Psychology of Social Media
Class 1
Woensdag 24 september
-What does it mean to grow up in the digital age?
-How do digital media enhance or impair social relationships, social
cohesion, wellbeing?
- What can we do to decrease negative effects and foster positive ones?
-> interdisciplinary approach
-> mulit-method
Daily activities at the MediaPsych Lab
-Setting up studies
-Analyzing data
-Writing manuscripts
-Discussing research with other academics
-Discussing empowering youth with ChildFocus, Sensoa, Teachers,
Schools, European Union, Meta
Social media are
-A topic that is of public interest for governments/politicans and
parents/educators
-A topic that is intensly studied in communication science- and beyond
Social media = communication
-> marketing, law, pscycology, sociology, neurology
-More than 120.000 search results for scientific publications within the last
5 years of web of science database (2024)
Toward a conceptual definition in communication scholarship
-Inconsistent conceptualizations -> threatens validity and conversation in
scholars
-Lasswell’s (1948) communication model
-Who-> the communicator
-Says what -> the content of the message
-In which channel -> the medium that transmits the message
-To whom-> the recipient
-With what effect? -> refers to the message’s outcome
Who & tho whom
1 spreker tegen 1 luisteraar
1 spreker tegen meerdere luisteraars
etc
,What
Its not only words, most social media platforms are about visuals. That
can be a static or temporarily or video’s.
In which channel?
Why? -> communicatie, share, discuss, cocreate, disseminate, reate,
consume, exchange, modify
Toward a conceptual definition
Who -> individual users, communities of people, organizations and
industries
Says what -> information and digital user-generated content in several
formats: words, static, moving images, audio (no information on
message/content)
In which channel -> web based technology vs platform
Why-> create, cocreate, exchange, share, discuss, modify, consume,
communicate and disseminate user-generated content: forming
communities that engage in social interaction
Social media: defining, developing, and divining
Problems with prior definitions;
-SNS are typically social media, but not all social media are SNS
-Too technic definitions (based on site features or technical affordances) -
> not enough attention to communication function.
Definition (Carr & Hays, 2015, p. 50)
‘Social media are Internet-based channels that allow users to
opportunistically interact and selectively self-present, either in real-time
or asynchronously, with both broad and narrow audiences who derive
value from user-generated content and the perception of interaction
with others’
Characteristics (some are affordances)
-Internet-based
-Disenstraint (asynchronously)/ persistent (always available) channel
-Perceived interactivity
-User generated value
-Masspersonal communication
Guest lecture
Who are social media influencers?
-Social media influencers- short: SMIs- have large networks of followers
(mostly young people) on social media
-Famous via social media rather than legacy media
-Unlike celebrities: SMIs commonly do not have specific
,talent/expertise/job that secures them media attention
-SMIs instead rely on self-branding; i.e, they provide a ‘public identity that
is.. Charismatic and responsive to the.. Interests of target audiences’
-Many SMIs are financed trough promotions/brand deals
Origin of fame as central criterion that allows for a differentiation between
SMIs and celebrities
-Are seen as role models
-Authenticity as a unique quality?
> Popularity achieved without institutional mediation
>High degrees of self-disclosure
>Amateurisch self-presentation style, conveying a ‘raw aesthetic’ and a
sense of ‘unfilteredness’
Attainability as a unique quality
Their ‘persuasiveness lies in their unique ability to encompass two
opposing qualities simultaneously: being attainable and relatable like
ordinary consumers; being taste leaders with superior, celbrity-like status’
Attainability may predict recipients’ motivation to emulate media role
models and explain (positive effects of upward social comparison)
We developed and validated a scale to measure perceptions of media role
models’ attainability.
Attainability measure:
‘If i desired to, I could become like this person’
‘I can be as capable as this person at what this person does’
People rate SMIs as more attainable than celebrities across three
independent studies.
More popular as role models due to attainability? More likely to be targets
of upward comparison?
