SOCIAL MEDIA RISKS & OPPORTUNITIES
A summary of the literature & lectures, Winter 2021
,Social Media Risks & Opportunities, Winter 2021 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WEEK 1 – EXPERIENCING ONLINE AGGRESSION ........................................................ 4
Pabian, S., De Backer, C.J.S., & Vandebosch, H. (2015). Dark Triad personality traits and
adolescent cyber-aggression. Personality and individual differences, 75, 41-46. ...................... 4
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2014). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand
cyberbullying : the importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European journal of
developmental psychology, 11(4), 463-477. ............................................................................... 6
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2021). Perceived long-term outcomes of early traditional and
Cyberbullying victimization among emerging adults. Journal of Youth Studies, 24(1), 91-109.
.................................................................................................................................................10
WEEK 2 – PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR................................................................................... 14
Other notes from the lecture....................................................................................................14
Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2019). Feel good, do
good online? Spillover and crossover effects of happiness on adolescents’ online prosocial
behavior. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(4), 1241-1258. .....................................................15
Guo, Q., Sun, P., & Li, L. (2018). Shyness and online prosocial behavior: A study on multiple
mediation mechanisms. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 1-8. ...........................................19
Bartsch, A., & Kloß, A. (2019). Personalized charity advertising. Can personalized prosocial
messages promote empathy, attitude change, and helping intentions toward stigmatized social
groups?. International Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 345-363. ...............................................24
WEEK 2 – WITNESSING ONLINE AGGRESSION ........................................................... 29
Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., & Bastiaensens, S. (2016). Exposure
to cyberbullying as a bystander: An investigation of desensitization effects among early
adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 480-487. ......................................................29
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and
contextual factors that determine "helping", "joining in", and "doing nothing" when
witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive behavior, 40(5), 383-396. ..............................................34
WEEK 3 – ONLINE SUPPORT (+ GUEST LECTURE) ..................................................... 40
Other notes from the lecture....................................................................................................40
Smit, D., Vrijsen, J.N., Groeneweg, B., Vellinga-Dings, A., Peelen, J., & Spijker, J. (2021).A
newly developed online peer support community for depression (depression connect):
Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(7), e25917 .................................41
van Wezel, M.M.C., Croes, E.A.J., & Antheunis, M.L. (2021). “I’m here for you”: Can social
chatbots truly support their users? A literature review. In Folstad, A. et al. (eds) Chatbot
Research and Design (pp. 96-113)............................................................................................45
Additional notes of the lecture .................................................................................................50
WEEK 3 – CELEBRITY BASHING ...................................................................................... 54
Ouvrein, G., Pabian, S., Machimbarrena, J.M., Erreygers, S., De Backer, C.J.S., &
Vandebosch H. (2018). Setting a bad example: Peer, parental and celebrity norms predict
celebrity bashing. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(7), 937-961. ....................................54
Ouvrein, G., Hallam, L., De Backer, C.J.S., & Vandebosch, H. Bashed at first sight: The
experiences and coping strategies of reality TV stars confronted with celebrity bashing.
Celebrity Studies, 12(3), 389-406. ............................................................................................59
Written by Amy Balemans
,Social Media Risks & Opportunities, Winter 2021 3
WEEK 4 – RISKY SELFIE BEHAVIOR .............................................................................. 63
Chen, S., Schreurs, L.,Pabian, S., & Vandenbosch, L. (2019). Daredevils on social media: A
comprehensive approach toward risky selfie behavior among adolescents. New Media &
Society, 21(11-12), 2443-2462. ..................................................................................................63
WEEK 5 – ONLINE FRIENDSHIPS .................................................................................... 70
Ryan, T., Allen, K.A., Gray, D.L., & McInerney, D.M. (2017). How social are social media? A
review of online social behaviour and connectedness. Journal of Relationships Research, 8, 1-
8. ..............................................................................................................................................70
Baek, Y.M., Bae, Y., & Jang, H. (2013). Social and parasocial relationships on social network
sites and their differential relationships with users’ psychological well-being.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(7), 512-517. .....................................75
WEEK 5 PARENTAL MEDIATION (+ GUEST LECTURE) ............................................. 78
Chen, L., & Shi, J. (2019). Reducing harm from media: A meta-analysis of parental
mediation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 173-193. ...........................78
Holvoet, S., Hudders, L., & Herrewijn, L. (2021). How to empower parental responsibility:
Parents’ views on personalized advertising and online data collection targeting their teens.
