Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PYB302 - organisational psychology > WEEK 4 - understanding online social behaviour > Flashcards

WEEK 4 - understanding online social behaviour Flashcards

1
Q

How often do we pick up our phone?

A

58 times per day

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How many/how often do Australians use social media?

A
  • 20.80 million social media users in Australia (78%)
  • 1 hour 51 mins/day on social media
  • 6.1 social platforms used/month
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Main reasons for using social media

A
  • Keeping in touch with friends/family (59%)
  • Killing spare time (44%)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What social media is used the most by people?

A

Facebook 78% (20h 15m)
* Facebook Messenger 70% (4h 43m)
* Instagram 62% (11h 46m)
* WhatsApp 45% (2h 56m)
* TikTok 40% (42h 13m)
* Snapchat 33% (17h 2m)
* X/Twitter 30% (2h 31m)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Subjective well-being

A
  • Life satisfaction
  • Good vs. bad feeling
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Why do peoples subjective well-being vary

A
  • 50% genetic
  • 40% intentional activities*
  • 10% life circumstances
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Overall use of social media and wellbeing

A
  • Meta-analysis of correlational studies (Huang, 2017)
  • No association between time spent on social media and life satisfaction, r = -.03
  • Positive association between time spent on social media and depression, r = .11*
  • More FB use in 14-day experience sampling study predicted feeling worse and lower life satisfaction (Kross et al., 2013)
  • Ps who spent 20 mins using FB vs. browsing the internet reported worse mood
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Studies on limiting use results

A

No FB for 5 days, lower life satisfaction than
those controls (Vanman et al., 2016)
* No FB for 1 week, higher life satisfaction and
more positive affect than controls (Tromholt, 2016)
* No FB/Instagram/Twitter/TikTok for 1 week,
higher well-being and lower depression/ anxiety
than controls
* No difference in well-being on a no social media
vs control day (Przybylski et al., 2021)
* When restricted to using social media for 10
mins/day, more instant messaging, no difference
in well-being

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

active-Passive Model of SNS Use

A

see photo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Social comparison - Festinger (1954)

A
  • When we are uncertain about our abilities or
    opinions, we evaluate ourselves through
    comparisons with similar others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is upward comparison

A
  • Compare ourselves to someone who is better than
    us on the key dimension
  • Feel worse about ourselves, envious
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is a downward comparison

A
  • Compare ourselves to someone worse than us on
    the key dimension
  • Feel better about ourselves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Passive use, social comparison, and envy

A
  • More passive FB use in 6-day experience sampling study predicted more envy, feeling
    worse (Verduyn et al., 2015)
  • Those who used FB passively for 10 min in the lab had lower affective well-being at the
    end of the day (Verduyn et al., 2015)
  • Those high vs. low in Social Comparison Orientation felt worse after browsing an
    acquaintance’s FB profile for 5 mins (Vogel et al., 2015
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

A meta analysis of the effect of social media exposure to upward comparison targets on self-evaluations and emotions

A
  • Meta-analysis of experimental research
  • 48 articles involving 7679 participants; 118 effect sizes
  • Overall negative effect of upward social comparison relative to downward comparison and controls on social media users’ self-evaluations and emotions
  • Significant negative effects of upward comparison on each outcome variable:
  • body image
  • subjective well-being
  • mental health
  • self-esteem
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is social capital

A
  • The resources we gain from our relationships
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Types of social capital

A
  • Bridging social capital from weak ties (new info/perspectives)
  • Bonding social capital from strong ties (social support)
17
Q

Social capital on social media

A

Networking value: asking for info/favours
* Offline participation: getting together more often with people offline
* Horizon broadening: learning new things
* Emotional support: feeling supported by friends

18
Q

Active use, social capital, connectedness

A
  • Active FB participation (posting, commenting) was associated with all types of social capital (Koroleva et al., 2011)
  • Ps who were told to post more status updates than usual for a week vs. control had more daily connectedness, lower loneliness (Deters & Mehl, 2012)
  • Replying/commenting/liking positively associated with well-being (r = .14***), but posting status updates/photos was not (r = .02) (Liu et al., 2019
19
Q

Facebook Relationship Maintenance

A
  • Longitudinal study (6-month interval) of 1235 adolescents from Belgium, Mage = 14.76
  • Facebook relationship maintenance behaviours
  • E.g., “When I see a friend or acquaintance sharing good news on Facebook, I try to
    respond.”
  • Closeness to friends
  • E.g., “My friends understand me,” “My friends accept me as I am.”
  • Receiving positive Facebook reactions
  • how often they received positive Facebook reactions when they post something (e.g., a status update, photo, video, etc.) on Facebook
20
Q

