Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Full length article
Click here to look clever: Self-presentation via selective sharing of
music and film on social media
Benjamin K. Johnson*, Giulia Ranzini
Department of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 5 August 2017
Received in revised form
27 December 2017
Accepted 7 January 2018
Sharing mass media content through social network sites has become a prevalent practice that provides
individuals with social utility and cultural capital. This behavior is examined here by testing how
different self-presentational motivations may produce selective patterns of sharing media content in
social networks. An other-ideal motive was expected to drive sharing of popular media, an own-ideal
motive was expected to drive sharing of prestigious media, and an actual-self motive was expected to
drive sharing of guilty pleasures. An online experiment (N ¼ 168) invoked motivational situations, then
asked participants to list songs and films they would share on Facebook. These media were then rated for
perceptions. Predictions regarding unique and prestigious media, but not guilty pleasures, were supported. People with the other-ideal motive to fit with group tastes shared less unique music and film, and
people with the own-ideal motive to present their best possible selves shared more prestigious music
and film. Individual differences in need for uniqueness moderated effects of own-ideal and actual-self
motives, and the intensity of Facebook use moderated the effect of other-ideal on media sharing.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Self-presentation
Impression motivation
Media sharing
Self-discrepancy
Entertainment
Social network sites
Mass media have long served as a source of cultural, entertainment, and informational messages that people readily share
with each other (e.g., Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955). This interpersonal
sharing of media content produces valuable social utility and cultural capital for individuals and social groups (Atkin, 1972;
Bourdieu, 1979/1984; Rubin, 2009). Displaying one's tastes in
entertainment can earn social rewards by connecting to others with
shared affinities (J. Lee & Choi, 2017) and by cultivating a self-image
(Chan, Berger, & Van Boven, 2012). More recently, the redistribution
and curation of media content through computer-mediated channels such as the social network site (SNS) has become a prevalent
and influential practice within those services (Ellison & boyd, 2013;
Thorson & Wells, 2016) and a key part of media brands' strategies
for reaching target audiences with their content (Batinic & Appel,
2013; Bobkowski, 2015; Kudeshia, Sikdar, & Mittal, 2016; OeldorfHirsch & Sundar, 2015; Oh, Bellur, & Sundar, in press). This intersection of mass media and interpersonal media (Walther, 2017;
Walther et al., 2010) is the focus of the present study.
Sharing mass media content via interpersonal media channels is
one instance of masspersonal communication, in which individuals
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: b.k.johnson@vu.nl (B.K. Johnson), g.ranzini@vu.nl (G. Ranzini).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.008
0747-5632/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
“can use traditionally defined mass communication channels for
interpersonal communication […] and traditional interpersonal
channels for mass communication” (O'Sullivan & Carr, in press, p.
4). In particular, media sharing involves using mass media content
such as film, television, music, news, or web pages to engage in
interpersonal interactions, retransmitting (by embedding or discussing) this content among audiences of personal networks,
smaller interpersonal groups, or specific individuals in order to
facilitate shared experiences and engage in individual selfpresentation. This media sharing may also entail the simultaneous use of mass and interpersonal media (O'Sullivan & Carr, in
press).
Specifically, in the present study we consider how different
motivations might lead to selective patterns of sharing media
content in an online social network site (e.g., Facebook). Three
psychological motives for the presenting the self-conceptdportraying the actual self, the own-ideal self, or the otherideal selfdwere tested as antecedent factors in sharing music and
film characterized as guilty pleasures, prestigious titles, and popular titles. Additionally, we examined theoretically relevant
moderating traits such as a need for uniqueness. In the following,
we review the presentation of different selves on social media, the
utility of media sharing in impression management, and the role of
personality. Then, we present the results of an experiment that
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
tested our predictions by soliciting music and film to be shared in
assigned situations, along with perceptions of those entertainment
media.
1. Social media and the presentation of possible selves
One of the most studied aspects of computer-mediated
communication, and social media in particular, is its ability to
provide affordances for self-presentation, including the ability to
selectively edit and cultivate one's online persona and identity
€mer & Winter 2008; Schau & Gilly, 2003; Walther, 2007). Ac(Kra
cording to Whitty (2008), this process of online identity curation
might also be seen as the result of an effort to present different
possible selves: an actual self, inclusive of what is typically
expressed to others; an ideal self, representing how the user dor
othersdwould like for them to be seen; as well as an “ought-to” or
simply ought self, embodying the qualities they believe one should
possess (Whitty, 2008). An earlier articulation of this selfdiscrepancy theory, as introduced by Higgins (1987), distinguished between “own” selves and “other” selves, suggesting that
for ideal and ought self-concepts both the individual's beliefs as
well as their peers' beliefs about the ideal possible self play an
important role. The question as to whether online media might be
more suitable for the presentation of actual, rather than ideal
selves, has been at the center of communication research for a few
years (Michikyan, Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2014; Seidman, 2013),
yet relatively little attention has been paid to the difference between own-ideal and other-ideal.
