PAPER V: FINAL PAPER

 

Social Comparison and Priming: How Social Media Posts Affect People’s Self Perception

Student Name

Florida International University

Study Two Methods

Participants

This second study consisted of 547 participants, out of which 49.4% (n=270) claimed to be Florida International University students, and 50.6% (n=277) consisted of a mixture of family members and friends of FIU students. Of these 547 participants, 58.9% (n=322) were female and 41% (n=224) were male, with 0.2% identifying as Other (n=1). They ranged in ages from 11 to 69 with an average of 23.94 years (SD=7.59). The sample consisted of 72.4% Hispanics (n=396), 13.9% Caucasians (n=76), 8.6% African Americans (n=47), 2.7% Asian American (n=15), 0.2% Native Indian (n=1), and 2.2% identified as Other (n=12), out of which 0.8% consisted mostly of mixed races (n=4). From our participants, 67.5% reported that English was their first language (n=369), and 32.5% did not report English as their first language (n=178). Of this latter group, 29.8% reported Spanish to be their first language (n=163). See Appendix E.

Materials

As our second study consisted of two independent variables, forewarning versus no forewarning and upward versus downward social comparison, participants were randomly assigned to one of four possible conditions for this study: forewarning and upward, forewarning with downward, no forewarning with upward and no forewarning with downward. In part one of the survey, participants in the forewarning condition were presented with a paragraph that explained the effects of social comparison on people, while those in the no forewarning condition were directly shown the fake Facebook profile of Pat Masters for either upward (where Pat had done really well on his job interview and exam) or downward social comparison (where he had done badly on both the interview and exam). We used the same manipulations for social comparison conditions from study one, except we excluded the average condition for this second study.

Parts two and three of the survey were the same from study one. In part two the participants had to rate their agreement to the seven statements on impressions of Pat Masters from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). In part three, participants had to rate their level of agreement about themselves in the same thirteen statements. We decided to call our first dependent variable ‘negative self-perception’, and we created it using the mean score from participants’ negative views of themselves by selecting the statements used for the dependent variables in part one of the study: “I feel I am a lazy person”, “I feel inferior to others at this moment”, “I feel like I have trouble understanding things”, and “I feel like I’m not doing well”. A higher score on this variable would indicate that participants felt worse about themselves. Our second dependent variable was called ‘positive self-esteem’, and it was based on the mean score for participants’ positive views of themselves, again by selecting the same statements from study one’s dependent variable: “I feel I am (or will be) a good job candidate”, “I feel good about myself”, “I feel as smart as others”, and “I feel confident about my abilities”. The higher the score on this new variable, the better participants felt about themselves.

Part four of the survey requested participants’ demographic information, including gender, race or ethnicity, first language, whether they were a student at Florida International University, and current relationship status. Participants were reminded of their right to leave any uncomfortable question blank. Part five of the study was used as a manipulation check, where participants were asked to recall how Pat had done in the interview (great, bad, or unknown) or whether they were reminded of the purpose of the study, that is, the effects of social comparison (yes, now, unknown). The purpose of this section is to tell if participants were attentively completing the survey.

Procedures

Participants for this study were chosen to be either students from Florida International University, or friends and family of FIU students. They were provided a link to a Qualtrics survey that randomly assigned them to one of the four conditions and initially showed them an informed consent page, where they were informed of the purpose of the study, the number of participants in it, how long the survey would take to complete, any risks or discomforts from the study, and the benefits of participating. As the survey was online, participants were not required to complete it at a specific time or setting. Once participants consented to participate, they were allowed to move on to the rest of the survey, which consisted of five parts. Participants were debriefed at the end of the study and informed about our two independent variables and our hypotheses for the effect of social comparison and priming in social media. They were also provided contact information for any questions regarding the study.

