The Effects of Perceived Social Reach on Self-Esteem Web viewParticipants were asked to work on a...

Running head: PERCEIVED SOCIAL REACH & SELF-ESTEEM 1

Taking Facebook Offline: The Effects of Perceived Social Reach on Self-Esteem

Leah Brady

Providence College

PERCEIVED SOCIAL REACH & SELF-ESTEEM 2

Abstract

The use of digital media as means of interaction has become an increasingly popular area of

study in recent years. Elevated levels of self-esteem have been positively correlated to online

self-enhancement, and it was hypothesized that by manipulating perceived social reach it would

have an effect on self-esteem. Participants were tested in two conditions: high perceived social

reach and low perceived social reach, where self-esteem was evaluated before and after the

manipulation through the use of self-report measures. Independent-samples t-tests yielded no

significant results. There was no correlation between initial levels of self-esteem and self-esteem

after manipulating perceived social reach. The lack of results could have been due to the low

sample size, which resulted in low power, or because of human error in the use of certain

materials. The lack of relationship between perceived social reach and self-esteem contradicts

previous findings, and it should be considered that the relationship between self-esteem and

social media may not be as influential as previously thought.


Taking Facebook Offline: The Effects of Perceived Social Reach on Self-Esteem

For decades, media consumption has been studied in the context of social well-being and

self-esteem (Bissell, 2010). The way media is perceived and level of influence people of stature

attain through the media appears to play a role in the development of high self-esteem,

specifically the role of social media (Bissell). Social media allows people to pick and choose the

materials they would like to use to present themselves, meaning that sites such as Facebook offer

an opportunity for people to become the very best versions of themselves, resulting in high self-

confidence and higher self-esteem. Further, Mehdizadeh has previously identified self-

presentation in social media as a factor that enhances self-esteem (2010, p. 358). Recently,

social media has become a growing interest in social psychology. Digital networking is

becoming the primary way people interact with one another, and the online identity can be

constructed very adeptly, allowing for an elevated self-presentation (Mehdizadeh). Often times,

Facebook is the first interaction people have with one another, and people are going to highlight

their best features in order to make a good first-impression. Since the development of social

networking sites in the early 2000’s, self-presentation has played a key role in contemporary

studies of self-esteem (Zywica & Danowski, 2008). The interaction between social self-esteem

online and offline is becoming more and more intertwined as the digital world continues to grow.

Social networking sites like Facebook are designed to share information about the self with the

world. Facebook is so widely used, and has the ability to be so finely edited in every area of

self-presentation that the concept of the self must be augmented online due to the amount of

attention each detail of the self is given.

Previous research has found that becoming self-aware through actively viewing one’s

own Facebook profile boosts self-esteem (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). This study, done by


Gonzales and Hancock (2011), suggests that “selective self-presentation” influences one’s

concept of the self because the way in which one presents themselves on Facebook is idealistic;

it is rare that someone broadcast negative aspects of the self on their Facebook page (Gonzales &

Hancock). Another study, done by Mehdizadeh (2010), coded different aspects of self-

presentation within social networking sites, and found that narcissism was positively correlated

with the amount of self-promotional content on a users Facebook page. The combined findings

of these studies suggest that people generally control how they present themselves online, and

positive qualities are often presented in order to fit ones ideal self-concept; which is conversely

labelled narcissistic. It should also be noted that online self-presentation effects both online and

offline sociability; meaning that Facebook self-presentation influences sociability and, in turn,

influences self-esteem both in the context on the Internet and in the context of real human

interaction (Zywica & Danowski, 2008). Wilcox and Stephen (2012), found that adolescents who

were given positive feedback from others on their social network profile experienced an increase

in self-esteem and well-being.

These studies all compare self-presentation to ones own self-worth. However, the present

study attempts to distinguish between self-esteem and perceived self-esteem in relation to online

self-presentation. More specifically, current research tends to focus on actual social reach rather

than perceived social reach as diagnostically influencing self-esteem. Perceived social reach will

be manipulated in order to determine how perception influences self-esteem. Self-esteem is

operationally defined by Mehdizadeh as “a person’s overall self-evaluation of his or her worth”

(2010, p. 358). Social reach is defined in the current study as a collective score of one’s

Facebook influence based on quantity of Facebook friends, how often one interacts on the site,

and how much clout one’s profile has.


The present study focuses on perceived social reach, or perceived self-presentation

online. By manipulating the participants’ perception of their social popularity through assigning

them random social reach scores, we will be able to measure for the influence of social

networking on overall self-esteem. Unlike previous studies that measure users’ self-esteem

against his or her own self-concept, we will add in the influence of social desirability to

differentiate actual and perceived social reach and it’s influence on self-esteem.

