If you are anything like
me, then at any given moment you are not
more than 3 feet away from
your phone, your laptop or some device giving you access to the
digital world. Perhaps a few seconds before clicking on this article,
you were scrolling through your Facebook newsfeed, or maybe
you were on the
Instagram app selecting the best filter for your next photo upload. A few
keystrokes will give you the chance to share any thought or experience with your classmates,
your best friends, or the world. But with so many
opportunities for
interaction at our fingertips, how do you choose which program to open? Although
social media cannot replicate face-to-face interaction, they may differ in the
quality of experience you get out of them. So, which platform should you
choose?
For those of you who have yet to step foot into the world of
social media, you are in a slowly dwindling minority. Canada has one of the
highest rates of social media use in the world, with 4 out of 5 citizens
engaged in at least one digital communication platform. The rates are particularly high for
young adults who have developed in tandem with the growth of communication
technology. New social media platforms seem to be popping up at every turn and
we are surrounded by avenues of connection.
Despite being the most highly connected generation in
history, it seems we are also the loneliest. Nationwide, almost half of adults
indicate that they feeling depressed due to being alone, and rates of reported loneliness only seem to be increasing. In terms of psychological health, loneliness is a
substantial risk as it is linked with mental illness, poor physical health and increased
risk of death.
So if social media pales in comparison to face-to-face interaction, then
one might question why we bother signing up for a profile in the first place.
Research suggests that the key may be the type of communication platform we choose
to interact with. A study conducted by Pittman and Reich indicates that in terms of
emotional outcome, not all social media is created equal.
For the sake of simplicity, social media can be differentiated between
image-based or text-based platforms.
In their study, young adults were asked to asked to
respond to scales of loneliness, happiness and satisfaction with life.
Following this, they were asked to indicate which social media sites they
interacted with, and the degree of their usage. This involved two picture
sharing sites -- Instagram and snapchat, as well as two text based sites --
Twitter and Yik Yak. The researchers found that use of picture based sites
is associated with lower levels of loneliness, and higher level of happiness
and satisfaction with life. This
relationship was not found with use of text-sharing sites.
So
what is the difference? Why should it matter which platform we choose? To answer this question Pittman and Reich suggest the discrepancy could be tied to the type of interaction offered by the site. Each
differs in the level of connectivity and “realness” it involves. Sharing
picture allow the user a feeling of “social presence”. That is, the
interaction is more realistic. Our
brains trust our visual modalities such as images and video more than text
because we inherently believe that pictures cannot lie.
Additionally, the experience offered by pictures and videos is both intimate and immediate, something which text cannot offer. When you send your friend a ten-second snapchat of your meal, or post an image of your latest camping trip on Instagram you allow the viewers a glimpse into your experience as you yourself experienced it. When you send your friend a snapchat of a goofy face, the resulting experience is quite similar to 'goofing off' together in the same room.
- Colleen Murray
McKinnon, M. (2016, August 02). 2016 Canadian Social Media Use and Online Brand Interaction Data. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from http://canadiansinternet.com/2016-canadian-social-media-use-online-brand-interaction-statistics/
Pittman, M., & Reich, B. (2016). Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture may be worth more than a thousand words. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 155-167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.084
No comments:
Post a Comment