Session 1: Psychology of social media, introduction
1. Whiting & Williams (2013): Why people use social media: U & G
approach.
Found 10 U & G themes through 25 in-depth interviews:
Social interaction
Information seeking
Pass time
Entertainment
Relaxation
Communicatory utility
Convenience utility
Information sharing
Surveillance/knowledge about others
2. Veissière & Stendel (2018): Hypernatural Monitorin: A social
rehearsal account of smartphone addiction
There is nothing inherently addictive about mobile technology. It is the
social expectations and rewards we get from these devices that get us
addicted. We are social beings and connecting with people, building social
networks has kept us on the top of the food chain. Making friends and
talking to people releases dopamine therefore we want and seek these
notifications even when we are not on our smartphone, our brain is. Social
network is very important for a human being. These “buzzing
notifications” release the dopamine and you want more and more from it.
A healthy social network and balance is the answer.
3. Goncalves et al. (2011)
There is also a biological approach, we are social beings but technology
has grown exponentially in comparison to the human brain. Dunbar’s
number explains the “emotional bandwith” our brain has, our cognitive
,limit and it is around 150. You can have a stable connection with 100 to
200 people. The study of Goncalves proves this, by analyzing an bigass
dataset of twitter conversations. So dunbar’s number is also valid online!
“The simple model that we have introduced offers a basic
explanation of a seemingly complex phenomena observed in the
empirical patterns on Twitter data and offers support to Dunbar’s
hypothesis of a biological limit to the number of relationships than
can be simultaneously maintained by a single individual. The
social interaction mechanism we propose: limited attention and
internal prioritization of interactions, is sufficiently parsimonious
and robust to be applicable to a wide range of social scenarios.”
Session 2: Cyberbullying
Normal bullying criteria:
Repetition
Deliberate harm
Power imbalance
Cyber bullying is much more complex than these three pillars. There are
some definitions for cyber bullying, but we see that they do not conform
with the experiences of real cyber bullying victims and their perspectives
on the matter.
1. Dredge et al. (2014): Cyberbullying in SNS: An victim’s perspective
Method: 25 in-depth interviews with victims of SNS cyberbullying 15-24
Important factor on defining cyberbullying is the negative impact on
the victim which is not a criterion in previous research on this matter.
Cyberbullying seems easier, no escape, faster, more impact
2. Dredge et al. (2014): Risk factors associated with impact severity of
cyberbullying victimization
Method: “same as above”
The role of publicity
, The role of anonymity “not knowing but also knowing it is a close
friend”
Unique features of the medium
The role of bystanders
Individual level factors “if you can take it as a joke”
3. Nesi et al. (2018): Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the
SNS context. Theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer
relations. (veels te lang om te lezen)
Session 3: Uses and abuses of social media (vooral
FB)
Focus on children between 11-14 years old. Using social media is fine
but does it affect other aspects of your life? – Abuse
Looking at previous research on social media and offline
interpersonal outcomes we see:
Benefits Challenges
- Sense of belonging Alienation
- social capital relational aggression
- offline social interaction less relationship quality with
par
- relationship qualities isolation
- cognitive empathy
- offline friendship initiation
1. Antheunis et al. (2016): The role of SNS in early adolescents social
lives.
Method: survey among 3068 early adolescents between 11 & 14 years old
There is positive relationship between SNS and EA quality of friendship,
social bridging and bonding capital. Positive until a certain point which is
logical, find balance in life.
1. Whiting & Williams (2013): Why people use social media: U & G
approach.
Found 10 U & G themes through 25 in-depth interviews:
Social interaction
Information seeking
Pass time
Entertainment
Relaxation
Communicatory utility
Convenience utility
Information sharing
Surveillance/knowledge about others
2. Veissière & Stendel (2018): Hypernatural Monitorin: A social
rehearsal account of smartphone addiction
There is nothing inherently addictive about mobile technology. It is the
social expectations and rewards we get from these devices that get us
addicted. We are social beings and connecting with people, building social
networks has kept us on the top of the food chain. Making friends and
talking to people releases dopamine therefore we want and seek these
notifications even when we are not on our smartphone, our brain is. Social
network is very important for a human being. These “buzzing
notifications” release the dopamine and you want more and more from it.
A healthy social network and balance is the answer.
3. Goncalves et al. (2011)
There is also a biological approach, we are social beings but technology
has grown exponentially in comparison to the human brain. Dunbar’s
number explains the “emotional bandwith” our brain has, our cognitive
,limit and it is around 150. You can have a stable connection with 100 to
200 people. The study of Goncalves proves this, by analyzing an bigass
dataset of twitter conversations. So dunbar’s number is also valid online!
“The simple model that we have introduced offers a basic
explanation of a seemingly complex phenomena observed in the
empirical patterns on Twitter data and offers support to Dunbar’s
hypothesis of a biological limit to the number of relationships than
can be simultaneously maintained by a single individual. The
social interaction mechanism we propose: limited attention and
internal prioritization of interactions, is sufficiently parsimonious
and robust to be applicable to a wide range of social scenarios.”
Session 2: Cyberbullying
Normal bullying criteria:
Repetition
Deliberate harm
Power imbalance
Cyber bullying is much more complex than these three pillars. There are
some definitions for cyber bullying, but we see that they do not conform
with the experiences of real cyber bullying victims and their perspectives
on the matter.
1. Dredge et al. (2014): Cyberbullying in SNS: An victim’s perspective
Method: 25 in-depth interviews with victims of SNS cyberbullying 15-24
Important factor on defining cyberbullying is the negative impact on
the victim which is not a criterion in previous research on this matter.
Cyberbullying seems easier, no escape, faster, more impact
2. Dredge et al. (2014): Risk factors associated with impact severity of
cyberbullying victimization
Method: “same as above”
The role of publicity
, The role of anonymity “not knowing but also knowing it is a close
friend”
Unique features of the medium
The role of bystanders
Individual level factors “if you can take it as a joke”
3. Nesi et al. (2018): Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the
SNS context. Theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer
relations. (veels te lang om te lezen)
Session 3: Uses and abuses of social media (vooral
FB)
Focus on children between 11-14 years old. Using social media is fine
but does it affect other aspects of your life? – Abuse
Looking at previous research on social media and offline
interpersonal outcomes we see:
Benefits Challenges
- Sense of belonging Alienation
- social capital relational aggression
- offline social interaction less relationship quality with
par
- relationship qualities isolation
- cognitive empathy
- offline friendship initiation
1. Antheunis et al. (2016): The role of SNS in early adolescents social
lives.
Method: survey among 3068 early adolescents between 11 & 14 years old
There is positive relationship between SNS and EA quality of friendship,
social bridging and bonding capital. Positive until a certain point which is
logical, find balance in life.