Social media influencers as opinion leaders
-SMIs often described as opinion leaders
-Opinion leadership: notorious concept from early election research
-Describes well-connected people in social environments (families, unions,
school) who claim/ have expertise on given issues and are outspoken
about them
-Traditional concept connected with two-step flow of communication:
information from mass media reaches recipients indirectly through
opinion leaders
-Opinion leaders have power to impact political attitudes and mobilize
others
-Influence is mostly horizontal; not from people higher in status, but from
people at eye-level
, -Renewed interest in concept in the context of social media -> social
curation constitutes an import part of people’s news exposure
Can the concept be transposed to SMIs?
-Following Katz (1957)
1) They are well-connected
2) They have an interest in the topics they communicate and typically
claim expertise (e.g., fashion, gaming)
3) They communicate certain values to followers
-Yet: celebrity status: mismatch with classic opinion leaders who exert
influence locally
-Logic of parasocial opinion leadership: no interpersonal contact with
followers, but parasocial experiences made by followers act as a bridge
-Also not fully comparable to actors originally describes as parasocial
opinion leaders: differences in origin of fame and the level of reciprocity in
communication patterns
Main argument:
Despite differing from traditional opinion leaders with regard to their
reach, SMIs as proximal mass opinion leaders (ProMOLs) are similar to
TradOls in two ways
-Highly personalized communication (self-disclosure and reciprocal
interactions/co-creation
-Horizontal influence: similar to audiences in status/attainable despite
having celbrity status
Suddenly serious: social media influencers and politics
Some SMIs have always been political, but mainstream SMIs now also
repeatedly comment on politics
What counts as political?
-Some issues as inherently political (e.g. domestic affais, economy,
elections etc)
-Beyond that: Issues of collective concern, topics that require broader
public debate/discussion
-Topics with relevance for larger societal groups/society as a whole
-Beyond conventional political topics; also includes issues like gender
roles, sustainability, animal rights
-Politicization of topics that are not political by definition; e.g, trans
athletes in sports, domestic violence
-> contextualization of (private) issues as broader societal problems that
necessitate discussion
-Political topics relatively seldom featured in mainstream SMIs content (7-
12%)
Class 1
Woensdag 24 september
-What does it mean to grow up in the digital age?
-How do digital media enhance or impair social relationships, social
cohesion, wellbeing?
- What can we do to decrease negative effects and foster positive ones?
-> interdisciplinary approach
-> mulit-method
Daily activities at the MediaPsych Lab
-Setting up studies
-Analyzing data
-Writing manuscripts
-Discussing research with other academics
-Discussing empowering youth with ChildFocus, Sensoa, Teachers,
Schools, European Union, Meta
Social media are
-A topic that is of public interest for governments/politicans and
parents/educators
-A topic that is intensly studied in communication science- and beyond
Social media = communication
-> marketing, law, pscycology, sociology, neurology
-More than 120.000 search results for scientific publications within the last
5 years of web of science database (2024)
Toward a conceptual definition in communication scholarship
-Inconsistent conceptualizations -> threatens validity and conversation in
scholars
-Lasswell’s (1948) communication model
-Who-> the communicator
-Says what -> the content of the message
-In which channel -> the medium that transmits the message
-To whom-> the recipient
-With what effect? -> refers to the message’s outcome
Who & tho whom
1 spreker tegen 1 luisteraar
1 spreker tegen meerdere luisteraars
etc
,What
Its not only words, most social media platforms are about visuals. That
can be a static or temporarily or video’s.
In which channel?
Why? -> communicatie, share, discuss, cocreate, disseminate, reate,
consume, exchange, modify
Toward a conceptual definition
Who -> individual users, communities of people, organizations and
industries
Says what -> information and digital user-generated content in several
formats: words, static, moving images, audio (no information on
message/content)
In which channel -> web based technology vs platform
Why-> create, cocreate, exchange, share, discuss, modify, consume,
communicate and disseminate user-generated content: forming
communities that engage in social interaction
Social media: defining, developing, and divining
Problems with prior definitions;
-SNS are typically social media, but not all social media are SNS
-Too technic definitions (based on site features or technical affordances) -
> not enough attention to communication function.
