Unifying the detrimental and beneficial effects of social network site use on self-esteem: a systematic literature review

Unifying the detrimental and beneficial effects of social network site use on self-esteem: a systematic literature review. Hannes-Vincent Krause, Katharina Baum, Annika Baumann & Hanna Krasnova. Media Psychology, Aug 27 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1656646

Full Article Figures & data References Citations in the link above

ABSTRACT: Previous research offers equivocal results regarding the effect of social networking site use on individuals’ self-esteem. We conduct a systematic literature review to examine the existing literature and develop a theoretical framework in order to classify the results. The framework proposes that self-esteem is affected by three distinct processes that incorporate self-evaluative information: social comparison processes, social feedback processing, and self-reflective processes. Due to particularities of the social networking site environment, the accessibility and quality of self-evaluative information is altered, which leads to online-specific effects on users’ self-esteem. Results of the reviewed studies suggest that when a social networking site is used to compare oneself with others, it mostly results in decreases in users’ self-esteem. On the other hand, receiving positive social feedback from others or using these platforms to reflect on one’s own self is mainly associated with benefits for users’ self-esteem. Nevertheless, inter-individual differences and the specific activities performed by users on these platforms should be considered when predicting individual effects.

Introduction

Social networking sites (SNSs) have become a central part of today’s life. As of April 2019, Facebook, the most popular SNS, had 2.3 billion users worldwide, while Instagram and Twitter count 1.0 and 0.3 billion users, respectively (Statista, 2019 Statista. (2019, May 28). Most popular social networks worldwide as of April 2019, ranked by number of active users (in millions). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/). SNSs allow members to interact with others in a virtual field through messages and shared identity information (Chen, Fan, Liu, Zhou, & Xie, 2016 Chen, W., Fan, C.-Y., Liu, Q.-X., Zhou, Z.-K., & Xie, X.-C. (2016). Passive social network site use and subjective well-being: A moderated mediation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 507–514. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.038  ). Motivated by the popularity of these platforms worldwide, the effects of SNS use on users’ well-being have been researched (e.g., Burke & Kraut, 2016 Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2016). The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 265–281. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12162  ; Kross et al., 2013 Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., … Ybarra, O. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PloS One, 8(8), e69841. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069841 ; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006 Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 584–590. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584 ) and reviewed (e.g., Huang, 2017 Huang, C. (2017). Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(6), 346–354. doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0758 ) extensively.

Within this literature, self-esteem, as an important predictor of well-being (Diener & Diener, 1995 Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 653–663. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653 ), has been a topic of interest either on its own (e.g., Gonzales & Hancock, 2011 Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1–2), 79–83. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0411 ; Vogel, Rose, Roberts, & Eckles, 2014 Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. doi:10.1037/ppm0000047) or as a mediator in the relationship between SNS use and well-being (Chen et al., 2016 Chen, W., Fan, C.-Y., Liu, Q.-X., Zhou, Z.-K., & Xie, X.-C. (2016). Passive social network site use and subjective well-being: A moderated mediation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 507–514. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.038  ). Defined as an individual’s subjective value judgment of the self (Rosenberg, 1965 Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.), self-esteem has important implications for various life outcomes, such as health (e.g., Sowislo & Orth, 2013 Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240. doi:10.1037/a0028931 ), relationship satisfaction (Shackelford, 2001 Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Self-esteem in marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(3), 371–390. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00023-4  ), and job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001 Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits–self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability–with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. ). Dynamic in nature, self-esteem can be seen as a barometer of individual successes and failures, as well as acceptance and rejection by others (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996 Baldwin, M. W., & Sinclair, L. (1996). Self-esteem and “If … Then” contingencies of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1130–1141. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1130 ). We denote this dynamic tracking and evaluation process by the term “self-esteem updating”. Information about the self, collected both through interactions with the social environment and introspection, serve as a basis for self-esteem updating. This self-evaluative information, processed through individual self-esteem updating, therefore defines the level of a person’s self-esteem.