Earlier research has identified online media as a particularly
suitable platform for the expression of actual selves (Bargh,
McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002; boyd, 2008; McKenna, Green, &
Gleason, 2002), highlighting how individual characteristics of
users, such as personality traits (Michikyan et al., 2014) or specific
social media usage motives (Tosun, 2012), can predict actual-self
presentation. Dating sites and, more recently, dating apps have
further enriched the body of research on self-presentation online,
exploring more in depth the role of ideal selves (Ellison, Hancock, &
Toma, 2012) and taking more explicitly into account the role of
others' expectations on the type of information individual users
share about themselves. While the possibility of a future encounter,
in fact, represents an important drive towards presentation of the
actual self (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006), the pressure to find a
significant other might also push users towards depicting an ideal
self which responds to their own idea of how they wish to be seen
(own-ideal, cf. Ellison et al., 2012), or an ideal self that shows
characteristics that respond to expectations from an audience they
wish to attract (other-ideal, cf. Birnholtz, Fitzpatrick, Handel, &
Brubaker, 2014). In the words of Ellison and colleagues, “presenting one's ideal self is one strategy for resolving pressures to be both
honest and attractive” (Ellison et al., 2012, p. 48).
Social network sites like Facebook are not so much about finding
new (romantic) relationships as they are about maintaining recent
and older ones (Ellison, Vitak, Gray, & Lampe, 2014). In this sense,
SNS users hold incentives to balancedor cycle betweendpresenting actual, own-ideal, and other-ideal selves. More authentic
(i.e., actual) self-presentation on Facebook is linked to more social
connections and less stress (Grieve & Watkinson, 2016). Yet
because the networks of users typically depict the different contexts they might encounter in their everyday lives, the strategies
employed to manage their impressions will also be mindful of
different audiences, whether real or perceived as such (Hogan,
2010). Multiple audiences and contexts can collapse into a univocal network of references, where self-presentations converge into
a single online identity encompassing elements of each self
(Marwick & boyd, 2011). Selective presentation of cues allows for
149
motivated, situational impression management online (Walther,
2007) across social contexts (Beam, Child, Hutchens, &
Hmielowski, in press; Marder, Joinson, & Shankar, 2012).
In addition to a motivation to be authentic and present a true
self (e.g., Ellison et al., 2006; Tosun, 2012), other psychological
motives can be relevant for self-presentation (Schlenker & Weigold,
1992), such as the presence of discrepancies between the actual self
and desired selves, which produce motivations to regulate
behavior. Higgins (1987) emphasized how individuals are “motivated to reach a condition where [their] self-concept matches
[their] personally relevant style-guides” (p. 321). As such, any
discrepancy between actual self and represented self might give
rise to discomfort, and to a sense of inauthenticity. According to
Higgins, a discrepancy between actual and own-ideal selves might
manifest itself into an “absence of positive outcomes” (p. 322), i.e.,
the perception that the performed ideal characteristics might not
be realistically met. A discrepancy between actual and other-ideal
selves can instead give rise to feelings of shame, anxiety, or
embarrassment, stemming from the distance between individuals’
actual identity and what they feel others would like them to be
(Higgins, 1987; Moretti, Rein, & Wiebe, 1998). Overall, individuals
perceive self-discrepancies as shortcomings, which can act as motives for behavior. The psychological accessibility, or mental
salience, of these discrepancies depends on situational relevance
and the frequency and recency of previous activation (Higgins,
1987). Thus, changes in personal performance or social situations
can yield different motivational states, shaping self-presentation
and conspicuous consumption (Litt, 2012; Peloza, White, &
Shang, 2013). And, these self-conceptsdthe actual self, own-ideal
self, and other-ideal selfdcan produce positive attitudes towards
targets that are congruent with these conceptualizations (e.g., organizations; Nolan & Harold, 2010).
Recent evidence shows these self-discrepancy motives at work
in SNS self-presentation. If engagement with a brand was visible to
others (i.e., on Facebook) and the brand's image was congruent
with the other-ideal self, university students were more likely to
engage than if the brand was ideal-incongruent or online engagement was not visible to others (Jeong & Lee, 2013). Facebook users
report making decisions about liking brands and celebrities based
on similar discrepancies of actual and other-ideal selves
(Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012). Interview data illustrated that it was
more common to share content that was consistent with an ideal
self rather than the actual self, and that Facebook users distinguished between their own ideal (“who I could be”) and a social
ideal (“how I want to be perceived”) when making decisions about
online engagement with brands (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012, p.
400). T. Kim and Kim (2016) found that both actual-self congruence
and own-ideal self congruence positively predicted brand interaction on Facebook, but found minimal support for influence from
other-ideal self motives. So, given their demonstrated relevance for
online self-presentation, we focus on these three motivations:
presenting an actual self, presenting an own-ideal self, or presenting an other-ideal self.
Furthermore, the fact that users must summarize their identity
into “reduced cues” infuses each of their messages with a selfdisclosing power (Ellison et al., 2012). In this sense, any type of
content shared online, from personal information to news, from
political affiliations to user-generated media, can be employed to
steer someone's impression towards a specific self-presentation
(Doster, 2013; Marder, Slade, Houghton, & Archer-Brown, 2016c).
Especially after the emergence of platforms like Tumblr, the display,
discussion, and sharing of mass media content (Good, 2013; Hogan,
2010) such as music and movies has increasingly become one of the
tools users employ to present their different selves online.
