The Social Online-Self-Regulation-Theory
A Review of Self-Regulation in Social Media
Abstract
Abstract. This review aims, first, to introduce a novel theory for social media use, the so-called social online self-regulation theory (SOS-T) by embedding it into an exhaustive literature review, second, to present correlational as well as experimental evidence for the model from our own lab and beyond, and, third, to discuss self-regulatory variables correlated with social networking site (SNS) use reflecting self-regulatory processes such as social comparisons and age, social comparison orientation and materialism, grandiose, and vulnerable narcissism, self-esteem, and depressive tendencies, and, finally, SNS use and emotion regulation. We will also suggest future studies and discuss differences and similarities of more private SNS use (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat) to other SNSs, such as the business-oriented SNS XING.
The importance of social media platforms is increasing worldwide and influences interpersonal interaction and relationships strongly. In addition to the more intensive use in terms of time (quantity), the new possibilities also elicit changes in behavior. Together with the development of mobile devices that allow for permanent access, a close connection between the virtual and the nonvirtual world is established (Li, 2019). Social networking sites (SNSs) are one of the most frequently used Internet applications (Lee, 2014). SNSs are (Ellison & Boyd, 2013):
Connected platforms of communication, in which users (1) have clearly identifiable profiles consisting of their own user-generated content and/or system-level data provided by other users; (2) represent public connections [between people] that can be viewed and explored by others and (3) can consume, produce and/or interact with the variety of user-generated content provided by their contacts on the site. (p. 157)
Furthermore, SNSs generated a change from passive consumption or participation (Web 1.0) to active production or participatory web, the so-called Web 2.0 (Möller, 2011). As the largest SNS worldwide, Facebook Inc. provides, besides the actual network Facebook, the messenger service WhatsApp and the rapidly growing, image-based platform Instagram, indicating a trend change among younger people toward Instagram (Facebook, 2021). Other popular SNSs are Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok, the video platform YouTube, or professionally oriented networks such as XING or LinkedIn. The functions of all SNSs are partly closely linked to already known offline behavior (e.g., “bilateral communication,” Möller, 2011), but also offer users exclusive new possibilities of social interaction (e.g., “self-presentation through permanent images”).
However, this alone does not provide a sufficient explanation for the popularity and high intensity of use of SNSs. So why do people spend so much time on these platforms? What is the point of looking at the flow of (personal) information and communication or what do people expect to gain from it? And how do people use SNSs – what are the typical behavioral patterns? Using a social psychological approach to study SNSs, we would like to gain new insights with respect to the how and the why of SNS use (cf. Wilson et al., 2012).
In this context, psychological and social science studies have dealt with motives and motivations, categorized forms of online behavior, and, moreover, identified specific facets of personality and states that may be associated with the intensity of SNS use. The aim of this theoretical review is, first, to present underlying motives for use and, second, to provide a broad theory-based framework to explain specific online behavior, based on the research results presented here.
Specific Motives for the Use of Social Media
Through SNSs people generously disclose personal information (Appel et al., 2016) and are exposed to an intense flow of self-relevant information from others. The online space that is provided offers special features such as the possibility to reach a large group of recipients, to allow new asynchronous forms of communication, and to simplify selective self-presentation (Carr & Hayes, 2015). From a (social) psychological perspective, at least three motives seem to be obvious: (1) the need for self-presentation, (2) the need to belong (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012), and (3) the need to compare (McAndrew & Jeong, 2012; Ozimek & Bierhoff, 2016). Users visit SNSs to interact with others, to provide information, and to learn more about themselves, and to compare themselves according to different criteria.
SNSs differ from each other with respect to content and purpose, which is the reason that generalized behavioral patterns are apparently difficult to find. However, comparative studies (Brandenberg et al., 2019) indicate that generalizations are possible: (1) SNS-acting refers to active, influencing behavior, (2) SNS-watching includes passive, observational behavior, and (3) SNS-impressing represents both active and passive behavior that prepares for self-presentation (Brandenberg et al., 2019; Ozimek & Bierhoff, 2016). In the following, we will more closely examine underlying needs and motives for SNS use.
Need for Self-Presentation
People do not only consume but also generate content on SNSs, creating a certain image of their own daily life. People like to control actively the impression they make about themselves. In their impression management theory, Tedeschi and Rosenfeld (1981) assume that self-presentation behavior is rather basic and is shown to a huge variety of interaction partners. SNSs function to allow for publication of personal relevant information in a selective and controlled way. They give people systematic impression control and they are even more suitable to self-presentation than previously known “offline” forms (Krämer & Winter, 2008). One advantage of self-presentation through SNS is the fact that it is usually based on a conscious process rather than on spontaneous or ill-considered acts of presenting oneself that could easily go wrong. On SNS people can present their “ideal self” more efficiently, thereby inflating their “real self” (see Higgins, 1987).