As communication and interaction with other individuals via SNSs play an ever-growing role in peoples’ day-to-day lives, the question arises whether these dynamics lead to particular outcomes of self-esteem updating. Indeed, existing empirical research suggests that SNS use is associated with alterations in self-esteem. For example, some studies report a positive association between SNS use and self-esteem (e.g., Gonzales & Hancock, 2011 Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1–2), 79–83. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0411 ; Valkenburg et al., 2006 Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 584–590. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584 ), while others find negative (e.g., Vogel et al., 2014 Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. doi:10.1037/ppm0000047) or insignificant (Muench, Hayes, Kuerbis, & Shao, 2015 Muench, F., Hayes, M., Kuerbis, A., & Shao, S. (2015). The independent relationship between trouble controlling Facebook use, time spent on the site and distress. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(3), 163–169. doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.013 ) relationships. This ambiguous pattern of results resembles extant research in the area of SNS use and general well-being. Some authors in this field suggest to distinguish different SNS activities (for an overview see Huang, 2017 Huang, C. (2017). Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(6), 346–354. doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0758 ), such as social connection promoting vs. non-promoting activities (Clark, Algoe, & Green, 2018 Clark, J. L., Algoe, S. B., & Green, M. C. (2018). Social network sites and well-being: the role of social connection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 32–37. doi:10.1177/0963721417730833  ) or active and passive use patterns (e.g., Verduyn, Ybarra, Résibois, Jonides, & Kross, 2017 Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 274–302. doi:10.1111/sipr.2017.11.issue-1  ) to analyze the beneficial or harmful effects of SNS use on well-being. However, it remains to be seen if these approaches can be transferred to the concept of self-esteem. Scientific results in the field of SNS use and self-esteem still remain scattered and ambiguous (Liu & Baumeister, 2016 Liu, D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Social networking online and personality of self-worth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 64, 79–89. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.024  ), and so far no theory has been established that integrates both social and internal processes to explain these diverging findings.

To close this research gap, we conduct a systematic literature review to make sense of the growing body of research in this area (e.g., Levy & Ellis, 2006 Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science, 9, 181–212. doi:10.28945/479; Webster & Watson, 2002 Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii. ). In doing so, we contribute to the existing literature as follows: first, by reviewing the most common self-esteem theories, we propose that self-esteem updating is mainly driven by three processes: (1) social comparison, (2) social feedback processing, and (3) self-reflection. These three processes incorporate self-evaluative information gathered from an individual’s social environment or by introspection based on information about the self. Based on our framework, we can explain the equivocal results, unifying the positive and negative findings. Moreover, we are able to depict knowledge gaps and give recommendations for future research. Second, we contribute to the growing body of research which studies the implications of information technology use for individuals’ well-being (e.g., Burke & Kraut, 2016 Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2016). The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 265–281. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12162  ; Krasnova, Widjaja, Buxmann, Wenninger, & Benbasat, 2015 Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P., Wenninger, H., & Benbasat, I. (2015). Research note—why following friends can hurt you: An exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among college-age users. Information Systems Research, 26(3), 585–605. doi:10.1287/isre.2015.0588  ; Kross et al., 2013 Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., … Ybarra, O. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PloS One, 8(8), e69841. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069841 ). Specifically, we discuss the role of SNSs as a source of self-evaluative information, driving the association between their use and self-esteem. Third, and on a more global level, our review is in line with the initiative of an Internet-based information and communication technologies (ICT)-enabled “Bright Society” that aims at protecting society from potential risks of technology use (Fedorowicz et al., 2015 Fedorowicz, J., Agarwal, R., Lee, G., Lee, J. K., Watson, R., & Zhang, P. (2015). The AIS grand vision project: What, why, and how. Presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Puerto Rico. ; Lee, 2015 Lee, J. K. (2015). Guest editorial: research framework for AIS grand vision of the bright ICT initiative. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), iii–xii. ). Indeed, while the use of SNSs has been increasingly associated with “dark sides” (Lee, 2016 Lee, J. K. (2016). Invited Commentary—Reflections on ICT-enabled Bright Society Research. Information Systems Research, 27(1), 1–5. doi:10.1287/isre.2016.0627), our study provides evidence that certain types of SNS use are beneficial for users’ self-esteem and should therefore be encouraged.