Study Two Results

For our first manipulation check, we used social comparison condition (upward or downward) as our independent variable, while our dependent variable was whether or not the participants recognized which condition they were in. The chi square test we ran showed significant results, X2(2) = 455.9, p < .001. Most participants in the upward social comparison condition reported that Pat did great in the interview (95.6%), and most participants in the downward condition recalled he did bad (94.5%). These results show that participants were attentive while completing their surveys.

For our second manipulation check, forewarning (warning or no warning) was our independent variable, and whether participants recalled the purpose of the study (social comparison) was our dependent variable. Our chi square test showed significant results, X2(2) = 197.1, p < .001. Most participants in the warning condition reported being reminded of the effects of social comparison (83.6%), while most participants in the no warning condition reported not being reminded (62.5%). This shows that participants were paying attention when reading the survey. See Appendix F.

Our main analysis consisted of a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA Test for social comparison condition (upward or downward) and forewarning (warning or no warning) as our independent variables and participants’ negative self-perception as our dependent variable. Results from this test showed a significant effect for social comparison F(1, 543) = 67.6, p < .001. Participants scored higher in negative self-perception in the upward social comparison condition (M = 3.66, SD = 0.89) than in the downward condition (M = 3.06, SD = 0.82). There was no significant main effect for forewarning F(1, 543) = 0.17, p = .68. Participants that received a warning beforehand (M = 3.33, SD = 0.89) showed similar scores on negative self-perception as participants that received no warning (M = 3.4, SD = 0.92). There was also no significant interaction for social comparison X forewarning, F(1, 543) = 0.98, p = .32. Participants did not differ when it came to scores on negative self-perception between the warning and upward comparison condition (M = 3.61, SD = 0.89), the warning and downward comparison condition (M = 3.08, SD = 0.82), the no warning and upward comparison condition (M = 3.71, SD = 0.89), and the no warning and downward comparison condition (M = 3.04, SD = 0.82). See Appendix G.

We ran a second 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA Test that used social comparison condition (upward or downward) and forewarning (warning or no warning) as our independent variables and participants’ positive self-esteem as our dependent variable. Results showed a significant effect for social comparison F(1, 543) = 96.7, p < .001. Participants scored higher in positive self-esteem in the downward social comparison condition (M = 4.76, SD = 0.64) than in the upward condition (M = 4.22, SD = 0.63). There was no significant main effect for forewarning F(1, 543) = 1.43, p = .23. Participants that received a warning beforehand (M = 4.54, SD = 0.68) scored equally in positive self-esteem as participants that received no warning (M = 4.44, SD = 0.69). There was again no significant interaction for social comparison X forewarning, F(1, 543) = 0.84, p = .36. Participants did not differ when it came to scores in positive self-esteem between the warning and upward comparison condition (M = 4.28, SD = 0.62), the warning and downward comparison condition (M = 4.76, SD = 0.66), the no warning and upward comparison condition (M = 4.16, SD = 0.63), and the no warning and downward comparison condition (M = 4.75, SD = 0.62). See Appendix H.

Study Two Discussion

We predicted that participants warned about social comparison beforehand would score higher in positive self-esteem than those who did not receive a warning; and those who received no warning would overall score higher in negative self-perception. Additionally, for participants in the no warning condition, we hypothesized that those in the upward social comparison condition would score the highest in negative self-perception and those in the downward condition would score the highest in positive self-esteem. We also predicted that warning participants would show no difference in negative self-perception scores between the downward and upward social comparison conditions, and no difference in positive self-esteem scores between the downward and upward conditions.

This second study showed a significant main effect for social comparison, once again supporting our hypotheses for study one, where social comparison has an effect of people’s self-views (Liu et al., 2016). However, results did not support our predictions for study two, where we hypothesized that warning participants would make them develop conscious strategies to avoid deception (Lombardi et al., 1987). Forewarning showed no main effects for either of our dependent variables, meaning participants did not differ in their scores on positive self-esteem or negative self-perception based on the forewarning condition they were in. We also found no significance in the interaction between social comparison and forewarning, meaning our two independent variables combined showed no difference in the four possible conditions when compared to individuals’ scores on positive self-esteem and negative self-perception.