In our research, we examined self-presentation tendencies to learn more about the reasons and strategies people use when telling other people about themselves. As a start, we focused mainly on two psychological states and traits that are closely related to self-presentation, namely, materialism and narcissism.
Materialism
Materialists are characterized by (1) the competitive attempt to expand one’s own possessions over those of others; (2) the belief that possessions are the reason for happiness; (3) the prioritization of material things over people; (4) the excessive wish to keep and expand the material objects or people, but also immaterial things like memories; and (5) insecurity (Ger & Belk, 1996). SNSs seem to represent a perfect possibility for materialists to parade their own possession and, for this, to conduct self-presentation (cf. Ozimek et al., 2017).
Possession in the context of SNSs denote less real (material) possessions. However, materialists have been shown to deal with situations and people in an objectified manner, that is, they apply strategies of action that classify individuals as possessions (Ozimek et al., 2017). On SNSs the competitive qualities of materialists can be seen in the increased presentation of their own status-relevant information in order to outdo others. Chu and colleagues (2015) assume that on SNSs the construction of an online identity triggers the main characteristics of materialism. This postulated positive correlation was shown empirically and could be consistently confirmed by further research (e.g., Ozimek et al., 2017), in that materialists use SNSs more often than people low in materialism. Altogether, self-presentation in a materialistic manner seems to be conducted by the use of SNSs. Besides materialism, narcissism seems to impact people’s behavior on SNSs.
Narcissism
The personality trait narcissism is characterized by self-love and hybris, the feeling of uniqueness and egocentrism (Wink, 1991). Two subtypes can be identified. Grandiose narcissism (GN) is characterized by the need for admiration and the search for attention, high self-esteem, and feelings of grandiosity. By contrast, vulnerable narcissists (VN) are more anxious, shy, hypersensitive, and withdrawn (Bierhoff & Hanke, 2016; Wink, 1991). Recent studies show that especially VNs use Facebook to receive feedback and to compare themselves socially. They also seem to control their self-presentation, while GNs do not expect and need benefits from SNSs to such an extent, presumably because they are rather successful offline, in real life (Ozimek et al., 2018).
The need for self-presentation is a central motive for explaining SNS activity. The strategies of action include watching, in the sense of searching for information for social comparison, acting, in the sense of an active presentation of content, and also impressing, in the sense of preparing one’s own impression (Brandenberg et al., 2019; Ozimek et al., 2017). However, these studies show that self-presentation can have different facets: Whereas materialists may use SNSs in order to show how good they are in relation to their materialistic goals, vulnerable narcissists may use them in order to cope with social anxieties, eventually increasing self-esteem.
Need to Belong
In addition to positive self-expression, the need for connectedness or affiliation can also motivate behavior on SNS. People are social beings. Due to evolutionary reasons, we are in close exchange and form dyads as well as groups, mainly in order to achieve common or individual goals and to create a social identity. Group membership and social support have a positive effect on self-esteem, self-efficacy, well-being, sense of purpose, and other factors, while social exclusion has the opposite effect (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Valkenburg et al., 2006). With regard to this need, the specifics of SNSs change human behavior and seem to facilitate connectedness with others. On SNSs, people have the opportunity to receive a large amount of social information that might be important for selection processes (who is interesting, who shares my values, etc.) over a long period of time and to contact each other synchronously (within a short time) as well as asynchronously (with longer time intervals; cf., Carr & Hayes, 2015; Ellison & Boyd, 2013).
Vulnerable narcissists are dependent on social feedback and use affirmation of others to cope with their insecurity (see, e.g., Ozimek et al., 2018). In order to satisfy vulnerable narcissists’ basic desire of receiving admiration, SNS provide in particular (1) information control and the possibility of reflection on the presented content, (2) the possibility to collect information without having to interact, and (3) a quantified presentation (e.g., number of friends, number of likes etc.). In a multiple-study paper (Ozimek et al., 2018), all of the aforementioned behavioral categories (acting, watching, and impressing) and time spent on SNSs were positively related to vulnerable narcissism.
From a more general point of view, an important resource for one’s mental health is the so-called social capital. It denotes the resources that are created through relationships with others. These resources can be real or virtual and can be related to close relationships or a relatively loose network (so-called weak ties). In the context of SNSs, a distinction is made between so-called bridging, bonding, and maintaining social capital. “Bridging” refers to a superficial, nonemotional connection, “bonding” to a closer, emotional relationship, and “maintained social capital” to the ability to maintain the social relationship even when personal contact is lost (Ellison et al., 2007). As would seem to be expected, bridging is primarily related to SNS activity. People who use SNSs frequently increase bridging social capital (Ellison et al., 2007; Valkenburg, et al., 2006) and can also increase self-esteem, because the more social contacts people have, the more they can satisfy the human need to belong to social groups.