150
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
2. Selective media sharing as impression management
As users increasingly switched to digital media content as a
main source of information, knowledge, and entertainment, they
also found new ways to publicly or privately interact with the
content they consume (Leguina, Arancibia-Carvajal, & Widdop,
2017). The public display of such interaction with content takes
place for example by building lists of, linking to and endorsing,
embedding, and discussing, much of the varied web content they
consume, or commenting upon the music they listen to, the books
they read, the film and television they watch, the video games they
play, and so on. Content analysis of early SNSs such as MySpace and
their constructed lists of favorites revealed that users appear to be
selective and strategic in how they self-present their mass media
consumption (H. Liu, 2007), suggesting that the media consumed
might indeed play a role in individual identities, as well as how they
wish others to perceive them.
A framework that could be particularly useful to explain this is
the perspective of an extended self, wherein individuals encompass
possessions as part of their self-concept as much as other characteristics, such as group belonging or personality traits (Belk, 1988).
Past research has confirmed that ownership of a physical object has
been shown to generate activity in the brain region connected with
self-referential processing (Kim & Johnson, 2012) and reported
how, in Chinese culture, giving an object as a present might be as
identity-relevant as owning it (Wong, Hogg, & Vanharanta, 2012).
Transitioning from physical to digital goods raised a fundamental
question: can extended self still take place when possessions, like
digital media content, are ephemeral and by hence difficult to own?
Paradoxically, it would appear that specifically the dematerialization of digital goods might have brought to a new level of
attachment for users (Lehdonvirta, 2012). Sheth and Solomon
(2014) argued that the blurring of different boundaries, for
example between content production and consumption, between
being online and offline, and between body and technology, reinforces the attachment users perceive. In his 2013 revision of the
extended self-concept, Belk further highlights how the online
sharing of digital (beloved) content “and the sense of joint
possession enhance the sense of imagined community and aggregate extended self in a digital age” (Belk, 2013, p. 486).
Hence, the management of impressions and relationships is
proposed as a primary motivational basis for holding attitudes
about media content, attitudes which are predictive of selecting
and retransmitting messages to others (Cappella, Kim, & Albarracín,
2015). The choice of a specific consumer or cultural good, including
media, can be “performed” in order to manage impressions. For
example, book reading, beyond its intrinsic gratifications, also allows the individual to express themselves, compensate for other
self-presentation shortcomings, and connect to others with similar
interests (Kaiser & Quandt, 2016). Moreover, distinct motives are
likely linked to sharing different types of content which serves the
self or social goal (P. Fu, Wu, & Cho, 2017).
Consumer goods that convey prestige (Vigneron & Johnson,
1999) allow the individual to accumulate and display social status
(cf. Bourdieu, 1979/1984). Online, news media sharing in the online
environment has been linked to status-seeking gratifications (C. Lee
& Ma, 2012). And, experimental results show that heightened
awareness of social class (in the British context) encouraged a
preference for highbrow music genres (Reeves, Gilbert, & Holman,
2015). Prestigious or high-brow content, which we define as media
that have perceived associations with special knowledge, refinement, or expertise that is derived from one's social status, might
therefore be shared online to signal an own-ideal self. This is in
contrast to “guilty pleasures” that may be enjoyable in their own
right but lack social benefits (Milkman, Rogers, & Bazerman, 2009).
On the other hand, sharing of guilty pleasures might be more
likely when the individual wishes to express their actual self.
Highly accessible self-discrepancies should lead to the avoidance of
symbolic consumption with negative associations (Banister &
Hogg, 2004), yet in contrast a desire to be authentic and present
the actual self may facilitate guilty pleasure sharing. Guilty pleasure
films, for example, are typically viewed alone, or with close friends,
and may be used to convey irony, deviance, or eclectic taste
(Sarkhosh & Menninghaus, 2016; van den Tol & Giner-Sorolla,
2017).
Media sharing can also signal social identity, both membership
in particular social groups as well as one's distinctiveness and
status as an individual (Berger & Heath, 2007; Chan et al., 2012). In
their longitudinal study of media tastes and online social networks,
Lewis, Gonzalez, and Kaufman (2012) found greater evidence for
preferences and sharing behavior leading to social relationships
over time, rather than preferences following from social relationships. This suggests that self-presentation in media sharing is often
paramount, and that social status and belonging ensue. Sharing
entertainment media with others can enhance belonging and
compensate for relational shortcomings (Gomillion, Gabriel,
Kawakami, & Young, 2017). Activation of brain regions associated
with both self-enhancement and social belonging is linked to
sharing of viral news stories (Scholz et al., 2017). Music and film are
especially relevant media for online sharing, because they are
reliable markers of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1979/1984) and as
such are frequently used to manage impressions (H. Liu, 2007) or to
form impressions of others (Hall, 2007). Social relationships appear
to be salient when users of music streaming services make choices
about sharing playlists and recommendations with peers (Hagen &
Lüders, 2017).
In order to achieve or signal belonging to a group, users might
attempt to represent their other-ideal self, which could be connected to the sharing of popular content and avoidance of unique
content. For example, bandwagon effects are evident when media
are paired with recommendations or other indicators of popularity
(W. Fu, 2012; Oeldorf-Hirsch & Sundar, 2015; Yang, 2016). Recent
findings show this effect is heightened in the presence of a motivation to impress others (Winter, Metzger, & Flanagin, 2016). Yet,
when given media choices that vary widely on popularity, individuals gravitate toward choices that are either highly popular or
highly unique (Knobloch-Westerwick, Sharma, Hansen, & Alter,
2005). According to Brewer’s (1991) optimal distinctiveness theory, individuals vacillate between competing motivations to
conform to their relevant social group(s) and to be a distinctive
individual within the group. When adherence to group norms
regarding media preferences is important, i.e., the individual has an
other-ideal motive, they should be likely to display their consumption of media they perceive to be popular with others, and to
avoid choices that are idiosyncratic or not well-known. To that end,
we conceptualize popularity and uniqueness as polar ends of a
single dimension in which the individual perceives how widely
others hold a positive attitude toward the film, song, or other media
title.