Young Consumers, 22(4), 630-643. // Guest lecture. ................................................................82
WEEK 6 – ONLINE ACTIVISM ........................................................................................... 89
Other notes from the lecture....................................................................................................89
Cohen, R., Irwin, L., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2019). # bodypositivity: A content
analysis of body positive accounts on Instagram. Body image, 29, 47-57. ...............................92
Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2020). The case for body positivity on social media:
Perspectives on current advances and future directions. Journal of health psychology, 26(13),
2365-2373. ................................................................................................................................98
WEEK 6 – SEXTING & CYBER DATING ABUSE (+ GUEST LECTURE) ................... 100
GUEST LECTURE ............................................................................................................... 100
Morelli, M., Bianchi, D., Baiocco, R., Pezzuti, L., & Chirumbolo, A. (2016). Sexting,
psychological distress and dating violence among adolescents and young adults. Psicothema,
137-142. .................................................................................................................................. 103
Bianchi, D., Morelli, M., Nappa, M. R., Baiocco, R., & Chirumbolo, A. (2021). A bad
romance: Sexting motivations and teen dating violence. Journal of interpersonal violence,
36(13-14), 6029-6049. ............................................................................................................. 107
Potential exam questions based on the lectures................................................................... 113
Written by Amy Balemans
, Social Media Risks & Opportunities, Winter 2021 4
WEEK 1 – EXPERIENCING ONLINE AGGRESSION
Introduction:
Þ Social media = “websites and applications that enable users to create and share
content and/or to participate in social networking”.
Þ Risk = “a situation involving exposure to danger”
Þ Opportunity = “a chance for…”
(Cyber)bullying
Þ Bullying = “bullying is an aggressive, intentional act or behavior that is carried out by
a group or an individual repeatedly and overtime against a victim who cannot
easily defend himself.” (Olweus, 1993).
o There is a power imbalance here between the perpetrator and victim. This can
be based on many things such as the perpetrator being more popular than the
victim.
Þ Example outcome: someone committing suicide because of this.
Pabian, S., De Backer, C.J.S., & Vandebosch, H. (2015). Dark Triad personality traits
and adolescent cyber-aggression. Personality and individual differences, 75, 41-46.
This study empirically investigates the relationships between the Dark Triad personality traits
and cyber-aggression among adolescents.
Þ Results show that only Facebook intensity and psychopathy significantly predict
cyber-aggression, when controlling for age and gender.
According to Grigg (2010) cyber-aggression = “intentional harm delivered by the use of
electronic means to a person or a group of people irrespective of their age, who perceive(s)
such acts as offensive, derogatory, harmful or unwanted”.
This study focuses on three socially aversive personality traits known as the Dark Triad –
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy.
Þ Machiavellianism = refers to the manipulative strategies of social conduct that are not
correlated with general intelligence, and that do not necessarily lead to success.
o Personality that really manipulates other people. We often say they use their
power and whatever is necessary to gain power and use it.
o Associated with offline aggression among adolescents.
Þ A subclinical narcissistic personality includes a sense of importance and uniqueness,
fantasies of unlimited success, requesting constant attention, expecting special favors,
and being interpersonally exploitative.
o Extreme self-involvement.
o Associated with offline aggression among adolescents.
o Narcissists function well in online environments (e.g. due to the controllability
of online self-presentation).
o Narcissistic exploitativeness (= exploitative of others, only own interest in
mind, no moral compassion), a sub-construct of narcissism, is associated with
cyber-aggression among adolescents.
Þ With regards to psychopathy, most researchers acknowledge the inclusion of three
elements: an impulsive behavioral style, an arrogant, deceitful interpersonal style
and a deficient affective experience (sometimes also antisocial behavior is included).