Because offline self-esteem has been positively correlated with others’ evaluation of the

self (Zywica & Danowski, 2008), it was hypothesized that presenting participants with a higher-

than-average social reach score for their Facebook page would increase the participants’ self-

esteem. Conversely, it was also hypothesized that presenting participants’ with lower-than-

average social reach score for their Facebook page would decrease the participants’ self-esteem.

Method

Participants

A total of 37 undergraduate students from a small, Catholic university in New England

participated in the study for credit hours. Of the participants, who were all between the ages of

18 and 21, had a mean age of 18.73 (SD = 0.86); 8 were male and 29 were female. Participants

were required to have a personal Facebook page in order to participate. The study consisted of

two conditions: participants who received a higher-than-average social reach score, and

participants who received a lower-than-average social reach score. Condition A, the lower-than-

average score condition, received a score one standard deviation below the mean score, and

Condition B, the higher-than-average score condition, received a score one standard deviation

higher than the mean. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions, with 19

participants taking part in the high condition and 18 participants in the low condition.


Measures

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a ten-item likert scale measuring

self-esteem on a four-point scale. The ten items are statements dealing with general feelings

towards oneself, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). The

scale ranges from 0 to 30 and the normal range of self esteem falls between scores of 15 and 25.

This was used to gather baseline self-esteem measures in participants and later compared against

another measure of self-esteem. Due to a logistical error, item 10 was left out of the scale, which

read “at times, I think I am no good at all” (Rosenberg, 1965). Appendix B details each measure

on the RSES, note that item 10 is missing from the scale.

The Facebook Intensity Scale (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007) is a scale used to

quantify Facebook usage beyond simple measures of frequency and duration. It assesses

Facebook’s integration into offline life and incorporates emotional ties to the social networking

site. Facebook Intensity score is calculated as the mean of all items on the scale. The scale is

comprised of 21 likert-type statements that are assessed on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5

(strongly disagree), and four open-answer questions. Scores are computed through the mean of

the likert-statement scores and the average of the open-ended scores. While this is an actual and

computable scale that will be administered to participants, it will not be calculated. Rather,

participants will be assigned random social reach scores that do not reflect an actual Facebook

Intensity score. Appendix C shows the scale in its entirety.

The State Self-Esteem Scale (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991) is another measure of self-

esteem commonly used in laboratory manipulations. This scale is a 20-item scale made up of

three factors: performance, social and appearance. Because measures of trait and self-esteem are

highly correlated, neutral scores will be highly related to trait measures. This scale was used as a


variation to the Rosenberg scale, in order to ensure that participants were unaware two measures

of self-esteem were being measured. Appendix B shows the SSES as presented to the

participants.

Procedure

At least 24-hours prior to entering the lab, participants were required to complete the

Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale online via Qualtrics in order to obtain a baseline measure of self-

esteem. Upon completion of this scale, they were given access to the access code necessary to

sign-up for the second part of the study. This access code gave assurance that participants

completed the Rosenberg self-esteem measure prior to coming into the lab.

Upon arrival participants were seated at a desk with a computer. On the computer screen

was the Facebook log-in page, and participants were asked to log-in to their personal Facebook

and then directed to view their own profile page as means of reference. Once they had access to

their own profile, participants were asked to complete the Facebook Intensity scale. Once they

indicated to the researcher that they had completed the FBI scale, they were asked to log-out of

their Facebook page and seated at another table without a computer. Participants were asked to

work on a word scramble while the researcher left the room to score the FBI. The researcher left

the participant alone in the room for three minutes to give the illusion that they were scoring the

survey. Participants were randomly assigned a social reach score, regardless of the answers they

provided. If assigned to the high condition, they were given a score of 56/100, if assigned to the

low score condition, they were given a score of 46/100. Researchers re-entered the room,

collected the filler task, and handed the participant the scorecard. On the scorecard was a

description of “social reach” (see appendix A) along with their score and the average score. The

average score listed was a predetermined average researchers collected from a sample similar to


the population being tested. High scores were one standard deviation above this mean and low

scores were one standard deviation below this mean. Participants were instructed to read the

scorecard. Once they had read through it, participants were asked to complete the State Self-

Esteem scale. After they completed the second self-esteem scale, participants were debriefed

and ensured that the score they received was not an actual indication of their social reach score.

Results

Overview

To determine if there was a difference between initial Rosenberg self-esteem between the

two conditions, an independent-samples t-test was conducted. The results of this t-test showed

that there were no significant differences in self-esteem scores between the two conditions (t(37)

= .378, p = .708). Table 1 provides the ratings for mean scores in the RSES. All participants

showed similar levels of initial self-esteem according to the Rosenberg self-esteem scale.