The hypothesis of increasing self-esteem through the use of SNSs is supported by various studies (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011; Lee, 2014). The relationship can be partially explained by the fact that the larger number of recipients increases the probability of positive feedback and the feeling of belonging (Hollenbaugh & Ferris, 2014; Verduyn et al., 2017). To summarize, SNSs can be perceived as a means to bolster or increase self-esteem and to satisfy the need to belong.
Need to Compare
How do I compare to others? Social comparison is regarded to be an important source of information about oneself in relation to others, shaping one’s identity (Corcoran et al., 2011). It seems that the need to compare oneself is one of the reasons for high SNS activity. In the theory of social comparisons (Festinger, 1954) it is argued that self-evaluation should be seen as the motivational basis for such comparisons, and that the desire for self-improvement is driving such comparison processes. Social comparisons on SNSs are fundamentally not very different from other comparative situations. For example, if a Facebook post is about a vacation picture in a supposedly desirable destination, so-called upward comparisons tend to occur in the perceiver (the standard of comparison is “better”). If the post contains a misfortune, then the probability of a downward directed comparison (the comparison standard is “worse”) is higher. The third variant is lateral comparisons, that is, those where the similarity is high and none of the parties to the comparison is better. Both upward and downward comparisons are fueled by the motive for self-improvement. Thus, if one’s own vacation trips are subjectively better than those of the others, this has a positive effect on one’s self-esteem whereas the feeling that one’s vacation trips are less valuable can lead to motivation to improve one’s status quo (Corcoran et al., 2011).
Due to mostly highly structured and easily visible (personal) profile masks, SNSs offer a simple possibility for social comparisons (Haferkamp & Krämer, 2011). In addition to the large number of profiles, each of them shares a variety of information, such as status updates, photos or news from friends and users, thus triggering social comparison processes in a quasi-automated way. Besides such situational factors, dispositional distinctions can also be made. The construct of social comparison orientation describes the individual tendency to engage in comparative processes with others (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). In research, both opinion- and ability-related social comparison orientation has proven to be stable. Both correlative as well as experimental priming studies show that these dimensions are associated with increased activity on SNSs (Brandenberg et al., 2019; Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012; Ozimek & Förster, 2017) and that Facebook is used for social comparisons (McAndrew & Jeong, 2012).
For example, a study by Ozimek and Bierhoff (2016) focused on the interplay between Facebook use, social comparison orientation, and demographic variables, especially age. The so-called age-effect proposes that the intensity of Facebook use decreases with age and that this decrease is based on people’s interest in social comparison. More specifically, McAndrew and Jeong (2012) assumed that social comparison processes have an evolutionary basis due to sexual competition as proposed by Darwin’s sexual selection theory (Darwin, 1871). It is suggested that young adults and adolescents experience more sexual competition and selection pressures than older people and that such process might be the leading factor for a decrease in Facebook use over the life span. More specifically, Ozimek and Bierhoff (2016) suggest and found that age is negatively associated with Facebook use and that this association is mediated by social comparison orientation. Data collection was realized via an online questionnaire (N = 335) that included information on Facebook use on the basis of a behavioral report (McAndrew & Jeong, 2012), an inventory for measuring social comparison orientation by Gibbons and Buunk (1999), and demographic questions. The effect appears in an age range from 16 to 56 years and the binomial effect size display indicates that the association is important in real life. To summarize, people seem to use SNSs to satisfy their personal needs, such as their need to compare with others.
The Social Online-Self-Regulation Theory (SOS-T)
So far, we have presented three reasons for why people use SNSs: To present themselves positively, to belong, and to compare themselves socially with others. Individual personality and behavioral patterns are crucial for the means and partial goals with which these three motives and needs are achieved and satisfied. In social psychological research, the question might arise as to whether these motives refer to a superordinate process. We suggest self-regulation as a central process, a concept that can potentially encompass all other motives and goals (see Förster et al., 2007; Förster & Denzler, 2009).
Self-regulation is a process in which one’s own behavior is directed and controlled in such a way that positive end states with respect to affect, cognition, and the achievement of relevant goals, are tried to be achieved and negative ones to be avoided (Scheier & Carver, 1985). In general, people have motives that activate goals that can be achieved by various means and sub-goals, representing a structure of goal hierarchies with more concrete actions and thoughts on the lower and with more abstract concepts on the higher end (Kruglanski et al., 2002). To illustrate, people might use a hammer (means) in order to fix a painting on the wall (sub-goal) in order to make their home cosier (goal) so that they eventually will become happy (desired end state). Different means can lead to the same goal (equifinality) as well as different goals can be achieved by one single means (multifinality; Kruglanski et al., 2002). People do not necessarily have to be aware of all the processes accompanying goal pursuit mechanisms, rather many of them seem to be mainly non-intentional (Förster & Jostmann, 2015).