Definition (Carr & Hays, 2015, p. 50)
‘Social media are Internet-based channels that allow users to
opportunistically interact and selectively self-present, either in real-time
or asynchronously, with both broad and narrow audiences who derive
value from user-generated content and the perception of interaction
with others’
Characteristics (some are affordances)
-Internet-based
-Disenstraint (asynchronously)/ persistent (always available) channel
-Perceived interactivity
-User generated value
-Masspersonal communication
Guest lecture
Who are social media influencers?
-Social media influencers- short: SMIs- have large networks of followers
(mostly young people) on social media
-Famous via social media rather than legacy media
-Unlike celebrities: SMIs commonly do not have specific
,talent/expertise/job that secures them media attention
-SMIs instead rely on self-branding; i.e, they provide a ‘public identity that
is.. Charismatic and responsive to the.. Interests of target audiences’
-Many SMIs are financed trough promotions/brand deals
Origin of fame as central criterion that allows for a differentiation between
SMIs and celebrities
-Are seen as role models
-Authenticity as a unique quality?
> Popularity achieved without institutional mediation
>High degrees of self-disclosure
>Amateurisch self-presentation style, conveying a ‘raw aesthetic’ and a
sense of ‘unfilteredness’
Attainability as a unique quality
Their ‘persuasiveness lies in their unique ability to encompass two
opposing qualities simultaneously: being attainable and relatable like
ordinary consumers; being taste leaders with superior, celbrity-like status’
Attainability may predict recipients’ motivation to emulate media role
models and explain (positive effects of upward social comparison)
We developed and validated a scale to measure perceptions of media role
models’ attainability.
Attainability measure:
‘If i desired to, I could become like this person’
‘I can be as capable as this person at what this person does’
People rate SMIs as more attainable than celebrities across three
independent studies.
More popular as role models due to attainability? More likely to be targets
of upward comparison?
Social media influencers as opinion leaders
-SMIs often described as opinion leaders
-Opinion leadership: notorious concept from early election research
-Describes well-connected people in social environments (families, unions,
school) who claim/ have expertise on given issues and are outspoken
about them
-Traditional concept connected with two-step flow of communication:
information from mass media reaches recipients indirectly through
opinion leaders
-Opinion leaders have power to impact political attitudes and mobilize
others
-Influence is mostly horizontal; not from people higher in status, but from
people at eye-level
, -Renewed interest in concept in the context of social media -> social
curation constitutes an import part of people’s news exposure
Can the concept be transposed to SMIs?
-Following Katz (1957)
1) They are well-connected
2) They have an interest in the topics they communicate and typically
claim expertise (e.g., fashion, gaming)
3) They communicate certain values to followers
-Yet: celebrity status: mismatch with classic opinion leaders who exert
influence locally
-Logic of parasocial opinion leadership: no interpersonal contact with
followers, but parasocial experiences made by followers act as a bridge
-Also not fully comparable to actors originally describes as parasocial
opinion leaders: differences in origin of fame and the level of reciprocity in
communication patterns
Main argument:
Despite differing from traditional opinion leaders with regard to their
reach, SMIs as proximal mass opinion leaders (ProMOLs) are similar to
TradOls in two ways
-Highly personalized communication (self-disclosure and reciprocal
interactions/co-creation
-Horizontal influence: similar to audiences in status/attainable despite
having celbrity status
Suddenly serious: social media influencers and politics
Some SMIs have always been political, but mainstream SMIs now also
repeatedly comment on politics
What counts as political?
-Some issues as inherently political (e.g. domestic affais, economy,
elections etc)
-Beyond that: Issues of collective concern, topics that require broader
public debate/discussion
-Topics with relevance for larger societal groups/society as a whole
-Beyond conventional political topics; also includes issues like gender
roles, sustainability, animal rights
-Politicization of topics that are not political by definition; e.g, trans
athletes in sports, domestic violence
-> contextualization of (private) issues as broader societal problems that
necessitate discussion
-Political topics relatively seldom featured in mainstream SMIs content (7-
12%)