A second independent samples t-test on the State Self-Esteem measure showed that there

were no significant differences in final self-esteem scores between the two conditions (t(37)

= .050, p = .960). Table 2 provides ratings and mean scores for the SSES. Scores indicated that

there was no significant change between initial self-esteem and final self-esteem in either

condition.

Discussion

Due to previous research findings on self-esteem and the use of Facebook, we were

interested in seeing whether or not perceived social reach had an effect on self-esteem. This was

tested through the manipulation of the self-perception variable and through the measuring of

self-esteem before and after the manipulation. Data does not support nor oppose the hypotheses;

presenting participants with a higher or lower-than average social reach score does not have a


significant effect on self-esteem. The limited sample size may have had a greater effect on the

resulting insignificant data than recognized. Due to the low test-group, we were not able to

apprehend a control group to compare the high and low scores against. Had we had a condition

that was assigned an average social reach score of 46/100, results may have shown more

directionality in that there may have been a more visible difference between that group and the

State Self-Esteem scores from participants in the high and low conditions. Future studies should

take this third condition into consideration in order to support this conclusion.

The lack of significance in our findings could also suggest that the association between

Facebook use and self-esteem is not as prominent as previous research believes it to be. The

findings of the current study are inconsistent with previous findings that social media,

specifically Facebook, has any effect on self-esteem; whether it be in the realm of self-

enhancement, self-awareness, or narcissism. Although we cannot conclude that other factors are

not influenced, it would be interesting to test for the influence of perception of other items in

relation to digital media.

Along with the low sample size resulting in low power, there was also a weak

manipulation and some human error that may have impacted our lack of results. The

manipulation was deemed weak because participants had such recent access to their own

Facebook pages. Participants were actively viewing their own Facebook pages during the study,

and this awareness and self-trust may have influenced the strength of the manipulation. If they

trusted their own knowledge of their Facebook profiles more than they trusted the score they

were given, it would deem the manipulation weak. Participant’s unfamiliarity with a social reach

score may have also influenced their unchanging self-esteem scores because they may have

assumed it was unimportant, so it did not affect their self-worth.


Human error was made in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale; item 10, “At times I think I

am no good at all,” was left out of the scale, meaning that the initial self-esteem scores

apprehended were not completely accurate and encompassing. This was done unintentionally,

and may have had a great impact on our results.

Although it was previously found that selective self-presentation enhances one’s self-

esteem, our findings do not support this theory (Gonzales et al, 2011). Self-esteem remains

constant regardless of how a person presents himself or herself in the digital space. The lack of

significance in the present study could promote the idea that self-esteem in an online space could

be a completely separated version of self-esteem. For example, it may be that the persona one

gives off on Facebook could be a completely separated version of the self, so measuring self-

esteem in the traditional way may not be accurate, which is why our results showed no findings.

Previous research also identifies self-presentation in social media as a factor that enhances self-

esteem. While we did not measure self-presentation in this study, it would be interesting to see if

there is a correlation between self-presentation and social reach (Mehdizadeh, 2010). Future

research might incorporate a measure of self-presentation as a manipulation in a similar study.

Research in the digital world remains a new topic of discussion in social psychology.

Although our results may not be in line with previous findings, it does offer a new direction for

research. There is no doubt that “online personalities” are becoming more and more extensive,

and will continue to become part of the human experience. It could even be argued that the

Internet is making its way into the human psyche. For this reason, research in this area is of

growing importance.


References

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of

stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608-630. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook 'friends:' Social

capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal Of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Fioravanti, G., Dèttore, D., & Casale, S. (2012). Adolescent Internet addiction: Testing the

association between self-esteem, the perception of Internet attributes, and preference for

online social interactions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 15(6), 318-

323. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0358

Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of

exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social

Networking, 14(1-2), 79-83. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0411

Heatherton, T.F., Wyland, C.L. Assessing Self-Esteem. Positive psychological assessment: A

handbook of models and measures. , (pp. 219-233). Washington, DC, US: American

Psychological Association, xvii, 495 pp. doi: 10.1037/10612-014

Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the well-

being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social

Networking, 14(4), 183-189. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0061

Krämer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-

esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking

sites. Journal Of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, And Applications, 20(3), 106-116.

doi:10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106


Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on

Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 13(4), 357-364.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0257

Özgüven, N., & Mucan, B. (2013). The relationship between personality traits and social media

use. Social Behavior And Personality, 41(3), 517-528. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.3.517

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

Press.

Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet

communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social

support. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 157-171. doi:10.1089/109493102753770552

Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2011). Contingencies of self-worth and social-

networking-site behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 14(1-2), 41-

49. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0049

Stieger, S., & Burger, C. (2010). Implicit and explicit self-esteem in the context of Internet

addiction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 13(6), 681-688.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0426

Wilcox, K., & Stephen, A. T. (2013). Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks, self-

esteem, and self-control. Journal Of Consumer Research, 40(1), 90-103.

doi:10.1086/668794

Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults' use

of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 13(2), 173-

177.


Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The faces of facebookers: Investigating social enhancement

and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook and offline popularity from

sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic

networks. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 1-34. doi:10.1111/j.1083-

6101.2008.01429.x


Tables

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

rosenberg

_tot

Equal variances

assumed

5.62

2

.023 .378 35 .708 .48246 1.27584 -2.10764 3.07255

Equal variances not

assumed

.383 30.14

4

.704 .48246 1.25993 -2.09015 3.05506

Table 1

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

state_t

ot

Equal variances

assumed

10.565 .003 -.050 35 .960 -.13450 2.66466 -5.54405 5.27504

Equal variances

not assumed

-.051 25.66

9

.959 -.13450 2.61716 -5.51753 5.24853

Table 2


Appendix A

Participant ID ____________________________

Date____________________________________

Time of Study_________________________

After reviewing your Facebook Intensity Scale (FBI) we have calculated your social reach score.

Your social reach score includes the following things: how many friends you have, how often

others look at your Facebook page, how often you are on Facebook and your over all influence

on social media. Your social reach score is a _________ out of 100. The average social reach

score is 46 out of 100.


Appendix B

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

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

1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. At times I think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. I certainly feel useless at times. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 1 2 3 4

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 1 2 3 4Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

State Self-Esteem


This is a questionnaire designed to measure what you are thinking at this moment. There is of course, no right answer for any statement. The best answer is what you feel is true of yourself at the moment. Be sure to answer all of the items, even if you are not certain of the best answer. Again, answer these questions as they are true for you RIGHT NOW.1. I feel confident about my abilities.

1 2 3 4 5 Not At All A Little Bit Somewhat Very Much Extremely

2. I am worried about whether I am regarded as a success or failure. 1 2 3 4 5

Not At All A Little Bit Somewhat Very Much Extremely

3. I feel satisfied with the way my body looks right now. 1 2 3 4 5


4. I feel frustrated or rattled about my performance.1 2 3 4 5


5. I feel that I am having trouble understanding things that I read. 1 2 3 4 5


6. I feel that others respect and admire me. 1 2 3 4 5


7. I am dissatisfied with my weight. 1 2 3 4 5


8. I feel self-conscious. 1 2 3 4 5


9. I feel as smart as others. 1 2 3 4 5


10. I feel displeased with myself. 1 2 3 4 5



11. I feel good about myself. 1 2 3 4 5


12. I am pleased with my appearance right now. 1 2 3 4 5


13. I am worried about what other people think of me. 1 2 3 4 5


14. I feel confident that I understand things. 1 2 3 4 5


15. I feel inferior to others at this moment. 1 2 3 4 5


16. I feel unattractive. 1 2 3 4 5


17. I feel concerned about the impression I am making. 1 2 3 4 5


18. I feel that I have less scholastic ability right now than others. 1 2 3 4 5


19. I feel like I'm not doing well. 1 2 3 4 5


20. I am worried about looking foolish. 1 2 3 4 5



Appendix C

Facebook UseGender:__________________Age:____________________Year:____________________

1. Facebook is part of my everyday activity 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

2. I am proud to tell people I'm on Facebook 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

3. Facebook has become part of my daily routine 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

4. I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

5. I feel I am part of the Facebook community 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

6. I would be sorry if Facebook shut down 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree


7. In the past week, on average, approximately how much time PER DAY have you spent actively using Facebook?

__________________

8. Approximately how many TOTAL Facebook friends do you have? *

______________

9. Approximately how many of your total Facebook friends go to Providence College?

______________

10. Approximately how many of your total friends do you consider actual friends?

______________

Imagine a PC student you've never met in real life or had a face-to-face conversation with. How likely are you to do the following?

11. Contact them using Facebook, or by using information from Facebook 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

12. Add them as a Facebook friend 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

13. Meet them face-to-face 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

Imagine someone at PC who lives in your residence hall who you would recognize but have never spoken to. How likely are you to do the following?

14. Browse their profile on Facebook 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree





Think about one of your close friends. How likely are you to do the following?

18. Browse their profile on Facebook 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree




Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.

22. I use Facebook to meet new people. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

23. I have used Facebook to check out someone I met socially. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree


24. I use Facebook to learn more about other people in my classes. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

25. I use Facebook to learn more about other people living near me. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree

The Effects of Perceived Social Reach on Self-Esteem Web viewParticipants were asked to work on a...

Documents

Transcript of The Effects of Perceived Social Reach on Self-Esteem Web viewParticipants were asked to work on a...