In psychology, recently, self-regulatory models helped to increase our understanding in a variety of domains such as health (Leventhal et al., 1998), consumer behavior (Avnet & Higgins, 2006), or decision-making (Latham & Locke, 1991), to name a few. An advantage of self-regulation approaches may be the involvement of well-established variables (or principles, see Förster et al., 2007) that drive behavior in many life domains and, thus, place certain aspects of human life into more general and integrative frameworks.
Using the logic of goal hierarchies and self-regulation, the social online self-regulation theory (SOS-T; Ozimek et al., 2017) was designed to explain why people use social media. We assume that the aforementioned self-regulatory processes toward goal pursuit are also involved in online communication. Investigating social media, we discuss social online behavior such as communicating with others, self-presentation, learning from others, social comparison, to name a few behaviors with a clear social meaning. Adopting Kruglanski’s theory on goal hierarchies (Kruglanski et al., 2002), social media can be a means to achieve goals that can be sub-goals to higher-order desired end states. Goals (e.g., attracting friends) are represented in memory with means on the more concrete level (e.g., posting an impressive photo, writing a funny message, giving a party etc.) and desired end states at the more abstract level (e.g., feeling good). Goal hierarchies also contain sub-goals on different levels of abstraction. For example, increasing self-esteem could be obtained by attracting more friends, which can be achieved by wearing nice clothes, which can be obtained by earning pocket money by working in a gas station on Sundays, etc. Goal pursuit is usually based on motives or basic needs such as attaining life satisfaction or happiness.
Empirical Evidence for the SOS-T
In the following, we summarize research showing self-regulatory mechanisms when people use social media, focusing on means, goals, and needs that are involved. Again, we will use our own research as examples for goal hierarchies. Would materialists, for example, use Facebook as a means to attain material goods? Would they use it in order to gain valuable information about their materialistic self? Would vulnerable narcissists try to increase self-esteem by frequently using social media? And would this in the end increase happiness, mood, or life satisfaction?
Materialism
Collecting evidence for SOS-T, Ozimek and colleagues (2017) conducted two correlational studies to examine whether a high extent of materialism correlates with more intensive Facebook use and whether this can be partially explained by a higher extent of participants’ social comparison orientation, more Facebook friends, and a higher tendency to objectify and instrumentalize one’s Facebook friends. In other words, the research question was: Would materialists use Facebook as a means to compare themselves with others and to gain more friends and objectify them? Various definitions and study findings on materialism suggest that highly materialistic people tend to compare themselves more often socially with others in order to have a materialistic frame of reference (see Dittmar et al., 2014; Ger & Belk, 1996), and furthermore, materialize social events and real friends as a means to increase personal “possessions” (cf. Khanna & Kasser, 2001). Social media offer the possibility to compare oneself socially and to make friends that can be used similar to materialistic possessions (Lee, 2014). Earlier investigations demonstrated positive associations between television consumption and materialism (Chan & Prendergast, 2007; Richins, 1987). In our research, we examined whether similar effects can be found for social media use. It was assumed that people with high materialistic tendencies use social media more intensively and that this association can partially be explained by the fact that they compare themselves more often socially and have more Facebook friends and objectify and instrumentalize them. These assumptions could be verified in two correlational studies using multiple mediation analyses in a mainly student and female (N = 242) as well as in a balanced sample (N = 289). More specifically, results showed that materialists use Facebook more often because it allows them to engage in social comparisons (cf. Chan & Prendergast, 2007; Dittmar et al., 2014; Ger & Belk, 1996) and because they can easily accumulate digital possession in the form of Facebook friends (cf. Khanna & Kasser, 2001; Richins, 1987). In other words, materialists use Facebook as a means to reach goals, such as successful social comparisons or an increase in property. By doing this, they eventually aim to meet desired end states such as satisfaction and happiness.
