Plugged In

by Patti M Valkenburg

  Although most affordances of social media may decrease informational privacy, they may increase psychological privacy. To a much greater degree than offline communication, social media allow users to control when, what, and how they express themselves, and to whom. And this is particularly relevant to teens, who, more so than adults, define privacy as the control of what, when, and with whom they communicate when they are out of sight of their parents and siblings. Seen in this light, the privacy paradox is less paradoxical than it might seem at first. The affordances of social media may decrease teens’ informational privacy, yet provide them with enhanced psychological control over their communication and allow them to demonstrate their autonomy—which helps explain the immense appeal of social media for teens.16

  Each of social media’s seven affordances, in its own way, can boost teens’ perceived sense of control and, therefore, their sense of psychological privacy. Asynchronicity, for example, offers teens the possibility to choose when they communicate. They can ponder for hours or days exactly which photograph they want to post. They can also do it synchronously, though, and with astonishing speed—for instance, in Snapchat, where they exchange photos that show up for a maximum of ten seconds. This rapid synchronous communication heightens teens’ sense of control, in this case, their ability to always stay in direct contact with their friends.

  While not a standard affordance of popular social media sites such as Facebook or Instagram, visual anonymity is an important attribute of virtual worlds and certain websites (for example, self-help sites and sites for homosexual teens). On these websites, visual anonymity can provide teens the opportunity to explore their identity by interacting with others. Perceived anonymity enhances their illusion of control and security, which in turn enhances the likelihood that teens will share personal information on these sites. Similarly, adolescents can choose whether they show (or emphasize) certain visual or auditory cues about themselves while communicating. This possibility of cue manageability may enhance their perceived sense of control and, in this case, the way they present themselves online.

  The accessibility of information can likewise add to teens’ sense of control. Never before have adolescents been capable of finding such a huge amount of information related to the development of identity, intimacy, and sexuality. They can look up information about their idols, make online friends, and find support in self-help groups. Moreover, thanks to the scalability of (most) social media, teens can choose for themselves the audience with which they communicate. And they can do so for each social media tool separately, for instance, by using WhatsApp to communicate with intimate friends, and Facebook and Twitter for group contact.

  Finally, the replicability and retrievabilty of communication add to adolescents’ sense of control. With a single click on the “share” button or a reply to all, they can reach all their “friends.” What is more, even after they have been away for weeks, they can still answer their messages—for anything posted online stays there. On Facebook alone, nearly 350 million photos are posted online daily, and they will remain online forever.

  Theories of Social Media Effects

  Estimates suggest that the majority of teens throughout the Western world spend some time with social media daily, so it is not surprising that scholars have been carefully investigating the effects of social media use on teens’ development.17 These studies are often influenced, in part, by theories of computer-mediated communication (CMC). CMC theories focus on discovering the differences between face-to-face communication and CMC. They revolve around the question whether, and how, certain CMC characteristics, such as its anonymity or its lack of nonverbal cues, influence the quality of the interpersonal communication. Do these characteristics make CMC more intimate, more uninhibited, or more aggressive than face-to-face communication? Do CMC partners get different impressions from each other than face-to-face partners do? Do they find each other more (or less) attractive?

  The first cluster of CMC theories originated in the 1970s, long before the Internet came into our lives. These rather pessimistic theories tried to compare “lean” text-only CMC with the “rich” communication of face-to-face settings. In doing so, they tried to explain, for example, why CMC led to less intimacy and more uninhibited behavior.18 In the early 1990s, a new cluster of theories emerged that took a more optimistic view of CMC. At that time, e-mail and the Internet became widely available for personal use. Joseph Walther’s social information processing theory became particularly influential at the time. It explained how CMC partners could gradually overcome the limitations of CMC by creatively employing strategies to send and understand social and emotional messages. In this way, given enough time and message exchanges, CMC partners could develop intimacy levels comparable to those found in face-to-face communication.19

  In the second half of the 1990s, Walther extended his perspective with an even more optimistic theory, which predicted that CMC messages could lead to greater intimacy than face-to-face communication. According to his hyperpersonal communication model, CMC encourages people to optimally present themselves, for instance, by pretending to be kinder and more beautiful than they are. Meanwhile, the recipients of these optimized self-presentations are free to fill in the blanks in their impressions of their partners, which may encourage them to idealize these partners. In doing so, CMC relationships could even become hyperpersonal—that is, more intimate than offline relationships.20

  The focus of early CMC theories on anonymity and limited nonverbal cues fit well in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, when CMC was predominantly text-based and typically took place in anonymous chat rooms or newsgroups. By contrast, most Web 2.0 applications, such as Twitter (2006), Facebook (2006), WhatsApp (2009), Instagram (2010), Snapchat (2011), and Vine (2012), rely on both textual and audiovisual channels. Therefore, it has become less relevant to compare specific CMC applications with one another or with face-to-face communication. In fact, these changes in technologies have led to a new theorization about social media effects.21

