My sister recently gave her
Snapchat password to her friend in order to maintain their Snapchat streak (a
number which tells you how many days you have snapped back and forth within a
24 hour window) while she was away without internet. To me, this seemed crazy,
but it got me thinking about how much control social media has over our lives.
We are often told by some concerned
individuals (who have somehow managed to avoid the social media bandwagon)
about the dangers we face as a society reliant so heavily on social media
usage. We often respond to these individuals by telling them that it’s our own
choice and that we decide how often and when we use it. But how much control do
we really have over how we spend our time online? Are we really at risk of
being manipulated?
As it turns out we might not have
as much control as we think. Our attention is constantly being pulled in a
multitude of directions by the growing number of different social media platforms.
There are an estimated 2.46 billion social media users today on many different
platforms ("Number of social
media users", 2017).The attention we give to social media isn’t just limited to when we
are using it, more of our thoughts throughout the day come from the screens we
are constantly checking an estimated 150 times a day for the average
millennial (Brandon, 2017). Social media isn’t just a passive form of entertain we use to pass
the time, its being used as a means to persuade us to do things and influence
the way we behave.
How does it work?
Commitment trap:
Pratkanis (2011) defines
commitment as something which binds an individual to behaviour. The formation
of Snapchat streaks does exactly that. They give people something that they
don’t want to lose, programming people to constantly access their accounts. As
stated by Salanick (1977) commitments are strongest when they are visible and
perceived as freely chosen. Snapchat streaks can be clearly seen with a visual
number by the name of the person you have a Snapchat streak with and as with
other social media, its use is perceived as something we chose to do. But in
fact, it seems that we are just being manipulated into sending Snapchats for
fear of losing the streak.
Social consensus:
The use of social media has fast
become a social norm in our society; everyone is doing it. And if everyone else
is using it, the likelihood is that you are using it too. Conformity like this
has been shown in a study by Asch (1951), in which confederates select a
clearly incorrect length line in a simple perceptual task. Few participants
come to believe that the incorrect line is the correct answer, but social
pressure to fit in with the group resulted in half of participants conforming
at least once and went with the majority on over 35% of the trials. With the
much of society using social media, this creates social pressure to conform to
the majority. This pressure is hard to resist, as we want to be the same as
those we associate with and not seen to be deviating from the norm.
Theory of Planned Behaviour:
Social modelling:
The presence of someone else
displaying a behaviour E.g. using social media, increases the likelihood that
the behaviour will be produced by observers. Pratkanis and Aronson (2001) state
that the tendency to imitate social models is increasingly likely for models
who are of high status, prestige and are attractive and confident. We are
constantly bombarded by celebrities on social media. The presence that celebrities
have and the portrayal of frequent social media use in their lives increases
the chance that social media will be used frequently in the lives of their followers.
Reinforcement:
Our use of social media acts as
reinforcement for our future use. Every time we click on something we see on
Facebook for example, we are effectively telling it we like what we see,
reinforcing the display of those things in the future through Facebook’s use of
algorithms. This is known as positive reinforcement, in which good things happen
in response to the behaviour (Skinner, 1938; Thorndike, 1927). For example,
clicking on the latest Ed Sheeran video will result in Facebook suggesting more
and more Ed Sheeran videos for you to watch. The increase of things we like
appearing on our Facebook timelines, consequently increases the chance that we
are going to check our timelines more so than if we didn’t like what we were
seeing.
There are many different ways that social media has control
over our lives and its ever increasing popularity means that its presence in
society is only on the rise.
References:
Asch, S. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1951). Effects
of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups,
leadership, and men, 222-236.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned
behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2),
179-211.
Brandon, J. (2017, April 17) The Surprising Reason Millennials Check Their Phones 150 Times a Day. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/john-brandon/science-says-this-is-the-reason-millennials-check-their-phones-150-times-per-day.html
Number of social media users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions). (2017, July). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/
Brandon, J. (2017, April 17) The Surprising Reason Millennials Check Their Phones 150 Times a Day. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/john-brandon/science-says-this-is-the-reason-millennials-check-their-phones-150-times-per-day.html
Number of social media users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions). (2017, July). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/
Pratkanis, A. R. (Ed.). (2011). The
science of social influence: Advances and future progress. Psychology
Press.
Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E.
(2001). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion.
New York: W.H. Freeman.
Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment is too
easy!. Organizational Dynamics, 6(1), 62-80.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of
organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The Law of
Effect. The American Journal of Psychology, 39, 212-222
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.