The paper is structured as follows: first, we provide an overview of theories of self-esteem and derive our theory-driven framework on self-esteem updating. In the next step, we discuss SNSs’ potential meaning as a source of self-evaluative information by explaining how their functionalities can determine both the quality and the access to self-evaluative information relevant for self-esteem. This helps us to frame self-esteem updating in the SNS environment in relation to existing SNS functionalities. Based on this, we propose the directionality of the effect of each process on self-esteem updating in the SNS environment. Consequently, we aim to test our propositions based on findings collected through a literature review on the topic of self-esteem and SNS use. After explaining the applied methodology, we continue with the presentation of the results of our review. We show that all three processes have been investigated to a varying extent by research: while processes related to (1) social comparison mainly result in adverse effects on self-esteem, (2) social feedback processing, and (3) self-reflective processes have the potential to increase the self-esteem of an individual. However, there is evidence that personality traits moderate the effect between SNS use and self-esteem, which might explain prevalent contradictory findings. Based on these insights, we discuss our results in the final chapter and provide concluding remarks.

Background and theoretical framework

In this section, we first define the concept of self-esteem and present our general theory-driven framework on self-esteem updating. We then link our framework with existing functionalities on SNSs to highlight the particularities prevalent in the online context, which affect the processes of our framework.

Self-esteem

Dynamic in nature, the concept of self-esteem refers to a subjective value judgment about one’s self (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996 Baldwin, M. W., & Sinclair, L. (1996). Self-esteem and “If … Then” contingencies of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1130–1141. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1130 ; Rosenberg, 1965 Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.). While low self-esteem has been linked to a number of risks for mental health (e.g., Sowislo & Orth, 2013 Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240. doi:10.1037/a0028931 ), high self-esteem has been shown to have a protective role, helping people to cope with potential risks, such as negative feedback, setbacks, or other sorts of failures (Dumont & Provost, 1999 Dumont, M., & Provost, M. A. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(3), 343–363. doi:10.1023/A:1021637011732  ). Due to the importance of self-esteem as a resource to cope with day-to-day challenges, people have the basic need to maintain and enhance their self-esteem. This need can be fulfilled through continuous processing of information from their social environment (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986 Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189–212). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.). Referred to as self-esteem updating, the formation of self-esteem can therefore be seen as an ongoing dynamic process. Information that is used for this process is called self-evaluative information (e.g., Wayment & Taylor, 1995 Wayment, H. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1995). Self-evaluation processes: Motives, information use, and self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 63(4), 729–757. doi:10.1111/jopy.1995.63.issue-4 ).

Several theories describe how and which kind of self-evaluative information is processed and ultimately influences individual self-esteem (e.g., Bem, 1967 Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200. doi:10.1037/h0024835 ; Festinger, 1954 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202  ; Leary, 1999 Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 32–35. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00008  ). In order to systematically understand the process of self-esteem updating, we review the most common self-esteem theories to our knowledge and group them according to the overall type of self-evaluative information they incorporate (for an overview see Appendix A). By doing so, we are able to identify three routes that individuals might follow when processing information relevant to their self-esteem. Figure 1 illustrates our proposed model of self-esteem updating. It reflects three key processes that take place in the course of self-esteem updating: (1) social comparison processes, (2) social feedback processing, and (3) self-reflective processes.

Figure 1. Proposed model of self-esteem updating.