  CMC theories, like many traditional media effects theories, are rooted in a reception model. That is, both types of theories assume that media or technologies have a unidirectional impact on recipients. And in both types of theories, it is too often forgotten that users of social media can simultaneously be both recipients and senders of communication.22 With the easy use of cameras, editing software, and distribution channels, everyone can be both a sender and a recipient of digital content. Long before the advent of Web 2.0, it had been observed that consumers of media content were becoming producers of this content, too, a phenomenon for which the now somewhat obsolete term “prosumers” was coined.23

  Another issue that has received too little attention in both types of theories is that the production and distribution of media content may have effects not only on its recipients, but also on the senders. Adolescents might influence their peers by the photos they post on Instagram, but the act of producing and sharing these photos might also affect themselves. This phenomenon, in which our beliefs and behavior exert an influence on ourselves, has been referred to as an expression effect.24 An expression effect occurs when a sender internalizes the behavior that she or he shows or the beliefs that she or he discloses, so that his or her own self-concept or behavior changes. The behavior or message does not have to be publicized; its creation alone may lead to expression effects. By merely writing a blog, for instance, without posting it, we could improve our memory, feel better, or come to terms with an emotional experience.

  Expression effects are best explained via Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory, which postulates that people like to be consistent in their beliefs, attitudes, and conduct.25 Faced with inconsistencies, people experience cognitive dissonance, which generates an unpleasant internal tension. Typically, we believe that our behavior is the result of our beliefs and attitudes. For instance, if we believe that strength training is good for us, we are more likely to act accordingly (and thereby go
to the gym). But this process may also run the other way: we can alter our beliefs and attitudes by observing our behavior in retrospect. For example, if we fail to go to the gym for several weeks, we might conclude that strength training is rather boring and may not be so important after all.

  Research into expression effects in online environments is surprisingly scarce. The affordances of social media provide users with an opportunity to experiment with forms of behavior that can influence their self-concept. This is rather surprising. After all, consider the selfie phenomenon. Recent estimates suggest that millions of selfies are posted on social media daily, and teens heavily partake in this activity. We know that teens take (and retake) selfies until they find the image that they want to represent themselves in a particular moment. It is reasonable to imagine that, over time, the taking, retaking, and posting of selfies (a social media behavior) may influence not only the recipients of these selfies but also the selfie takers’ self-perception. In other words, the effects of social media use on teens’ social-emotional and cognitive development are likely a two-way street.

  Social-Emotional Effects of Social Media

  Given the main goals of social media, it makes sense that the vast body of research on the effects of social media has focused on social-emotional consequences. This literature has tried primarily to understand how social media influence teens’ identity, intimacy, and sexuality—in other words, the three pillars needed for the development of their autonomy. When it comes to identity formation, researchers have studied four related constructs: self-concept clarity, self-esteem, self-awareness, and narcissism. Studies of intimacy have focused on the sunny side of intimacy, friendships and connectedness, and on its darker side, cyberbullying. Finally, research on sexuality has focused on sexual self-expression as well as stranger danger.

  Self-Concept Clarity

  An important task in adolescence is to form a stable identity. To measure the stability of our identity, researchers often rely on the idea of self-concept clarity. Self-concept clarity is the degree to which our beliefs about our identity are clearly defined and stable.26 There are two contrasting hypotheses about the effects of social media use on self-concept clarity. The fragmentation hypothesis claims that because it is very easy for teens to experiment with their identity online, they are faced with too many different views online. As a result, they may experience confusion and difficulty in integrating all these new views into their (already fragile) identity. On the other hand, scholars have suggested that social media may improve self-concept clarity because the many different views that teens encounter online can serve as a model and sounding board while they develop and corroborate their identity.

  Thus far, research into the influence of social media on self-concept clarity has yielded mixed effects. Some studies have shown that a high degree of Internet use (thus, not exclusively social media) corresponds to lower self-concept clarity.27 But this negative relationship disappears when teens’ loneliness and shyness is accounted for—both of which apparently play a larger role in the development of self-concept clarity than Internet use.28 More recently, work by Katie Davis demonstrated the nuances of social media effects. Specifically, Davis found that teens who use the Internet to talk with their friends experience stronger self-concept clarity, whereas teens who use the Internet primarily to experiment with their identity (which occurs far less frequently) experience weaker self-concept clarity. This does not necessarily mean that online experimentation is problematic; instead, it indicates that it can be problematic for teens who use the Internet almost exclusively for experimentation.29 These findings are a good example of an expression effect: adolescents differ in the way they use social media, and these differences predict the effects that they experience.