Given these dimensions of mass media contentdpopular or
non-unique choices, prestigious fare, and guilty pleasuresdthat are
relevant to motivations to present other-ideal, own-ideal, or actual
selves, we propose that they are employed for strategic, selective
sharing when individuals wish to make motivated selfpresentations to online audiences. Qualitative data indicate that
these self-motives are directly linked to sharing certain types of
brands and celebrities on Facebook (Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012),
and experimental evidence shows that engagement with a social
media environment such as Facebook activates the awareness of
desired
self-presentations
and
subsequent
impression
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
management behaviors (Marder, Houghton, Joinson, Shankar, &
Bull, 2016a; Marder, Joinson, Shankar, & Houghton, 2016b). Likewise, the salience of particular self-presentational motivations
should produce particular patterns of selective sharing behavior
that facilitate a self-presentation that addresses the motivating
discrepancy.
H1. A motivation to present the other-ideal self will produce
sharing of less unique (i.e., more popular) music and film than will
other motivations.
H2. A motivation to present the own-ideal self will produce
sharing of more prestigious music and film than will other
motivations.
H3. A motivation to present the actual self will produce sharing of
more guilty pleasure music and film than other motivations.
3. Individual differences as moderators
Several personality traits and dispositional variables are especially relevant to the processes described above, and likely to
strengthen the predicted effects. First of all, self-esteem, the personal evaluation of the self-concept, is closely linked to impression
management behaviors and the need to belong (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). The individual's self-esteem is also reliant on group
membership and affinity with others, as well as individuality and
status (Brewer, 1991). Accordingly, self-esteem may moderate the
relationship between self-discrepancies (whether own-ideal,
involving purely self-evaluation, of other-ideal, involving other's
evaluations as input into one's self-esteem) and symbolic consumption (Banister & Hogg, 2004). Low levels of self-esteem may
heighten the need to provide self-presentations that overcome
perceived self-discrepancies.
Next, the trait of self-monitoring refers to an awareness of, and
regulation of, how one appears to others (Snyder, 1974). High selfmonitors experience more negative emotion in response to discrepancies with others’ expectations, while low self-monitors
experience more negative emotion in response to discrepancies
with their own-ideal self (Gonnerman, Parker, Lavine, & Huff,
2000). Other-ideal motives should therefore produce stronger effects among those high on self-monitoring, as these individuals
value obtaining social rewards, whereas own-ideal motives should
produce stronger effects on selective sharing for low self-monitors,
as these individuals are focused on enhancing their persona (J.
Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011; Snyder, 1974). Low self-monitoring may
also relate to authentic self-expression, moderating the desire to
present guilty pleasures as a means of presenting the actual self.
Individual differences also exist in consumers’ need for
uniqueness (NFU; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter, 2001). Some people will
generally desire more distinction from others in their selfpresentation and display of cultural capital, while others may
consistently seek less uniqueness and more conformity. In contrast,
the other-ideal self motive involves a situational and even
momentary desire to fit more strongly into a group, at the expense
of individual uniqueness (Brewer, 1991). Experiencing this need to
belong will likely produce conformity-seeking behavior, even for
those high on uniqueness; but other-ideal motivation is likely to
produce an especially heightened response by those with a low
need for uniqueness. The need for uniqueness trait could have
consequences not only for the sharing of popular media, but also
prestigious or guilty pleasure media, as those characteristics may
also be indicative of individual distinctiveness (Berger & Heath,
2007; Chan et al., 2012). High NFU individuals may be especially
responsive to ideal-self and actual-self motives.
151
Next, the presence of involvement, i.e., thoughtful and reflective
engagement with an object or action, could enhance the link the
between motivation and selective sharing. Involvement is a motivational factor that relates to the desires to protect values, make
accurate decisions, and make positive impressions (Cho & Boster,
2005), all of which relate to the self-presentational motives outlined above. If individuals are especially involved with their
entertainment choices, they may be more responsive to these selfpresentation motives when sharing can convey desired values,
outcomes, and impressions.
Lastly, individual differences exist in the extent of social media
use. A person may be more or less familiar with, or in the habit of,
engaging in sharing practices on social media such as Facebook. To
that end, individual's media sharing propensity (Johnson & Van Der
Heide, 2015), the frequency with which they share mass media
content on social media, should boost their ability to strategically
share when experiencing a particular self-presentation motive.
Likewise, the intensity with which they use the platform (Ellison,
Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007) should heighten the effect of motivation, as intensive users may be more involved with the site and
more sensitive to its self-presentational affordances.
RQ. Are effects of self-presentation motivations on selective
sharing moderated by individual differences in self-esteem, selfmonitoring, need for uniqueness, involvement, sharing propensity,
or Facebook intensity?