The first identified process refers to (1) social comparisons. This process is based on comparisons of information related to the self and information provided by other individuals. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202  ) proposes that people have an ongoing basic need to evaluate themselves in relation to others in order to get an appropriate assessment of their abilities and qualities. However, individuals do not compare themselves to anybody in their social surroundings. Social comparisons mainly take place if the target of social comparison is not too different from the self and the object of social comparison is of relevance to the subject (Festinger, 1954 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202  ). Depending on their directionality, social comparison processes could lead to different outcomes in terms of self-esteem. For example, diminished self-esteem can be observed when individuals compare themselves to others who are better off (upward comparison). At the same time, comparing oneself to others who have lower skills or qualifications (downward comparison) is often associated with an increase in self-esteem (e.g., Morse & Gergen, 1970 Morse, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 148–156. doi:10.1037/h0029862 ; Thornton & Moore, 1993 Thornton, B., & Moore, S. (1993). Physical attractiveness contrast effect: Implications for self-esteem and evaluations of the social self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(4), 474–480. doi:10.1177/0146167293194012  ).

The second process that determines self-esteem is (2) social feedback processing. This process incorporates self-evaluative information that stems from direct interaction with other individuals and may signal either social acceptance or rejection. Individuals highly thrive for reactions from their social environment in order to appropriately estimate the degree to which they are accepted and liked by others which can be seen as one way to satisfy individuals’ need of social belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 ). Sociometer Theory (Leary, 1999 Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 32–35. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00008  ) suggests that self-esteem is a barometer reflecting the social acceptance and the social rejection by others. Indeed, receiving negative feedback or any sign of social rejection from others can be seen as a massive threat to self-esteem and has been linked to several negative outcomes to individuals’ well-being, such as negative affect, anxiety, and depression (Baumeister & Leary, 1995 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 ; Leary, 1990 Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 221–229. doi:10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.221  ). On the other hand, receiving positive feedback or any sign of social acceptance benefits the evaluation of the self (Leary, 1999 Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 32–35. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00008  ).

The third identified process that influences self-esteem is (3) self-reflection. While interaction with the social environment is a critical determinant of individual self-esteem; self-esteem can also be derived from more internal aspects. Several theories aim at explaining how the reflection on these facets of the self may influence individual processes of self-esteem updating. For example, the reflection on past behavior (self-perception theory, Bem, 1967 Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200. doi:10.1037/h0024835 ), personal standards (control theory of self-regulation, Carver & Scheier, 1981 Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(6), 545–568. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(81)90039-1  ), images of how people would like to see themselves (self-discrepancy theory, Higgins, 1987 Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319 ), important values, or other positive aspects of the self (self-affirmation theory, Steele, 1988 Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp.261–302). New York, NY: Academic Press.) can serve as a basis for self-evaluation and therefore impact individual self-esteem. Research in the field of self-affirmation (Steele, 1988 Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp.261–302). New York, NY: Academic Press.) has shown that when people think about positive facets of their selves they can experience boosts in self-esteem (Koole, Smeets, Van Knippenberg, & Dijksterhuis, 1999 Koole, S. L., Smeets, K., Van Knippenberg, A., & Dijksterhuis, A. (1999). The cessation of rumination through self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 111–125. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.111  ). Activities with such self-affirming qualities in the offline context are, for instance, writing about one’s most important values or reading self-affirming messages (McQueen & Klein, 2006 McQueen, A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: A systematic review. Self and Identity, 5(4), 289–354. doi:10.1080/15298860600805325). Importantly, (3) self-reflective processes are not solely based on information about the self in isolation, but can also incorporate information about the self, gained in the course of interaction with others. In this context, it is important to distinguish (3) self-reflective processes from (2) social feedback processing, as described above. While instances of interpersonal interaction can be reflected on multiple times within the process of self-reflection, processing of social feedback focuses on a single episode of social interaction (e.g., getting complimented by an acquaintance).

Taken together, (1) social comparison, (2) social feedback processing, and (3) self-reflection incorporate self-evaluative information, and therefore influence self-esteem updating in everyday-life.

Our framework on self-esteem updating is grounded in a general perspective in the offline environment. However, as the three processes mainly take place in interactions between individuals, we assume that they also take place in the context of SNSs. Indeed, SNSs are largely based on social interactions, which justify the application of our framework in the online context. Since the SNS environment exhibits specific particularities, certain dynamics of communication and interaction on these platforms and the thus resulting self-evaluative information might uniquely contribute to the three processes of self-esteem updating. In the following section, we will exemplify this assumption in greater detail.