However, correlation is not causation. Hence, Ozimek & Förster (2017) aimed to demonstrate a causal influence of high materialistic tendencies as well as a high social comparison orientation on the intensity of Facebook use by implementing experimental priming paradigms. In two studies (N = 228 and N = 239) high versus low level of materialistic tendencies and high versus low level of social comparison orientation were manipulated. In the first study, high materialistic beliefs were primed by means of semantic priming (i.e., participants had to imagine that they had won 10,000 euro) and social comparison orientation (high vs. low) was assessed with a trait questionnaire. In the second study, a high social comparison orientation was manipulated by a priming task (i.e., participants saw pictures of different unknown persons and should estimate whether the depicted person would be more or less intelligent/wealthy than their self) it was examined whether the priming depending on trait materialism (high vs. low) influences the need to access Facebook. There was no independent effect of the priming and only a weak effect of trait materialism on Facebook use. Instead of this, the interaction between the two showed that a high situationally generated social comparison orientation leads to a higher use of Facebook for highly materialistic people. Thus, it seems that people tend to compare themselves with others, when motivated to think materialistically, use Facebook as a means for their goals more intensively. Overall, this investigation was able to detect a causal influence of materialism and social comparison orientation on the intensity of Facebook use (cf. Lee, 2014; Ozimek & Bierhoff, 2016; Ozimek et al., 2017). On the other hand, it provides a first step toward the validation of the social online self-regulation theory (Ozimek et al., 2017): The study shows that the experimental activation of motives, such as materialism or a high social comparison orientation, motivates people to use Facebook as a means to attain goals related to their materialistic or social comparative needs.
We used materialism as one example for showing means–ends relationships involved in the use of social media. In follow-up studies, we focused on the aforementioned state of narcissism. There is an abundance of studies and theory models showing that narcissists use different self-regulatory (offline) strategies to protect and increase their narcissistic self-esteem (cf. Campbell & Foster, 2007). How do they self-regulate in an online context?
Narcissism
To resolve this question, Ozimek and colleagues (2018) conducted four correlational studies (N = 384, 175, 289, and 520) to examine the extent to which vulnerable narcissists use Facebook more intensively than grandiose narcissists and to what extent this can be explained by vulnerable narcissist’s increased social comparison orientation. Previous studies have shown positive correlations between narcissism and Facebook use; however, they mainly investigated the grandiose type (Błachnio & Przepiórka, 2018; Buffardi & Campbell, 2008; Eşkisu et al., 2017; Kapidzic, 2013; Mehdizadeh, 2010; Ong et al., 2011; Ryan & Xenos, 2011). Former research suggested that both types self-regulate in different ways (cf. Zeigler-Hill et al., 2008). More specifically, grandiose narcissists stand more in life, are mostly successful and charismatic, whereas vulnerable narcissists are vulnerable and strongly dependent on external feedback (Campbell & Foster, 2007; Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Wink, 1991). It was suggested that vulnerable narcissism should be accompanied by increased consumption of Facebook, and this could be explained partially by a higher social comparison orientation. In other words: Vulnerable narcissists use Facebook as a means of self-regulation, as it offers them a wide range of opportunities to get external feedback and to compare themselves with significant other people. The four accomplished correlation studies were able to confirm these assumptions and show that only vulnerable narcissism is positively correlated with Facebook use, whereas grandiose narcissism is uncorrelated. Social comparison orientation only indicates a positive association with vulnerable narcissism, but not with grandiose narcissism. Consistent with the hypotheses, additional mediation analyses show that the connection between vulnerable narcissism and Facebook use can partially be explained by an increased social comparison orientation. Overall, the study expands the scope of the SOS-T in three aspects: First, it has been shown that SOS-T is not limited to materialism but can also be applied to a yet different facet of personality, that is, vulnerable narcissism. Second, this study illustrates that SOS-T can inspire original predictions of specific facets of personality. And third, again social comparison processes functioned as mediating factors for the interaction between personality and self-regulatory use of social media, pointing to its crucial role in Facebook use.
However, the question remains whether similar mechanisms could be found in other SNSs?
Facebook Versus XING
To address this question, Brandenberg and colleagues (2019) conducted a study to compare the intensity of use of the professional social network XING and Facebook, as an example for a more private SNS. XING is a professional network focusing primarily on performance, success, and competence (Papacharissi, 2009; Van Dijck, 2013). In the context of private social networks, studies already suggest that an increased occurrence of upward comparisons leads to a lower self-esteem (Ellison et al., 2007; Lee, 2014; Mehdizadeh, 2010; Park & Baek, 2018; Verduyn et al, 2017), so that a negative association due to similar motives for use was also expected (cf. Carmack & Heiss, 2018; Gerard, 2012;). Results showed that age was significantly negatively correlated with Facebook use but not with XING use. Ability-related and opinion-related social comparison orientation were positively correlated with Facebook and XING use. Congruent to the assumptions, self-esteem was negatively associated with both XING and Facebook use. This paper extends the findings of the SOS-T in the context of generalization to professional networks using the example of XING. It shows that not only private, but also professional social networks are used as a means of achieving specific goals, for example, to satisfy the need for social comparisons or to increase self-esteem.
Functionality of Social Media as Means for Self-Regulation
To come to a first conclusion, the SOS-T offers a novel, easily accessible, and comprehensive approach to many previous findings of social psychological research on social networks.
It should be noted that self-regulation is not always successful. Therefore, SOS-T merely assumes that people aim at attaining their goals and, for example, believe they can regulate themselves through the use of SNSs. The strategies we observed were true regardless of self-regulation success (whether it is functional, and desired end states are attained), or failure (whether it is dysfunctional, and desired end states are missed or actions even worsen one’s mood or situation).
SOS-T predicts that people with low self-esteem share more content on Facebook and thereby spread a greater variety of information (breadth of self-disclosure; Hollenbaugh & Ferris, 2014). Most probably, they want to reach a larger number of recipients in order to increase the likelihood of positive feedback and to experience a feeling of belonging. Again, they use Facebook as a means to increase self-esteem. On a more general level of analysis, SNSs such as Facebook seem to be important for people’s well-being (cf. Wilson et al., 2012). However, findings of previous research do not show clear results on causal dependencies between self-esteem and SNS (Ellison et al., 2007; Gonzales & Hancock 2011; Hollenbaugh & Ferris 2014; Lee 2014). To examine whether the use of social media declines or increases people’s well-being, Ozimek and Bierhoff (2020) conducted a first study to see under which circumstances use of social media is functional or dysfunctional. Study 1 included an experimental paradigm with respect to a Facebook exposition task with social comparative elements to investigate this issue (i.e., participants had to write down social information with respect to the first five profiles on their news feed). Furthermore, past investigations on depressive tendencies also showed an unfavorable outcome of SNS use. Studies indicate that depressive symptoms and SNS use are positively correlated (Appel et al., 2016; Brandenberg et al., 2019; Datu et al., 2012; Steers et al., 2014; Tandoc et al., 2015). By distinction of different domains of Facebook use (i.e., passive vs. active), studies suggest that active rather than passive Facebook use is also capable of reducing depression (Wright et al., 2013; Zhang, 2017). Study 2 tried to have a more differentiated look on the relation between the intensity of SNS use and depressive tendencies by developing and testing a serial multiple mediator model with ability-based social comparison and self-esteem as mediators. Ability-based comparative Facebook use was chosen as mediator because this kind of comparison produces more upward contrastive emotions (Park & Baek, 2018) and because of a comprehensive meta-analysis by Gerber and colleagues (2018) showing that preferred upward comparisons are likely to trigger negative effects on self-esteem. To assess short-term effects on self-esteem regarding participants’ exposure to Internet-based social information, Study 1 (N = 75) was conducted as a laboratory experiment including two experimental groups and one control group: Facebook exposition (i.e., participants had to write down social information with respect to the first five profiles on their news feed), Internet exposition (i.e., participants had to write down social information with respect to a university website with staff information), and control condition (without an exposition task). Results showed that social comparative Internet use decreased participants’ performance-oriented state self-esteem as a short-term effect. Note that differences between the groups were only examined for the two experimental groups and the control group. Therefore, Study 1 demonstrated negative effects that Facebook has on self-esteem and leads to the suggestion that social comparisons may indirectly influence self-esteem depending on the compared standard. For Study 2 (N = 809), a survey for Facebook users was conducted to examine mediational effects regarding Facebook use, ability-based social comparisons, self-esteem, and depressive tendencies. Results of the serial multiple mediator model indicated that passive Facebook use was associated with higher depressive tendencies mediated by a higher ability-related social comparison orientation and lower self-esteem as long-term effect. However, to obtain more generalizable findings, the serial multiple mediator model was also transferred from private to professional SNS use in Study 3 (N = 145). Therefore, another online survey was conducted that was similar to Study 2 but included a questionnaire to measure activity on the platform XING that had been developed by Brandenberg and colleagues (2019). In Study 3 the serial multiple mediator model of Study 2 could be replicated and extended for the use of the professional SNS XING. Overall, this investigation was able to demonstrate that private as well as professional SNS use is likely to trigger higher depressive tendencies via higher social comparisons and lower self-esteem. These results confirm that this kind of self-regulation strategy may be dysfunctional.
Summarizing results, it seems to be the case that people try to use social media as a means to regulate their selves without being successful. Thus, they do not achieve their goals but quite the reverse: They become unhappy. A recent study by Ozimek and Bierhoff (2020) shows that especially people with difficulties in emotion regulation seem to use social media as a means for self-regulation. Thus, perhaps the inability to deal with stress and emotional problems might be a reason that the use of social media does not lead to higher well-being and happiness, but it becomes worse.