4. Method
4.1. Participants and procedure
An online experiment was conducted with a convenience
sample of 168 adults with active Facebook accounts (Mage ¼ 23.11,
SD ¼ 4.88), who were recruited from courses at a Dutch university
and through snowball sampling of university students’ personal
social networks.1 The experiment, conducted in AprileMay 2015,
included three between-subjects conditions, which reflected three
distinct psychological motivations: presenting the actual self, ownideal self, or other-ideal self. Specifically, participants were
€mer, in press)
instructed to imagine a situation (cf. Neubaum & Kra
in which they (a) wished to express themselves authentically
(n ¼ 60), (b) wished to make a highly positive impression on others
(n ¼ 59), or (c) wished to express their identification with a valued
social group of their own choosing (n ¼ 49). An active Facebook
account was prerequisite for participation because the experimental script assumed that respondents used that platform. The
prompts for each condition are presented in Table 1.
The experiment also featured a two-level within-subjects factor: music sharing and film sharing. Each participant was asked to
list three songs (and corresponding performing artists) and three
films they would be likely to post to, or discuss on, their Facebook
page under the given scenario. The music and film list-generating
tasks were presented separately, with a randomized order. The
most commonly-listed artists and films are presented in Table 2.
Some suggestive initial differences are evident, despite considerable overlap in titles. The own-ideal condition tended to produce
more points of consensus in what titles to share (a higher number
of repeated titles across participants) and was less likely to include
mentions of films in fantasy or comic book genres or the Fast and
Furious film series. The actual-self condition, in contrast, was
1
Due to an omission in the survey, participant sex was not recorded. No differences were expected by sex, and both men and women were anticipated to
participate at similar rates given the recruitment strategy.
152
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
Table 1
Experimental manipulation of motivational situation.
Condition
Text
Actual Self
Imagine you are in a situation where you want to express you truly are. It doesn't matter what others think; it only matters that you are authentic to
yourself. Most of all, you just want to honestly express your thoughts, feelings, and personality. What [kind of music] [movies] would you share on your
Facebook page in this situation? By sharing, we mean posting yourself or sharing a post about the [song or artist] [movie]. Keep in mind that you want to be
your true self and express yourself honestly without judgment. It is all about expressing yourself and your taste to the world. Please name three [songs and
their artists] [movies] that you would share on your Facebook page.
Imagine you are in a situation where you want to look as good as possible. It matters that you make a good impression on the people around you. The
opinion of others matter to you, because you want to show the best of yourself to the world. What [kind of music] [movies] would you share on your
Facebook page in this situation? By sharing, we mean posting yourself or sharing a post about the [song or artist] [movie]. Keep in mind you want to share
something to look good because people are evaluating you. It is all about impressing others and showing that you have good taste. Please name three [songs
and their artists] [movies] that you would share on your Facebook page.
Imagine you are in a situation where you want to make it clear that you belong to a certain group. Think of a particular social group that you are part of (e.g.,
friends, co-workers, teammates). You want to show that you belong to this group. What [kind of music] [movies] would you share on your Facebook page in
this situation? By sharing, we mean posting yourself or sharing a post about the [song or artist] [movie]. Keep in mind you want them to let the group know
you are one of them, and let people outside the group know that you are a group member. It is all about showing off the group's taste and the sense of
belonging. Please name three [songs and their artists] [movies] that you would share on your Facebook page.
Own-Ideal
Self
Other-Ideal
Self
Note. Participants were presented with the text both before listing music and before listing films. The order of these media was randomized. The texts were presented on a
series of survey pages to increase readability and attention.
Table 2
Most frequently mentioned musicians and film series, by sharing condition.
Condition
Actual Self
Own-Ideal Self
Other-Ideal Self
Musicians
(5)
Beyonce
Coldplay (5)
Kygo (4)
Adele (3)
Major Lazer (3)
Muse (3)
Omi (3)
Riana (3)
Ed Sheeran (6)
Coldplay (4)
Hozier (4)
Omi (4)
Arctic Monkeys (3)
(3)
Beyonce
Dotan (3)
John Legend (3)
Rihanna (3)
Sam Smith (3)
Wiz Khalifa (3)
Omi (5)
Kygo (4)
Rihanna (4)
(3)
Beyonce
Bruno Mars (3)
Dotan (3)
Ed Sheeran (3)
Kenny B (3)
Major Lazer (3)
Paolo Nutini (3)
The Script (3)
Film Series
The Lord of the Rings (11)
Love Actually (6)
Harry Potter (5)
Forrest Gump (4)
Grand Budapest Hotel (4)
Into the Wild (4)
The Intouchables (4)
The Notebook (4)
The Wolf of Wall Street (4)
21 Jump Street (3)
Despicable Me (3)
The Fast and the Furious (3)
Frozen (3)
The Intouchables (7)
The Notebook (7)
Gone Girl (6)
Inception (5)
The Shawshank Redemption (5)
The Green Mile (4)
The Wolf of Wall Street (4)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3)
The Fault in Our Stars (3)
Forrest Gump (3)
Bella (3)
La Vita e
Pitch Perfect (3)
Safe Haven (3)
Still Alice (3)
The Theory of Everything (3)
Wall Street (3)
Whiplash (3)
The Notebook (6)
The Fast and the Furious (5)
Gone Girl (5)
American Sniper (4)
The Lord of the Rings (4)
The Avengers (3)
Dear John (3)
The Intouchables (3)
The Wolf of Wall Street (3)
Note. Number of mentions in parentheses. Each participant was assigned to one condition, and nominated three songs (and performing artist) as well as three films that they
would share in the described scenario. Actual self n ¼ 60; own-ideal self n ¼ 59; other-ideal self n ¼ 49.
notable for repeated mentions of The Lord of the Rings and the Harry
Potter fantasy film series.2
2
Ten individuals provided perceptions of shared media but did not type the
names of all six requested titles. Results are robust against removing these cases
from analysis, and most effects were slightly stronger if the cases were omitted.