  Self-Esteem

  Self-esteem is the degree to which we value ourselves. Human beings, young and old, have a universal need to maintain their self-esteem at the same level or, preferably, to increase it. There are two main predictors of self-esteem: the feeling that we have control of our environment, and the approval that we hope to get from that environment.30 Social media offer teens both, by providing numerous possibilities for control and positive feedback (for example, Facebook’s “like” button). These two functions of social media are particularly important in adolescence, since this is the time when self-esteem is most sensitive to environmental influences and most subject to fluctuations.

  Studies have looked into the relationship between online communication and self-esteem. Most of these, especially the studies that focused on blogs and profile sites, indicate that online communication increases adolescents’ self-esteem. For example, American teens experience a greater sense of control when posting online profiles and blogs. This (perceived) control, in turn, is linked with increased self-esteem.31 Similarly, research with Dutch teens revealed that managing one’s profile on a social network site leads to increased self-esteem. How? Adolescents who create an online profile seem to use feedback from their peers about these profiles to adjust and optimize their profiles, which leads to even more positive feedback. In this way, through improved feedback and their own communicative behavior, adolescents manage to enhance their self-esteem.32

  But it is not at all roses and sunshine on social media. Indeed, while most teens receive primarily positive feedback online, roughly 7 percent receive mainly negative online feedback.33 For these teens, unsurprisingly, social media use is linked with a decrease in self-esteem. In the same vein, other research has shown that the positive effects of social media use on self-esteem are limited to “normal” use—not to abnormal or compulsive use.34 Finally, the benefits of social media on self-esteem are most pronounced for those who use social media to connect with their close friends.35 Overall, then, it seems that for most adolescents, social media are conducive to supporting self-esteem, but for a minority, social media are problematic.

  Self-Awareness

  The chapter epigraph quotes the photographer Rineke Dijkstra, who has noticed that young people are increasingly skilled in putting on a public face. This observation refers to a personality characteristic that we call self-awareness. There are two types of self-awareness, private and public. Private self-awareness is our tendency to pay attention to the inner aspects of our identity. Public self-awareness is our attention to the way we are perceived by others. Individuals with strong public awareness are very good at predicting how others will respond to them and adjusting their self-presentation accordingly.36

  Some research backs up Dijkstra’s observation. Adolescents who are more active on social media have greater public self-awareness than their less active counterparts. They have more Facebook friends, post more photos on social media, and have a greater tendency to reply when they receive comments on those photos.37 It is important to recognize, however, that these studies used correlational designs, which do not allow for cause-and-effect inferences: social media may increase public self-awareness, but it may also be the case that teens with greater public self-awareness use social media more extensively. In truth, the relationship is likely a circular one—as is often the case with media use and personality characteristics. Personality characteristics lead to certain types of media use, which subsequently enhance these personality characteristics.

  Narcissism

  A high degree of public self-awareness is an important characteristic of narcissism. Narcissists are excessively preoccupied by others’ opinion of them, and they will go to great lengths to be positively assessed. Narcissism is a personality trait that all people have to some degree. At its extreme, it is a psychiatric disorder that occurs in 1–2 percent of the population.38 Narcissists have a complex range of symptoms. They have an inflated self-image and overblown self-confidence. They are vain, they overestimate their talents and feats, and they expect these to be admired. They have little empathy, they can exploit their environment, and they become arrogant or aggressive if they do not get their way.

  Freud coined the t
erm “narcissism.” It is derived from the Greek myth of Narcissus, a handsome youth who fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water and eventually starved to death because he could not tear himself away from gazing at his image. Freud’s concept of narcissism took on a highly negative connotation in the late 1970s after the appearance of Christopher Lasch’s best seller The Culture of Narcissism. Today, in part thanks to the new symbol of narcissism, the selfie, narcissism is receiving renewed attention in both scholarly debate and the popular press.

  There have been indications that youth today are more narcissistic than earlier generations, as claimed in alarming publications such as The Narcissism Epidemic by Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell.39 Like public self-awareness, the increase in narcissism has often been linked to social media use.40 But there is an important caveat for the interpretation of these findings. Perhaps most importantly, we should ask ourselves whether (and when) narcissism is a negative trait. Some psychologists argue that narcissism, on a modest scale, is conducive to self-development. Indeed, research among adults suggests that narcissism goes together with many positive characteristics, including self-esteem, assertiveness, and extraversion, and our own research on teens indicates a positive relationship between narcissism and self-esteem.41

  These relationships between narcissism and positive personality traits highlight why we should interpret research into the relationship between social media use and narcissism with care. Healthy doses of self-esteem, assertiveness, and extraversion, after all, are regarded as positive traits, whereas narcissism is not. A modest dose of narcissism is probably adaptive, functional, and beneficial to social well-being. Too much, on the other hand, leans toward pathology and is harmful. Thus, before we decide whether social media use is cause for concern when it comes to narcissism, it is important for the research field to make a distinction between normal and pathological narcissism.42