Self-evaluative information in the SNS environment

Due to its dynamic character, individual self-esteem is the result of a constant integration of self-evaluative information as part of three basic processes described above. SNSs can be seen as a rich source of such self-evaluative information. Indeed, SNS platforms allow users to easily share personal information and updates, get in contact with others, and interact with them. As a result, users are motivated to disclose a large amount of personal information, and, in turn, are constantly exposed to an abundance of information about others on the network. Against this background, we presume that the same processes of self-esteem updating mentioned above take place in the context of SNSs. Figure 2 illustrates the presumed operation of the three self-evaluative processes in the context of SNSs.

Figure 2. Processes of self-esteem updating in the context of SNSs.

For example, the information provided by other users in the SNS environment (e.g., in the form of photos, status updates, and profile descriptions) can be used for (1) social comparison processes. Users can compare relevant aspects of their selves with the information provided by others and can thus draw conclusions about their own positioning (Krasnova et al., 2015 Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P., Wenninger, H., & Benbasat, I. (2015). Research note—why following friends can hurt you: An exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among college-age users. Information Systems Research, 26(3), 585–605. doi:10.1287/isre.2015.0588  ). Users further have the opportunity to interact with each other (e.g., in the form of conversations, giving and receiving likes, and commenting on each other’s content). Information stemming from these interactions may be perceived as signals of social acceptance or rejection, thereby initiating (2) social feedback processing (Wenninger, Krasnova, & Buxmann, 2019 Wenninger, H., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2019). Understanding the role of social networking sites in the subjective well-being of users: a diary study. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(2), 126–148. doi:10.1080/0960085X.2018.1496883). Finally, by disclosing a myriad of information about their selves on the platforms (e.g., by providing detailed profile descriptions and sharing meaningful moments of their lives in the form of photos, videos, and status updates), (3) self-reflective processes are likely to be activated. Specifically, by reflecting on their self-provided information or on former interactions with others on a SNS, users can draw conclusions about how to see and evaluate themselves (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011 Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1–2), 79–83. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0411 ).

As an exemplary illustration of these processes, imagine an SNS user who is very active in sports. On the one hand, processing information provided by others (e.g., a picture of an acquaintance showing her winning a marathon) could lead this user to the following (1) social comparison process outcome: “I am less athletic than my acquaintance”. On the other hand, when this user gets immediate feedback in form of likes after posting her workout picture, a possible outcome of (2) social feedback processing could be “Others value that I am active”. Further, browsing her own profile that incorporates photos of her own marathon experience, the same user might conclude: “I think that I am very athletic”; this would be an outcome of a (3) self-reflective process. While self-esteem might decrease in the first case, it potentially increases in the latter two.

Importantly, while social encounters may contribute to changes in individual self-esteem online and offline, we propose that there are specific particularities of the SNS environment. These particularities are reflected in the quality and accessibility of self-evaluative information, and may therefore uniquely affect the three processes of self-esteem updating and their final outcome. Table 1 gives an overview of the particularities of self-evaluative information in the SNSs environment, lists respective enabling SNS features, and empirical evidence.

Table 1. Particularities of self-evaluative information on SNSs.
CSVDisplay Table