However, given that individuals may have been unwilling to disclose titles but able
to think of examples and report perceptions, these cases were retained as conservative precaution.
4.2. Measures
Perceptions of shared titles. After listing which media they
would share given their assigned motivational situation, participants then reported their perceptions of those selections. A total of
nine 11-point items (scaled from 0 ¼ Not at all to 10 ¼ Extremely)
measured three specific perceptions for each medium: uniqueness,
prestige, and guilty pleasure. Participants were asked “overall, how
would you rate these three songs/movies on each of the following
characteristics?”
Uniqueness was measured with three items, “How unique,”
“How popular” (reversed), and “How one-of-a-kind” “are the
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
songs/movies you chose,” a ¼ .62, M ¼ 4.86, SD ¼ 1.90 for music,
and a ¼ .41, M ¼ 4.46, SD ¼ 1.71 for film. Excluding the reversed
item from the uniqueness measure improved reliability to r ¼ .65
for music and r ¼ .60 for film. However, doing so did not substantively alter the interpretation of the effects on uniqueness in hypothesis testing,3 so all items were retained to instead maximize
content validity.
For prestige, songs and movies were rated on how “superb” and
“highbrow” they were, and how much they “show social status,”
a ¼ .53, M ¼ 5.82, SD ¼ 1.72 for music,4 and a ¼ .70, M ¼ 5.76,
SD ¼ 1.95 for film.
The guilty pleasure measure asked “How much of a guilty
pleasure are,” “How embarrassing are,” and “How ashamed are you
of” the titles, a ¼ .73, M ¼ 2.28, SD ¼ 1.92 for music, and a ¼ .71,
M ¼ 2.31, SD ¼ 1.90 for film.
Moderators. With regard to moderating traits, self-esteem was
measured with the 10-item trait scale (M. Rosenberg, 1965),
ranging from 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly agree, a ¼ .86,
M ¼ 3.76, SD ¼ 0.62. A 9-item short version5 of Snyder's selfmonitoring scale (1974) was used, ranging from 1 ¼ Strongly
disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly agree, a ¼ .77, M ¼ 2.67, SD ¼ 0.64. Need for
uniqueness was measured with a 15-item scale (Tian et al., 2001)
customized to the music/film context (e.g., “I collect unusual
movies or music as a way of telling people I'm different”), ranging
1 ¼ Strongly disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly agree, a ¼ .91, M ¼ 2.22,
SD ¼ 0.73.
Involvement was measured with 12 items (Cho & Boster, 2005)
customized to context (“My music or movie taste reflects who I
am”), ranging 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to 7 ¼ Strongly agree, a ¼ .78,
M ¼ 3.81, SD ¼ 0.88. Sharing propensity (Johnson & Van Der Heide,
2015) was measured with two items, “How often do you share
music or music videos on social media” “How often do you share
movies, movie clips, or trailers on social media,” 1 ¼ Never,
2 ¼ Every few weeks, 3 ¼ 1e2 Days a week, 4 ¼ 3e5 Days a week,
5 ¼ About once a day, 6 ¼ Several times a day, r ¼ .58, M ¼ 1.32,
SD ¼ 0.51. Finally, Facebook intensity (Ellison et al., 2007) was
measured with six items (e.g., “Facebook is part of my everyday
activity”), 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly agree, a ¼ .83,
M ¼ 3.30, SD ¼ 0.79.
The correlations among individual differences, and with media
perceptions, appear in Table 3. Notably, the same perceptual variables are moderately correlated across different media, rs > .40
(e.g., the association between musical uniqueness and film
uniqueness), as would be expected given that each individual
shared their music and films with the same motivation. And, as
expected, the correlations between different perceptions were
small, rs < .40 (e.g., the association between musical uniqueness
and musical prestige). This provides evidence of convergent and
discriminant validity of the measures of media perceptions.
3
When removing the reversed item from uniqueness, the effect of motivation in
the ANOVA was similar in size, F(2, 165) ¼ 3.54, p ¼ .031, h2p ¼ .041, with Motherideal ¼ 4.82 versus Mactual ¼ 5.75 versus Mown-ideal ¼ 5.77, and the main effect of
medium was smaller in size and now marginally significant, F(1, 165) ¼ 2.80,
p ¼ .096, h2p ¼ .017, with Mmusic ¼ 5.65 vs. Mfilm ¼ 5.32). Finally, the ANOVA's interaction between factors was no longer significant, F(2, 165) ¼ 2.04, p ¼ .13, h2p ¼ .024.