Interpersonal Goals

A

*188 Facebook users (subject pool, social media)
* Friendship Compassionate and Self-Image Goals Scale (Crocker & Canevello, 2008)
* In the past week, in the area of friendships, how much did you want to or try to:
* be supportive of others (compassionate)
* get others to recognize or acknowledge your positive qualities (self-image)
* Facebook actions (Koroleva et al., 2011)
* posting, responding, searching
* Facebook social comparison (Lee & Cho, 2018)
* Facebook envy (Krasnova et al., 2013)
* Facebook social capital (Koroleva et al., 2011)
* sources
* social connectedness/network structure
* benefits
* offline participation
* emotional support
* horizon broadening
* networking value
* Control variables
* Self-esteem, attachment style, social desirability,
demographics, FB variables

21
Q

outcome of interpersonal goals

A

Significant indirect effect for all 4 social capital benefits with and without controlling for self-image goals, Facebook posting, Facebook searching, self-esteem, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, social desirability, age, gender, Facebook friends, Facebook frequency, and Facebook hours

22
Q

What is ostracism?

A
  • Being ignored by others
  • Can threaten belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence
23
Q

What is trolling

A
  • Attempts to antagonise others online
  • More likely
  • when feeling anonymous vs identifiable
  • among male vs female participants
  • among those higher in sadism or psychopathy
24
Q

How does trolling affect self esteem

A
  • Those who experienced more trolling in online videogames had lower self-esteem (Thacker & Griffiths, 2012)
  • Those who saw trolling as seeking conflict/attention experienced less negative affect when recalling a time they were trolled on social media (Maltby et al., 2016)
25
Q

What is cyberbullying

A
  • “an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself.” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376).
  • Cyberbullying perpetration
  • related to higher levels of sadism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism
  • Cyberbullying victimisation
  • related to greater psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation/attempts; lower life satisfaction
26
Q

Summing up Active-Passive Social Media Use

A
  • Passive social media use can have a negative impact
  • Upward/relevant social comparison
  • Active social media use can have a positive impact
  • Targeted/warm
  • Facebook relationship maintenance
  • But other people’s behaviour towards us matters
  • Ostracism
  • Trolling
  • Cyberbullying
27
Q

Phubbing

A
  • Snubbing someone in a social setting by concentrating on your phone
  • Negative impact on
  • communication quality
  • relationship satisfaction
  • belonging need satisfaction
  • affect
28
Q

Phubbing and Narcissism

A

Narcissism
* Feelings of entitlement, antagonistic/manipulative characteristics
* Grandiose
* Block negative self-aspects; inflated self-image
* E.g., “Many group activities tend to be dull without me”
* Vulnerable
* More insecurity, feelings of inadequacy
* E.g., “When others don’t notice me, I start to feel worthless”

Phubbing
* E.g., “I check my smartphone when I am spending time with friends/family
* Positively associated with vulnerable narcissism (r = .26***)
* Later study found this was partially mediated by a preference for online social interaction (Grieve et al., 2021)
* Not significantly associated with grandiose narcissism (r = .02

29
Q

What are we missing out on? (in the study)

A
  • Groups of 3-5 friends/family members share a meal with or without phones
  • Phone vs. no phone
  • Found the experience less enjoyable/interesting
  • Felt more distracted
  • Experience sampling study over 1 week
  • 5 times a day, people were asked what they had been doing in the last 15 mins
  • For episodes with FTF social interaction, those who used vs. didn’t use phone
  • Felt more distracted, bored, generally worse
  • Less interest/enjoyment, social connection
  • Parents at a science museum with their children
  • Told to use phone frequently or infrequently
  • High vs. low phone use
  • More distracted
  • Less socially connected
  • Less meaning
  • Strangers waited for a study with or without their smartphones
  • Videotaped, coded smiling behaviour
  • Phone vs. no phone
  • Fewer smiles
  • Fewer genuine Duchenne smiles
  • Less time smiling
  • Less likely to initiate an interaction with the other person
30
Q

What are we missing out on (in the study when finding building)

A
  • Participants were asked to find an unfamiliar building on campus with or without their smartphone
  • Phone vs. no phone
  • Found building more easily
  • Talked to fewer people to obtain directions
  • Felt less socially connected
31
Q

What are we missing out on (in the study when talking to strangers)

A
  • People enjoy talking to strangers more than they think
  • Those instructed to talk to a stranger on public transport or in a waiting room
  • Felt more positive
  • But they predicted the opposite
  • Underestimated others’ interest in talking
32
Q

Summing up

A
  • Using phones in a social context has a cost
  • Lowers others’ perceptions of conversation/relationship
  • Makes us feel more distracted, less connected, less enjoyment/interest
  • Prevents us from engaging with others
  • Phubbing related to
  • Smartphone addiction
  • Vulnerable narcissism
33
Q

Take home points

A
  • Social media can help us maintain relationships and build social capital
  • Upward comparisons, ostracism, trolling, and cyberbullying can have negative impacts
  • Need to consider costs of using smartphones in a social context

PYB302 - organisational psychology (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions