No abstract

Users of social networking sites such as Facebook frequently post self-portraits on their profiles. While research has begun to analyze the motivations for posting such pictures, less is known about how selfies are evaluated by recipients. Although producers of selfies typically aim to create a positive impression, selfies may also be regarded as narcissistic and therefore fail to achieve the intended goal. The aim of this study is to examine the potentially ambivalent reception of selfies compared to photos taken by others based on the Brunswik lens model Brunswik (1956). In a between-subjects online experiment (N = 297), Facebook profile mockups were shown which differed with regard to picture type (selfie vs. photo taken by others), gender of the profile owner (female vs. male), and number of individuals within a picture (single person vs. group). Results revealed that selfies were indeed evaluated more negatively than photos taken by others. Persons in selfies were rated as less trustworthy, less socially attractive, less open to new experiences, more narcissistic and more extroverted than the same persons in photos taken by others. In addition, gender differences were observed in the perception of pictures. Male profile owners were rated as more narcissistic and less trustworthy than female profile owners, but there was no significant interaction effect of type of picture and gender. Moreover, a mediation analysis of presumed motives for posting selfies revealed that negative evaluations of selfie posting individuals were mainly driven by the perceived motivation of impression management. Findings suggest that selfies are likely to be evaluated less positively than producers of selfies might suppose.

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, physical distancing is necessary to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. To compensate for the lack of social encounters, people have been advised to connect with others via digital communication channels. Drawing on a psychological framework combined with assumptions from communication science, we therefore investigated whether technology‐mediated communication can actually meet individuals' social needs to foster compliance with distancing measures and whether there are differences between distinct communication channels. Based on an online survey ( N = 301) during the first national lockdown in Germany, we found that the impact of audio‐visual communication is limited. Instead, the data showed that text‐based communication indirectly fostered willingness to adhere to physical distancing through the pathway of increased feelings of social support and life satisfaction. Three follow‐up surveys ( N = 180) revealed that while feelings of social support increased, people's technology‐based communication and willingness to adhere to distancing measures decreased. Our results challenge the assumption that audio‐visual communication compensates for lack of physical contact more effectively than text‐based communication. This study highlights the potential of text‐based communication to increase feelings of social support, which may be particularly important during a pandemic.

Despite incivility in online discussions being linked to various negative effects, less is known about the mechanisms of how incivility works. So far, explanations by social perception have been neglected. Therefore, drawing on the multiple inference model, this study employs an attribution theoretical approach to examine whether the motives and traits that people attribute to senders of uncivil or opposing comments affect their intentions to join a discussion. Employing a 2 (incivility vs. no incivility) × 2 (like-minded vs. opposing stance) between-subjects design, data from an online experiment ( N = 452) were analyzed applying a path model (SPSS AMOS). Results revealed that participants attributed more aggressive and less nonaggressive motives to senders of uncivil messages. The attribution of aggressive motives consequently increased hostile inferences about the target. A similar pattern occurred when individuals were exposed to an opposing stance. In result, hostile inferences about the sender’s traits decreased participants’ willingness to discuss.

False information on social media poses a crucial threat to our society, and calls for interventions to combat this problem are becoming louder. Users themselves may have the potential to diminish the impact of misleading information. In an online experiment with a 3 x 3 between-subjects design (credibility evaluation in user comments: positive vs. negative vs. none) x (numerical credibility rating: positive vs. negative vs. none), we tested the influence of bandwagon cues on the impact of a false news post on Facebook (N = 240). Contrary to prevalent assumptions regarding heuristic information processing, numerical credibility ratings had no influence on participants’ credibility appraisals and intended sharing behavior. However, negative user comments diminished the believability of false news. Moreover, participants’ willingness to share the news post publicly and privately was indirectly reduced by the effect of negative user comments on perceived news credibility.

Although the appraisal of online incivility highly depends on the social context in which it occurs, little research has focused on this aspect. Drawing on the general aggression model, we assumed that the appraisal of and the reaction to an uncivil discussion comment is affected by the represented stance and the appearance of accompanying comments. To examine these assumptions, we conducted an online experiment ( N = 611) with a three ( uncivil vs. civil vs. no preceding comments as a control) × two ( opposing vs. conforming recipient’s views) between-subjects design. Data revealed that the influence of preceding comments is limited. However, people were more likely to attribute aggressive motives to senders of incivility when they opposed their opinion. In turn, these attributions increased individuals’ anger, anxiety, hostile cognitions, but also enthusiasm. Furthermore, aggressive motive attributions, participants’ emotions, and hostile cognitions guided participants’ intentions to answer in a discussion-centered and/or aggressive way.

No abstract