References

Liu, J., Li, C., Carcioppolo, N., & North, M. (2016). Do our facebook friends make us feel worse? A study of social comparison and emotion. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 619-640. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1111/hcre.12090

Lombardi, W. J., Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). The role of consciousness in priming effects on categorization: Assimilation versus contrast as a function of awareness of the priming task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(3), 411–429. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167287133009.

Appendix E – Study Two – Demographics

Gender
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Male	224	41.0	41.0	41.0
	Female	322	58.9	58.9	99.8
	Other	1	.2	.2	100.0
	Total	547	100.0	100.0
Age
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	11	1	.2	.2	.2
	13	2	.4	.4	.5
	15	3	.5	.5	1.1
	16	1	.2	.2	1.3
	17	8	1.5	1.5	2.7
	18	17	3.1	3.1	5.9
	19	43	7.9	7.9	13.7
	20	84	15.4	15.4	29.1
	21	97	17.7	17.7	46.8
	22	73	13.3	13.3	60.1
	23	39	7.1	7.1	67.3
	24	39	7.1	7.1	74.4
	25	37	6.8	6.8	81.2
	26	21	3.8	3.8	85.0
	27	11	2.0	2.0	87.0
	28	10	1.8	1.8	88.8
	29	7	1.3	1.3	90.1
	30	6	1.1	1.1	91.2
	31	2	.4	.4	91.6
	33	6	1.1	1.1	92.7
	34	3	.5	.5	93.2
	35	3	.5	.5	93.8
	36	2	.4	.4	94.1
	37	1	.2	.2	94.3
	39	2	.4	.4	94.7
	40	1	.2	.2	94.9
	42	1	.2	.2	95.1
	45	2	.4	.4	95.4
	46	1	.2	.2	95.6
	47	2	.4	.4	96.0
	48	2	.4	.4	96.3
	49	1	.2	.2	96.5
	50	3	.5	.5	97.1
	51	3	.5	.5	97.6
	52	4	.7	.7	98.4
	54	2	.4	.4	98.7
	55	1	.2	.2	98.9
	56	1	.2	.2	99.1
	57	1	.2	.2	99.3
	59	2	.4	.4	99.6
	65	1	.2	.2	99.8
	69	1	.2	.2	100.0
	Total	547	100.0	100.0

Race/ethnicity - Selected Choice
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Caucasian	76	13.9	13.9	13.9
	Hispanic	396	72.4	72.4	86.3
	Native Indian	1	.2	.2	86.5
	African American	47	8.6	8.6	95.1
	Asian American	15	2.7	2.7	97.8
	Others -- Please specify	12	2.2	2.2	100.0
	Total	547	100.0	100.0
Race/ethnicity - Others -- Please specify - Text
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid		535	97.8	97.8	97.8
	Afro arab	1	.2	.2	98.0
	Asian and Hispanic	1	.2	.2	98.2
	Human	1	.2	.2	98.4
	MIXED	1	.2	.2	98.5
	Mixed; Caucasian and African America	1	.2	.2	98.7
	native indian mixed white	1	.2	.2	98.9
	Non-Hispanic Mulatto	1	.2	.2	99.1
	South Asian	1	.2	.2	99.3
	White	4	.7	.7	100.0
	Total	547	100.0	100.0

Is English your first language? - Selected Choice
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Yes	369	67.5	67.5	67.5
	No -- Please specify your first language	178	32.5	32.5	100.0
	Total	547	100.0	100.0

