Psychology of Social Media: Reading Responses

Theories of social media

I thoroughly enjoyed this week's readings which discussed how the theoretical approaches to social media vary greatly, spanning across fields of philosophy, psychology and communication in a lot more detail than I have previously ever read. Qi et al (2018), argued that existing research often lacks theoretical depth. The paper proposes a matrix based on lifeworld interpretation (rationality vs historicity) and consideration of others (instrumentalism vs being with). This matrix provides a way to categorize the different perspectives on social media behavior. E.g. Goffman’s self-presentation theory is related to how users curate their online identities, Bourdieu’s ‘social capital’ helps to understand the role of influence and reputation in digital spaces. Heidegger and Sartre contribute ideas on identity formation and community building, aiming to show that social media is also a space for collective interaction. It shows that social media behavior is not one-dimensional, and is shaped by many things like how people engage with others, how they perceive themselves and assumptions underpinning their reactions. I found this paper to be very dense but it was interesting to read through and I feel like I learnt valuable new terms & concepts.

Ngai et al. (2015), in contrast to Qi, provides a review of social media research categorising it into: Personal behavior theories, social behavior theories and mass communication theories. The paper introduces the causal chain framework which structures social media research into input output relationships. This helps map factors that influence social media behavior and researchers break down social media’s effects into:

• Antecedents → factors driving engagement
• Mediators → variables explaining relationships
• Moderators → influencing factors
• Outcomes → behavioral/psychological effects

This makes it easier to understand the mechanisms behind our digital interactions. Lamberton & Humphreys (2022) carry this discussion on by looking at classical psychological theories in the context of social media. They argue that digital behaviors can be understood through pre-existing psychological models. By examining things like temporal structures and social presence, they showed that social media operates on fundamental psychological principles even though it is a new medium. I thought that it was interesting to read something that challenged the binary views of social media and papers that had so much nuance and it has certainly reinforced that theoretical pluralism is necessary for understanding social media's effects on our mental health.

Social media, self-esteem and mental health

This week’s readings covered the complex and often contradictory effects of social media on self-esteem, mental health, and body image. Across the studies, a recurring theme is the dual nature of social media—it offers opportunities for self-expression, belonging, and validation, but also fosters comparison, self-objectification, and unrealistic beauty standards.

One of the most striking discussions revolves around photo editing on social media and its impact on self-perceived attractiveness and self-esteem. Ozimek et al. (2023) found that editing one’s photos is often linked to self-objectification and increased appearance-based social comparisons, which in turn negatively affect self-esteem. This suggests that while users engage in editing to present their “best” selves, it can paradoxically make them feel worse about their actual appearance.

Similarly, Bowman et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review of dating apps, which have become central to modern social interactions but are increasingly associated with body dissatisfaction, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. The study highlighted that the emphasis on superficial traits in dating app culture exacerbates self-esteem issues, particularly through swipe-based interactions that reduce people to their looks.

Cingel et al. (2022) explored the broader impact of social media on self-esteem, emphasizing that its effects vary based on individual and contextual factors such as age, gender, and social comparison orientation. While some users benefit from the positive reinforcement of likes and supportive interactions, others—particularly young users exposed to unattainable beauty standards—experience a decline in self-worth.

Operational Definitions of Social Media Constructs

The studies define key social media constructs, including:

• Self-objectification: Viewing oneself primarily through the lens of physical appearance, often influenced by social media engagement and photo editing behaviors.
• Appearance-based social comparison: Evaluating one’s looks against curated, often unrealistic images online, which can either boost or damage self-esteem.
• Contingent self-worth: A concept explored by Cingel et al. (2022), where individuals tie their self-esteem to the feedback they receive online.
• Swiping culture: In the context of dating apps, the way users quickly evaluate potential partners based on limited information, reinforcing superficial judgments of self-worth.

Research Methods Used

Each study employed different methodologies:

• Ozimek et al. (2023) conducted a survey with over 400 participants and used a mediation model to analyze how photo editing impacts self-esteem via self-objectification and comparison.
• Bowman et al. (2025) performed a systematic review of 45 studies on dating apps, synthesizing research findings on body image and mental health.
• Cingel et al. (2022) reviewed multiple studies on social media’s effect on self-esteem, considering variables like age, gender, and cultural differences.

These studies build upon existing literature by reinforcing the idea that social media’s effects are not uniform. While past research often portrayed social media as either entirely harmful or beneficial, the nuanced findings of this week’s readings suggest that individual factors—such as personality, gender, and use patterns—play a crucial role. The research also extends prior work by emphasizing how different platforms (e.g., Instagram vs. dating apps) shape users’ self-perception in unique ways. I found the discussion on photo editing particularly thought-provoking because it highlights a paradox: while people edit their photos to feel more confident, the act of editing may reinforce insecurities. It makes me question how much of social media is genuinely about self-expression versus self-surveillance. Similarly, the findings on dating apps reinforce my belief that their design encourages users to reduce self-worth to metrics of attractiveness, which is problematic for long-term self-esteem.

Digital activism and its costs

All of the readings this week focused on digital activism and the mental health, engagement and political implications of activism done via social media. They showed that social media offers great tools for collective action and visibility but this comes with psychological costs, especially for marginalized groups. The main finding of the Marshall et al (2024) was that higher engagement with BLM posts was linked to higher trauma symptoms, depression and anxiety, especially with users of racial minorities. It showed that black participants had increased negative mental health associations and most of these participants did not discuss BLM in therapy even when deeply affected. This raises major concerns about racial trauma not being addressed and reminded me of earlier discussions in weeks 8-10 about how identity relevant content can re-traumatise users. The Estrella-Ramon et al. (2024) focused on #fridaysforfuture twitter posts and which message features got the most engagement. It showed that: posts by icon influencers, videos/images + hashtags, COVID related climate content and content posted during business hours were factors for high engagement. This emphasized that message design is very important for sustaining long-term activism online. This was helpful for understanding how strategy affects impact and had some ties to last week's discussions on compulsion vs intention. The Subramanian & Weare (2022) also analysed hashtags surrounding Trump's sexual assault comments. Analyzing the creating of digital storytelling becoming a counter narrative to rape supportive culture. I found this reading emotional as it linked well with discussions from I think week 6 and 9 and how digital platforms amplify survivors voices despite risks of trolling and impacts on the individuals' mental health. The takeaways for me this week were that digital activism = visibility + vulnerability and reinforced that participating in online movements comes with an emotional cost especially for those impacted by the issues. It brings up further thoughts about how platforms should do a better job at protecting activists and I think future work should build bridges between mental health services and activism and that therapists should be trained to discuss these kinds of things with their clients also how to start movements that engage members consistently without burning out the people involved..