Discussion
SNSs have become an integral part of our daily life. In our review, we summarized research showing that a variety of different motives and goals are involved when people use SNSs. More specifically, we pointed to the need for self-presentation, the need to belong, and the need to compare. Using self-regulatory logic, we proposed SOS-T and reasoned that means–goals relationships can be described across different content domains, psychological states, or motives. We also examined whether SNS consumption increases happiness or whether this remains a mere illusion. Our research shows a differentiated pattern, whereas in some specified situations, SNSs help people to attain certain individual goals, some of our research also points to unwanted, undesirable effects in other contexts. More research is needed to show when and for whom SNSs are an efficient tool to increase happiness and life satisfaction as a forecast for positive psychological research.
The causal relations we identified in this paper reflect goal hierarchies. For example, people use Facebook (as a means) in order to be able to receive information about themselves (as a goal) via social comparison (as a sub goal) so as to feel better about themselves (the desired end state). Although such pioneering studies might at a first glance look rather descriptive, they might also be the basis for a better understanding of people’s actions and motivations in SNS use.
Goal hierarchies operate according to a variety of well-known process variables or principles (Förster et al., 2007) that guide or accompany almost all human actions. Therefore, a self-regulation perspective might shed some light on underlying psychological processes when people use SNSs. To illustrate, human motivation depends on the value of the means and the goals, as well as on expectancies to be successful during goal pursuit (see Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974; Förster et al., 2007; Liberman & Förster, 2008), the idea of alternative means to reach the same goal (equifinality see Kruglanski et al., 2002), and the attractiveness of means that serve multiple goals (multifinality; see Kruglanski et al. 2002). For example, people like cars, because they are valued by other people (high value), they might be efficient in transporting people to faraway places (high expectancy of success), and they are multifinal (e.g., you can use them for driving to work, to holiday, or to carry heavy items, etc.). Similarly, from this perspective, the success of SNSs can be explained by assuming high multifinality (they satisfy multiple goals), high value (e.g., it is highly popular, friends are using it, etc.), and high expectancy of success (e.g., it is easy to get friends here and it is easily accessible). Researchers and practitioners might conclude that any development of new SNSs should take such variables into consideration to be able to compete with established SNSs. A question would be accordingly: How can we increase the value of our SNSs? How can we increase accessibility and how can we guarantee successful goal attainment by making them easy to use? How can we make sure that they can be used for many purposes such as communication, social identity, shopping, learning etc.?
Furthermore, self-regulation theories could also produce new exciting predictions. For example, research shows decreasing motivation upon goal fulfillment (so called Zeigarnik effects; see Denzler et al., 2009). Hence, one could hypothesize whether people stop using Facebook when their goals (i.e., downward comparison) or desired end states (i.e., happiness) have been reached. Intuitively, one might lose interest in SNS, when happy; however, some laypersons’ theories also predict addictive behavior because in this case goal fulfillment is difficult to define (after all, if the number of friends is infinite, when would I have enough friends?). More research is needed to clarify such questions.
The derived SOS-T connects different psychological disciplines and perspectives. Current findings seem to be of interest for social and motivational psychology (i.e., self-regulation research and goal theories), media psychology (i.e., usage patterns of social media), personality psychology (i.e., usage patterns and motivations of narcissists and materialists in social media), as well as for applied psychological disciplines such as work and organizational psychology (i.e., the role of usage patterns on professional social media platforms) or positive psychology (i.e., functionality and dysfunctionality of social media as means of self-regulation; when does the use of social media make users happy?). For this, the SOS-T is able to generate manifold and novel research issues for diverse scholars of different disciplines. In that way, we hope that SOS-T can inspire more interesting research questions, ultimately broadening our understanding of SNS use and human behavior more generally. It is a first approach of putting together the two worlds: The social world outside and the social world in the World Wide Web (2.0).
Phillip Ozimek is social psychologist and postdoctoral-researcher at the FernUniversity of Hagen. His applied research focusses on social media and self-regulation as well as positive psychological issues. He is a member of the German Association for Positive Psychological Research.
Jens Förster (PhD) is a psychologist and worked at the Columbia University in NYC. He also held full professor positions at Jacobs University Bremen and the University of Amsterdam. He received several international awards, such as the Kurt Lewin Award from the European Association of Social Psychology (EASP). He is director of the Systemisches Institut für Positive Psychology in Cologne.
References
(2016). The interplay between Facebook use, social comparison, envy, and depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.006
(2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.1
(1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
(2016).
Narzissmus [Narcism] . Selbst und soziale Kognition (Vol. 1), 241–268, Hogrefe.(2018). Facebook intrusion, fear of missing out, narcissism, and life satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. In H. W. BierhoffD. FreyEds., Psychiatry Research, 259, 514–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.11.012
(2019). The relation between use intensity of private and professional SNS, social comparison, self-esteem, and depressive tendencies in the light of self-regulation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(6), 578–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2018.1545049
(2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1303–1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320061
(2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972282
(2007).