4
Removing items from the music prestige measure did not improve reliability. As
a check, the effect of motivation on each of the three items was tested with a
MANOVA. The multivariate effect of condition was significant, LLH ¼ 0.119, F(6,
324) ¼ 3.22, p ¼ .004, h2p ¼ .056. The own-ideal condition produced the highest
mean on each item, as expected, but the univariate effect was only significant for
“highbrow,” F(2, 165) ¼ 3.28, p ¼ .040, h2p ¼ .038, and “show social status,” F(2,
165) ¼ 6.73, p ¼ .002, h2p ¼ .075, with no significant effect on “superb,” F(2,
165) ¼ 1.51, p ¼ .224, h2p ¼ .018.
5
Items 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 25 from Snyder's, 1974, original scale were
used.
153
Moreover, any associations between trait variables and media
perceptions were small or non-existent. Involvement with media
was linked to more unique titles, and need for uniqueness was
positively associated with all three media perceptions: uniqueness,
prestige, and guilt.
The study materials (questionnaire, dataset, and syntax) are
available at https://osf.io/btr57/.
5. Results
To test predictions, mixed model ANOVAs (3 2, condition x
medium) were conducted for each dependent variable (the perceptions of uniqueness, prestige, and guilt). The results are presented in Fig. 1.
Motivation produced an effect on the uniqueness of media
chosen for sharing, F (2, 165) ¼ 4.68, p ¼ .011, h2p ¼ .054. Pairwise
comparisons with Sidak correction revealed that an other-ideal
motivation consistently produced less unique (i.e., more popular)
choices for media sharing, supporting H1. A main effect of medium,
F (1, 165) ¼ 6.61, p ¼ .011, h2p ¼ .039, also revealed that musical
choices were relatively more unique than film choices (Mmusic ¼ 4.85 vs. Mfilm ¼ 4.46). Furthermore, an interaction between
condition and medium, F (2, 165) ¼ 4.24, p ¼ .016, h2p ¼ .049, was
attributable to the most unique music being shared in the actualself condition but the most unique films being shared in the
own-ideal condition.
For prestige, motivational condition produced the expected effect, F (2, 165) ¼ 3.87, p ¼ .023, h2p ¼ .045. As expected, Sidak pairwise comparisons illustrated that media shared in the own-ideal
condition was significantly more prestigious (M ¼ 6.23) than media
shared in the actual-self (M ¼ 5.40) or other-ideal (M ¼ 5.75) conditions. This supports H2. No within-subjects effect of medium was
found for prestige (p ¼ .71, h2p ¼ .001), nor was an interaction between condition and medium evident (p ¼ .23, h2p ¼ .018).
Finally, for guilty pleasure perceptions, there were no significant
effects of condition (p ¼ .83, h2p ¼ .002), medium (p ¼ .69,
h2p ¼ .001), or their interaction (p ¼ .10, h2p ¼ .027). So, H3 was not
supported. Generally, guilty pleasure perceptions were quite low
across all media and conditions (Fig. 1).
Further analyses used regression models to explore any
moderating roles of individual differencesdself-esteem, selfmonitoring, need for uniqueness, involvement, sharing propensity, and Facebook intensitydon hypothesized effects. The
three motivational effects of (a) the other-ideal motive predicting
less unique media, (b) the own-ideal motive predicting more
prestigious media, and (c) the actual-self motive predicting more
guilty pleasure media were tested for how they might be moderated by individual differences. Six multiple regression models (two
for each motive: one for music and one for film) with hierarchical
entry were constructed, with dummy codes computed for the
assigned conditions and with the relevant perception of shared
music or film titles as the dependent variable. Dummy codes and
the six individual differences were entered in the first block of each
model. Then, the second model block was used to test the interaction terms of interest. Several interactions emerged as significant; as a robustness check and to estimate effect sizes, each
interaction was subsequently isolated in its own regression block.
The effect of the other-ideal motive (compared to other motives)
on sharing unique music was moderated by Facebook intensity,
b* ¼ .670, p ¼ .03, DR2 ¼ .023. The interaction was probed with the
Neyman-Johnson technique, using the PROCESS macro (Hayes,
2013). Individuals scoring below 4.02 on Facebook intensity
(85.53% of the sample) showed a significant effect of other-ideal
motive on sharing less unique (i.e., more popular) songs. Those
who were very intensive Facebook users did not show this
154
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
Table 3
Zero-order correlations between continuous variables.
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Age
2. RSE
3. SM
4. NFU
5. Involvement
6. Share Propensity
7. FBI
8. Unique Music
9. Unique Films
10. Prestige Music
11. Prestige Films
12. Guilt Music
13. Guilt Films
.03
.09
.11
.07
.07
.14#
.00
.12
.06
.04
.08
.09
.36***
.17*
.07
.07
.13
.04
.10
.04
.04
.14#
.10
.35***
.19*
.13
.32***
.13
.05
.05
.02
.07
.07
.40***
.28***
.16*
.32***
.29***
.29***
.32***
.18*
.25**
.17*
.13#
.22**
.31***
.12
.17*
.02
.03
.03
.20*
.25**
.12
.13
.07
.04
.08
.08
.16*
.13#
.09
.09
.42***
.29***
.25**
.01
.05
.26***
.38***
.01
.07
.66***
.21**
.12
.25***
.10
.53***
Note. RSE ¼ Rosenberg self-esteem; SM ¼ self-monitoring; NFU ¼ need for uniqueness; FBI ¼ Facebook intensity. #p < .10, *p < .05,
Fig. 1. Perceptions of shared media, by condition. Means with standard error bars.