Specifically, the main particularities of self-evaluative information incorporated in (1) social comparison processes are the following: While social comparisons frequently happen in the offline domain as well, users of SNSs have a comparably larger and more accessible pool of subjects to compare with (Smith, 2014 Smith, A. (2014, February 3). What people like and dislike about Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/what-people-like-dislike-about-facebook/). Users can access comparison triggering information easily with information on others’ news, status updates, photos, and links always within reach. Furthermore, SNS algorithms selectively present personalized content to users that raise the frequency of seeing information in subjectively relevant comparison domains (Bucher, 2012 Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164–1180. doi:10.1177/1461444812440159  ). This increases the likelihood of comparisons with others (Tesser, 1988 Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behaviorIn Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). New York, NY: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065260108602270). In addition, comparisons in the SNS environment are mostly upward (Vogel et al., 2014 Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. doi:10.1037/ppm0000047). This can be explained by users presenting enhanced versions of themselves, facilitated through asynchronous communication, content selection, and content editing on SNSs (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006 Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441. doi:10.1111/jcmc.2006.11.issue-2  ; Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008 Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036. doi:10.1177/0146167208320061 ). As users mostly use SNS passively (Verduyn et al., 2015 Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., … Kross, E. (2015). Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488. doi:10.1037/xge0000057 ), the risk of engaging in social comparison is especially high. Other users’ profile pages on SNSs enable passive browsing through large amounts of stored data, thereby yielding frequent grounds for social comparisons. In consideration of these particularities of self-evaluative information on SNSs, we propose that the outcome of (1) social comparison processes on users’ self-esteem is mainly negative.

With regards to (2) social feedback processing, both the tonality and frequency of social feedback on SNSs may cause particular outcomes of users’ self-esteem: Similar to most offline social interactions, feedback from others and the tone of general interactions is mostly positive11. Although negative feedback in forms of cyberbullying, hate speech or gossiping is a phenomenon that is present on SNSs (e.g., Smith et al., 2008 Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x ), research suggests that it is rare compared to feedback with positive tonality (Lenhart et al., 2011 Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens, Kindness and Cruelty on Social Network Sites: How American Teens Navigate the New World of” Digital Citizenship”. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Teens-and-socialmedia.aspx).
(Barasch & Berger, 2014 Barasch, A., & Berger, J. (2014). Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How audience size affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 286–299. doi:10.1509/jmr.13.0238  ; Oh, Ozkaya, & LaRose, 2014 Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 69–78.  ). However, low effort functionalities such as the “Like-Button” encourage users to feedback on each other not only more easily and frequently but also in a reciprocal way (Burke, Marlow, & Lento, 2010 Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1909–1912). Atlanta, GA, USA. ; Wenninger et al., 2019 Wenninger, H., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2019). Understanding the role of social networking sites in the subjective well-being of users: a diary study. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(2), 126–148. doi:10.1080/0960085X.2018.1496883). Additionally, SNSs inherent feedback promoting features such as birthday wishes or friendship reminders prompt users to signal their social appreciation to others. Given these peculiarities, we suggest that (2) social feedback processing mainly leads to positive effects on users’ self-esteem.

Processes of (3) self-reflection in the SNS environment are mainly characterized in terms of two aspects that uniquely contribute to self-esteem. Firstly, self-provided information on SNSs is mainly positive, as SNSs allow their users to carefully select and edit the information disclosed on their own profiles and remove unflattering content shared by others (Ellison et al., 2006 Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441. doi:10.1111/jcmc.2006.11.issue-2  ; Hum et al., 2011 Hum, N. J., Chamberlin, P. E., Hambright, B. L., Portwood, A. C., Schat, A. C., & Bevan, J. L. (2011). A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile photographs. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1828–1833. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.003  ). Secondly, the availability of information used for self-reflective processes is facilitated as it is saved and stored permanently on SNSs. Therefore, users can easily reflect upon both self-presentational information in the form of their presented self-image, as well as their interaction with others. SNS functionalities that enable browsing one’s own profile site and revisiting former interactions with and reactions from others thus foster (3) self-reflective processes by making people aware of positive facets of their self and their relationships (Nabi, Prestin, & So, 2013 Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (Health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 721–727. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0521 ). Hence, we assume that due to these enabling features of SNSs, (3) self-reflective processes mainly lead to increases in users’ self-esteem.

Taken together, we assume that the above-mentioned functionalities of SNSs determine the accessibility and quality of available self-evaluative information, which thus results in detrimental effects for self-esteem in case of (1) social comparison processes and in more favorable self-esteem outcomes in cases of (2) social feedback processing, and (3) self-reflective processes. In order to support these propositions and to summarize existing literature, we conducted a systematic literature review in the area of SNS use and self-esteem. We present details of our applied methodology and its results in the following section.