Written by Amy Balemans
A summary of the literature & lectures, Winter 2021
,Social Media Risks & Opportunities, Winter 2021 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WEEK 1 – EXPERIENCING ONLINE AGGRESSION ........................................................ 4
Pabian, S., De Backer, C.J.S., & Vandebosch, H. (2015). Dark Triad personality traits and
adolescent cyber-aggression. Personality and individual differences, 75, 41-46. ...................... 4
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2014). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand
cyberbullying : the importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European journal of
developmental psychology, 11(4), 463-477. ............................................................................... 6
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2021). Perceived long-term outcomes of early traditional and
Cyberbullying victimization among emerging adults. Journal of Youth Studies, 24(1), 91-109.
.................................................................................................................................................10
WEEK 2 – PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR................................................................................... 14
Other notes from the lecture....................................................................................................14
Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2019). Feel good, do
good online? Spillover and crossover effects of happiness on adolescents’ online prosocial
behavior. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(4), 1241-1258. .....................................................15
Guo, Q., Sun, P., & Li, L. (2018). Shyness and online prosocial behavior: A study on multiple
mediation mechanisms. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 1-8. ...........................................19
Bartsch, A., & Kloß, A. (2019). Personalized charity advertising. Can personalized prosocial
messages promote empathy, attitude change, and helping intentions toward stigmatized social
groups?. International Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 345-363. ...............................................24
WEEK 2 – WITNESSING ONLINE AGGRESSION ........................................................... 29
Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., & Bastiaensens, S. (2016). Exposure
to cyberbullying as a bystander: An investigation of desensitization effects among early
adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 480-487. ......................................................29
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and
contextual factors that determine "helping", "joining in", and "doing nothing" when
witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive behavior, 40(5), 383-396. ..............................................34
WEEK 3 – ONLINE SUPPORT (+ GUEST LECTURE) ..................................................... 40
Other notes from the lecture....................................................................................................40
Smit, D., Vrijsen, J.N., Groeneweg, B., Vellinga-Dings, A., Peelen, J., & Spijker, J. (2021).A
newly developed online peer support community for depression (depression connect):
Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(7), e25917 .................................41
van Wezel, M.M.C., Croes, E.A.J., & Antheunis, M.L. (2021). “I’m here for you”: Can social
chatbots truly support their users? A literature review. In Folstad, A. et al. (eds) Chatbot
Research and Design (pp. 96-113)............................................................................................45
Additional notes of the lecture .................................................................................................50
WEEK 3 – CELEBRITY BASHING ...................................................................................... 54
Ouvrein, G., Pabian, S., Machimbarrena, J.M., Erreygers, S., De Backer, C.J.S., &
Vandebosch H. (2018). Setting a bad example: Peer, parental and celebrity norms predict
celebrity bashing. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(7), 937-961. ....................................54
Ouvrein, G., Hallam, L., De Backer, C.J.S., & Vandebosch, H. Bashed at first sight: The
experiences and coping strategies of reality TV stars confronted with celebrity bashing.
Celebrity Studies, 12(3), 389-406. ............................................................................................59
Written by Amy Balemans
,Social Media Risks & Opportunities, Winter 2021 3
WEEK 4 – RISKY SELFIE BEHAVIOR .............................................................................. 63
Chen, S., Schreurs, L.,Pabian, S., & Vandenbosch, L. (2019). Daredevils on social media: A
comprehensive approach toward risky selfie behavior among adolescents. New Media &
Society, 21(11-12), 2443-2462. ..................................................................................................63
WEEK 5 – ONLINE FRIENDSHIPS .................................................................................... 70
Ryan, T., Allen, K.A., Gray, D.L., & McInerney, D.M. (2017). How social are social media? A
review of online social behaviour and connectedness. Journal of Relationships Research, 8, 1-
8. ..............................................................................................................................................70
Baek, Y.M., Bae, Y., & Jang, H. (2013). Social and parasocial relationships on social network
sites and their differential relationships with users’ psychological well-being.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(7), 512-517. .....................................75
WEEK 5 PARENTAL MEDIATION (+ GUEST LECTURE) ............................................. 78
Chen, L., & Shi, J. (2019). Reducing harm from media: A meta-analysis of parental
mediation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 173-193. ...........................78
Holvoet, S., Hudders, L., & Herrewijn, L. (2021). How to empower parental responsibility:
Parents’ views on personalized advertising and online data collection targeting their teens.