The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies . In C. SedikidesS. J. SpencerEds., The self (pp. 115–138). Psychology Press.(2018). Using the theory of planned behavior to predict college students’ intent to use LinkedIn for job searches and professional networking. Communication Studies, 69(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1424003
(2007). Materialism and social comparison among adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(2), 213–228.
(2015). The influence of self-construal and materialism on social media intensity: A study of China and the United States. International Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 1759–3948.
(2011).
Social comparison: Motives, standards, and mechanisms . In D. ChadeeEd., Theories in social psychology (pp. 119–139). Wiley Blackwell.(1871). Pangenesis. Nature, 3, 502–503.
(2012). Does Facebooking make us sad? Hunting relationship between Facebook use and depression among Filipino adolescents. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 1(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2012.202
(2009). How goal-fulfillment decreases aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.021
(2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188–207.
(2014). The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 879–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037409
(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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
(2013).
Sociality through social network sites . In W. DuttonEd., The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (pp. 151–172). Oxford University Press.(2017). An investigation of the relationship between Facebook usage, Big Five, self-esteem and narcissism. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.036
. (2021). Facebook reports first quarter 2021 results. https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2021/Facebook-Reports-First-Quarter-2021-Results/default.aspx
(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
(1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035872
(2007). Seven principles of automatic goal pursuit: A systematic approach to distinguishing goal priming from priming of non-goal constructs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307303029
(2009).
A social-cognitive perspective on automatic self-regulation: The relevance of goals in the information-processing sequence . In J. ForgasA. Kruglanski(Series Eds.), F. StrackJ. Förster(Vol. Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology: Vol. 7. Social cognition (pp. 245–268). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.(2015). What is automatic self-regulation? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220(3), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000107
(1996). Cross-cultural differences in materialism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(95)00035-6
(2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127
(2012). Linking in with LinkedIn®: Three exercises that enhance professional social networking and career building. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 866–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562911413464
(1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129
(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. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411
(2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0120
(1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319
(2014). Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.055
(2013). Narcissism as a predictor of motivations behind Facebook profile picture selection. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0143
(2001). Materialism, objectification, and alienation from a cross-cultural perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
(2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106
(2002).
A theory of goal systems . In M. P. ZannaEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 331–378). Academic Press.(1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-k
(2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites? The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behaviour, 32, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009
(1998). Self-regulation, health, and behavior: A perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychology and Health, 13(4), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449808407425
(2019). Upward social comparison and depression in social network settings: The roles of envy and self-efficacy. Internet Research, 29(1), 46–59.
(2008). Expectancy, value and psychological distance: A new look at goal gradients. Social Cognition, 26(5), 515–533. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.5.515
(2012). Who does what on Facebook? Age, sex, and relationship status as predictors of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2359–2365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.007
(2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0257
(2011). Online-Kommunikationsverhalten von Multiplikatoren: Persönlichkeitsspezifische Analyse und Steigerung des Innovationsinput über User Generated Content
[Online communication behavior of multiplicators: Personality specific analysis and increase of the innovational input with respect to user generated content] . Gabler.(2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007
(2011). Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.022
(2017). Materialists on Facebook: The self-regulatory role of social comparisons and the objectification of Facebook friends. Heliyon, 3(11).
(2016). Facebook use depending on age: The influence of social comparisons. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 271–279.
(2020). All my online-friends are better than me – three studies about ability-based comparative social media use, self-esteem, and depressive tendencies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(10), 1110–1123.
(2018). Do vulnerable narcissists profit more from Facebook use than grandiose narcissists? An examination of narcissistic Facebook use in the light of self-regulation and social comparison theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 168–177.
(2017). The impact of self-regulatory states and traits on Facebook use: Priming materialism and social comparisons. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 418–427.
(2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1–2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099577
(2018). Two faces of social comparison on Facebook: The interplay between social comparison orientation, emotions, and psychological well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.028
(1987).
Media, materialism, and human happiness . In M. WallendorfP. AndersonEds., Advances in consumer research (Vol. 14, pp. 352–356). Association for Consumer Research.(2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
(1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
(2014). Seeing everyone else’s highlight reels: How Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(8), 701–731. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.701
(2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053
(1981). Impression management theory and the forced compliance situation. Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research, 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-685180-9.50013-0
(2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 584–590. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584
(2013). “You have one identity”: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712468605
(2017). Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 274–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033
(2012). A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612442904
(1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590
(2013). Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: A model of Facebook and face-to-face support network influence. Journal of Health Communication, 18(1), 41–57.
(2017). The stress-buffering effect of self-disclosure on Facebook: An examination of stressful life events, social support, and mental health among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.043
(2008). Narcissistic subtypes and contingent self-esteem: Do all narcissists base their self-esteem on the same domains? Journal of Personality, 76(4), 753–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00503.x