Is English your first language? - No -- Please specify your first language - Text
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid		372	68.0	68.0	68.0
	Bengali	1	.2	.2	68.2
	bilingual	1	.2	.2	68.4
	Chinese	1	.2	.2	68.6
	Español	2	.4	.4	68.9
	Haitian Creole	1	.2	.2	69.1
	Hebrew	4	.7	.7	69.8
	Português	1	.2	.2	70.0
	Portuguese	1	.2	.2	70.2
	Sinhala	1	.2	.2	70.4
	Spanglish	1	.2	.2	70.6
	Spanisg	1	.2	.2	70.7
	spanish	26	4.8	4.8	75.5
	Spanish	132	24.1	24.1	99.6
	SPANISH	1	.2	.2	99.8
	Vietnamese	1	.2	.2	100.0
	Total	547	100.0	100.0

Are you a student a Florida International University?
	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Yes	270	49.4	49.4	49.4
	No	277	50.6	50.6	100.0
	Total	547	100.0	100.0

Appendix F – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two

IVSocialComparison * Tell me how well Pat performed during the job interview (as mentioned in one of Pat’s Facebook posts on the prior page.) Crosstabulation
Count
	Tell me how well Pat performed during the job interview (as mentioned in one of Pat’s Facebook posts on the prior page.)	Total
	Pat did great in the interview	Pat did bad in the Interview	Unknown
IVSocialComparison	Upward Comparison	261	11	1	273
	Downward Comparison	12	259	3	274
Total	273	270	4	547

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	455.902a	2	.000
Likelihood Ratio	563.391	2	.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	436.261	1	.000
N of Valid Cases	547
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.00.

IVForewarning * Tell me whether you were reminded of the purpose of the study, that is, the effect of Social Comparison on self-perception. Crosstabulation
Count
	Tell me whether you were reminded of the purpose of the study, that is, the effect of Social Comparison on self-perception.	Total
	Yes	No	Unknown
IVForewarning	Warning	234	19	27	280
	No Warning	77	167	23	267
Total	311	186	50	547

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	197.143a	2	.000
Likelihood Ratio	218.206	2	.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	91.016	1	.000
N of Valid Cases	547
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 24.41.

Appendix G –2 X 2 ANOVA – DV1 Negative Self-perception – Study Two

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: DV1_NegativeStatements
IVSocialComparison	IVForewarning	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Upward Comparison	Warning	3.6107	.88587	131
	No Warning	3.7130	.89122	142
	Total	3.6639	.88850	273
Downward Comparison	Warning	3.0805	.81646	149
	No Warning	3.0380	.82492	125
	Total	3.0611	.81910	274
Total	Warning	3.3286	.88854	280
	No Warning	3.3970	.92311	267
	Total	3.3620	.90540	547

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: DV1_NegativeStatements
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Corrected Model	50.525a	3	16.842	23.032	.000
Intercept	6148.726	1	6148.726	8408.826	.000
IVSocialComparison	49.425	1	49.425	67.592	.000
IVForewarning	.122	1	.122	.166	.683
IVSocialComparison * IVForewarning	.714	1	.714	.977	.323
Error	397.054	543	.731
Total	6630.250	547
Corrected Total	447.579	546
a. R Squared = .113 (Adjusted R Squared = .108)

Appendix H –2 X 2 ANOVA – DV2 Positive Self-esteem – Study Two

Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: DV2_PositiveStatements
IVSocialComparison	IVForewarning	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Upward Comparison	Warning	4.2794	.62001	131
	No Warning	4.1648	.63079	142
	Total	4.2198	.62712	273
Downward Comparison	Warning	4.7634	.65555	149
	No Warning	4.7480	.62261	125
	Total	4.7564	.63962	274
Total	Warning	4.5370	.68237	280
	No Warning	4.4378	.69038	267
	Total	4.4886	.68745	547

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: DV2_PositiveStatements
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Corrected Model	40.288a	3	13.429	33.488	.000
Intercept	10970.866	1	10970.866	27358.085	.000
IVSocialComparison	38.759	1	38.759	96.653	.000
IVForewarning	.575	1	.575	1.435	.232
IVSocialComparison * IVForewarning	.335	1	.335	.835	.361
Error	217.748	543	.401
Total	11278.607	547
Corrected Total	258.036	546
a. R Squared = .156 (Adjusted R Squared = .151)