Young Consumers, 22(4), 630-643. // Guest lecture. ................................................................82
WEEK 6 – ONLINE ACTIVISM ........................................................................................... 89
Other notes from the lecture....................................................................................................89
Cohen, R., Irwin, L., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2019). # bodypositivity: A content
analysis of body positive accounts on Instagram. Body image, 29, 47-57. ...............................92
Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2020). The case for body positivity on social media:
Perspectives on current advances and future directions. Journal of health psychology, 26(13),
2365-2373. ................................................................................................................................98
WEEK 6 – SEXTING & CYBER DATING ABUSE (+ GUEST LECTURE) ................... 100
GUEST LECTURE ............................................................................................................... 100
Morelli, M., Bianchi, D., Baiocco, R., Pezzuti, L., & Chirumbolo, A. (2016). Sexting,
psychological distress and dating violence among adolescents and young adults. Psicothema,
137-142. .................................................................................................................................. 103
Bianchi, D., Morelli, M., Nappa, M. R., Baiocco, R., & Chirumbolo, A. (2021). A bad
romance: Sexting motivations and teen dating violence. Journal of interpersonal violence,
36(13-14), 6029-6049. ............................................................................................................. 107
Potential exam questions based on the lectures................................................................... 113
Written by Amy Balemans
, Social Media Risks & Opportunities, Winter 2021 4
WEEK 1 – EXPERIENCING ONLINE AGGRESSION
Introduction:
Þ Social media = “websites and applications that enable users to create and share
content and/or to participate in social networking”.
Þ Risk = “a situation involving exposure to danger”
Þ Opportunity = “a chance for…”
(Cyber)bullying
Þ Bullying = “bullying is an aggressive, intentional act or behavior that is carried out by
a group or an individual repeatedly and overtime against a victim who cannot
easily defend himself.” (Olweus, 1993).
o There is a power imbalance here between the perpetrator and victim. This can
be based on many things such as the perpetrator being more popular than the
victim.
Þ Example outcome: someone committing suicide because of this.
Pabian, S., De Backer, C.J.S., & Vandebosch, H. (2015). Dark Triad personality traits
and adolescent cyber-aggression. Personality and individual differences, 75, 41-46.
This study empirically investigates the relationships between the Dark Triad personality traits
and cyber-aggression among adolescents.
Þ Results show that only Facebook intensity and psychopathy significantly predict
cyber-aggression, when controlling for age and gender.
According to Grigg (2010) cyber-aggression = “intentional harm delivered by the use of
electronic means to a person or a group of people irrespective of their age, who perceive(s)
such acts as offensive, derogatory, harmful or unwanted”.
This study focuses on three socially aversive personality traits known as the Dark Triad –
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy.
Þ Machiavellianism = refers to the manipulative strategies of social conduct that are not
correlated with general intelligence, and that do not necessarily lead to success.
o Personality that really manipulates other people. We often say they use their
power and whatever is necessary to gain power and use it.
o Associated with offline aggression among adolescents.
Þ A subclinical narcissistic personality includes a sense of importance and uniqueness,
fantasies of unlimited success, requesting constant attention, expecting special favors,
and being interpersonally exploitative.
o Extreme self-involvement.
o Associated with offline aggression among adolescents.
o Narcissists function well in online environments (e.g. due to the controllability
of online self-presentation).
o Narcissistic exploitativeness (= exploitative of others, only own interest in
mind, no moral compassion), a sub-construct of narcissism, is associated with
cyber-aggression among adolescents.
Þ With regards to psychopathy, most researchers acknowledge the inclusion of three
elements: an impulsive behavioral style, an arrogant, deceitful interpersonal style
and a deficient affective experience (sometimes also antisocial behavior is included).
Written by Amy Balemans
