous populations.
• Potential conflict: algorithms may disrupt authentic storytelling by rewarding highly curated or sensational content.
• Belonging factors in personality development:
  • Introversion vs. Extroversion: digital can substitute for some real-life interactions for introverts; still requires meaningful connection.
  • Neuroticism and attachment anxiety: higher sensitivity to social feedback; monitoring response times and other cues online.
  • Openness to experience: more exploratory online behavior.
• Warning: online platforms can distort belonging by emphasizing quantity of connections over quality of relationships.

Practical Implications for Psychology Practice

• For future therapists, understanding online self-presentation is essential when working with clients who present online identities or online-related anxiety.
• Important distinctions:
  • Distinguish between genuine belonging and engagement-driven belonging (driven by platform rewards).
  • Recognize that online behavior may reflect unmet SDT needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness).
  • Be mindful of attachment styles when addressing clients’ online disclosure and self-presentation.
• Important takeaway: not everything online is negative; platforms offer opportunities for relational connection and identity exploration when used reflectively and ethically.

Assignment: Theory Integration and Design (Week 5)

• Overview:
  • You will work with a problematic social media post about some aspect of personality identity.
  • You must create an evidence-based alternative post using personality theories covered (e.g., Big Five, attachment theory, narrative identity, SDT, etc.).
  • It is better to go deep with a few theories than cover many superficially.
  • You must reference actual research and address individual differences as well as cultural and relational aspects of identity.
  • You must create an alternative policy that preserves the same topic but corrects the misinformation and aligns with scientific understanding.
  • The assignment demonstrates the difference between appealing content and scientifically correct content.
  • The goal is to improve online discourse by offering nuanced, evidence-based content.
• Process and demonstration:
  • Instructor invited Zach (a student) to describe their plan for a post on enneagrams and relationships; emphasis on using readings and theory to justify claims.
  • Peer leaders and instructor provided feedback: identify oversimplifications (e.g., focusing only on two Big Five traits; ignoring self-preservation/curation biases); account for individual differences; ensure visual presentations don’t misrepresent deeper psychology.
  • The demonstration included steps: identify problems, apply personality psychology to the issue, craft an evidence-based alternative, and create a more nuanced post while retaining engagement.
• Step-by-step guidance (summary):
  • Step 1: Identify the problems with the original post (e.g., oversimplification, reliance on a subset of traits, neglect of self-preservation/curation biases).
  • Step 2: Apply personality psychology to the issue, noting platform-specific presentations and that a single post cannot capture the full personality.
  • Step 3: Create an evidence-based alternative (inclusive of multiple theories) and justify it with research; explain measurement and interpretation, including caveats about diagnosing traits/conditions from posts.
  • Step 4: Maintain engagement while providing nuance; show how the original post was appealing but scientifically misleading.
  • Step 5: Plan and coordinate with peers; use peer leaders and instructors for feedback; prepare for final polishing in Week 7.
• Practical tools and tips:
  • Consider using Adobe Express for creating post content and visuals.
  • Schedule team meetings and plan rotations; begin drafting content early; aim for a concise 5-minute presentation/post.
  • Engage with readings (chapter 15 as clarified by the instructor) and relevant research; do not rely solely on personal opinion.
  • Understand the assignment requires a balance between rigorous science and engaging presentation; avoid overgeneralization.
• Week-by-week timeline:
  • Week 5: Theory integration and design (assignment focus).
  • Week 6: Guest lecture on sex, gender, and personality and related readings (chapter 16).
  • Week 7: Creation and production of final posts/presentations.
  • Week 8: On-campus students answer questions during project screenings; AI students produce five deliverables with similar structure.

Practical Guidance for Students

• Topics to consider for the post:
  • Enneagram and relationships (as used by Zach) with an evidence-based framing.
  • Use multiple theory lenses (e.g., Big Five with attachment; life narrative with SDT; relational identity with Indigenous perspectives).
  • Provide a nuanced alternative that preserves the original topic but corrects misinterpretations and includes citations.
• Common critique points to address in your post:
  • Oversimplification of personality traits (e.g., overemphasis on two Big Five traits).
  • Ignoring individual differences and specific cultural contexts.
  • Failure to acknowledge self-presentation strategies and algorithmic curation effects.
• Final deliverables and expectations:
  • An evidence-based alternative post with clear theoretical grounding and research references.
  • An accompanying explanation of why the original post was appealing but incorrect, and how the alternative improves understanding.
  • Coordination with peers and tutors for feedback; use the workshop as a polishing step before final submission.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion Prompts

• How do platform designs (visual-first, professional networks, or entertainment-driven feeds) shape what aspects of the self are displayed online?
• To what extent can online environments meet the three needs of Self-Determination Theory (autonomy, competence, relatedness) without compromising authenticity or privacy?
• How do indigenous perspectives on relational identity inform the design of online spaces that promote belonging without erasing place-based and intergenerational knowledge?
• In what ways do algorithmic feedback loops amplify certain personality expressions, and how can psychologists help clients navigate these dynamics?
• What ethical considerations arise when analyzing and correcting online misinformation about personality and identity in the context of therapy or counseling?

Practical Takeaways for Practice and Study

• Online self-presentation is shaped by audiences, platform rules, and feedback mechanisms; adaptions across platforms are common but not universal.
• Relational identity matters across cultures; digital environments can either amplify or undermine relational belonging depending on use and context.
• Theoretical integration (SDT, attachment, narrative identity, Big Five) provides a robust framework for evaluating online posts and developing evidence-based alternatives.
• For exam and coursework, focus on depth over breadth: pick a few theories, cite research, and articulate clear implications for practice and online harm reduction.
• Stay mindful of the permanence of online content and the potential impact on real-world relationships, family dynamics, and career opportunities.

Quick Reference: Key Terms and Concepts

• Online self-presentation, impression management, audience, platform feedback loops
• Goffman: backstage vs front-stage personas
• Social selection: platform preference shaping identity expression
• Algorithmic amplification and engagement optimization
• Self-Determination Theory: $Autonomy, \, Competence, \, Relatedness$; intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation
• Attachment theory: secure, anxious, avoidant, disorganized attachments; online self-disclosure implications
• McAdams’ life narrative: storytelling as identity construction
• Indigenous perspectives on identity: relational, community-centered, land and ancestors
• Digital storytelling and belonging: influence of context and culture on online belonging
• Platform-specific dynamics: Instagram (visual aesthetics), LinkedIn (professional norms), TikTok (algorithm-driven virality)

Important Numerical References (as discussed in lecture)

• Self-determination theory core needs: $Autonomy, \, Competence, \, Relatedness$
• Attachment prevalence estimates: 60 ext{ ext{%}} secure attachment; 20 ext{ ext{%}} more anxious attachment; 5 ext{ ext{%}} disorganized attachment
• Assignment constraints: planned around a five-minute post; focus on evidence-based content and a revised policy
• Chapter reference and schedule: Week 5 on theory integration and design; Week 6 guest lecture on sex, gender, and personality (Chapter 16); Week 7 creation and production; Week 8 project screenings