Values of a dependent variable with different letter labels between conditions differ at
p < .05 in pairwise comparisons with Sidak correction.
tendency to share popular titles when given an other-ideal motive.
The effect of the own-ideal motive on sharing prestigious media
was moderated by need for uniqueness. This effect was significant
for film, b* ¼ .582, p ¼ .030, DR2 ¼ .027, and marginal for music,
b* ¼ .470, p ¼ .078, DR2 ¼ .017. Probing showed that people with
an own-ideal motive were more likely to share prestigious films if
they were low on need for uniqueness (<2.28, 53.46% of the sample) and were also more likely to share prestigious music titles if
low on need for uniqueness (<2.78, 72.33% of the sample).
Finally, the effect of the actual-self motive on sharing musical
guilty pleasures was moderated by need for uniqueness, b* ¼ .691,
p ¼ .007, DR2 ¼ .044. Probing the interaction illustrated that those
with a high need for uniqueness (>2.56, 33.96% of the sample) were
more likely to share guilty pleasures when assigned to an actualself motive.
6. Discussion
The findings are supportive of effects of particular selfpresentation motives on the online sharing of particular types of
mass media content. Individuals randomly assigned to reflect on
their other-ideal selfdtheir social identity and how they expect
others to want them to bedlisted song and film titles that they later
rated as less unique than did participants assigned to actual-self or
own-ideal motives. An overall difference also existed between
**
p < .01,
***
p < .001.
music and film, as songs were rated as more unique than movies
(perhaps owing to more fragmented genres) and especially unique
when produced by an actual-self motive (compared to more unique
film choices under an own-ideal motive). With regard to seeking
high individual status, an own-ideal self motive (focused on presenting the self positively) was linked to more prestigious music
and film selections than were actual-self or other-ideal self motives.
Finally, no main effect was observed for guilty pleasures. In general,
songs and films selected for sharing were rated quite low on the
guilty pleasure measure. Even given an actual-self motive, guilty
pleasures are perhaps unlikely to be shared at all; rather, they
remain private preferences (cf. Lewis, Kaufman, & Christakis, 2008).
Alternatively, participants may have a relatively low rate of
consuming media perceived as guilty pleasures.
In addition, the findings highlight that the effects of the motivations on sharing popular, prestigious, and guilty-pleasure media
were moderated by personality traits. First of all, Facebook intensity
moderated the effect of other-ideal self motive, such individuals
who were highly intensive users did not share more popular music
to present the other-ideal self. Less intensive users did share
increasingly popular (i.e., less unique) music titles when they were
motivated to adhere to group standards in their self-presentation.
This interaction might be attributable to intensive Facebook usage
providing other-ideal self needs through routes other than media
sharing, as these individuals may already access significant social
capital via intensive bonding and bridging activities on Facebook
(Ellison et al., 2007). Future research should assess the prevalence
of mass media sharing as a self-presentation behavior on social
media, how it compares in terms of ease and effectiveness to other
behaviors, and how its use differs for intensive versus nonintensive users of these platforms. The intensive Facebook users
in the present study may also feel more confident and certain in
their online self-presentation, whereas those who are less involved
with using the platform may have more overall need to pursue selfpresentation strategies such as media sharing to enhance their
persona. But, it is also notable that the interaction between otherideal self and Facebook intensity was non-significant for film. So,
intensive Facebook users were just as likely as more casual users to
share popular rather than unique films when they experienced an
other-ideal self motive.
Next, individuals with lower levels of need for uniqueness were
significantly more likely to share prestigious film titles if they were
motivated to present an own-ideal self. Prestigious music sharing
showed a marginal interaction between need for uniqueness and
own-ideal self motive, in the same direction. One possible interpretation of this result is that high need for uniqueness individuals
may rely on their pursuit of uniqueness to signal the own-ideal self,
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
and as such are not dependent on consensus opinions about
highbrow or prestige media. In contrast, the individuals with low to
moderate need for uniqueness scores, however, appear to seek
prestigious titles to display their own-ideal self. They may pursue
prestige as a route to self-enhancement, and may be more open to
seeking social status through these prestige-seeking means than do
individuals who prioritize uniqueness over status or belonging.
Additionally, high levels of need for uniqueness were associated
with sharing more guilty-pleasure music when given an actual-self
motivation. Guilty pleasures may be idiosyncratic, and therefore
could convey not only authenticity but also a form of uniqueness
(van den Tol & Giner-Sorolla, 2017). This is also consistent with the
finding that actual-self motivation was linked to sharing more
unique music. The actual-self motive is one in which the individual
is driven to accept their current self and present an authentic
persona. As such, this motivation may involve rejecting any social
influence to consume popular media and avoid embarrassing selfpresentation; a trait need for uniqueness appears to facilitate this
disregard for social influence. Indeed, only among high NFU individuals was an effect seen for sharing guilty-pleasure media.
Notably, there was no relationship between trait need for uniqueness and the effect of other-ideal self on sharing non-unique media.
Individual differences in uniqueness-seeking did not moderate the
motivational factor that discouraged sharing unique media. This
could be interpreted as a generally responsiveness to the otherideal motivation to conform to popular taste, regardless of a more
stable trait preference for uniqueness.
Also surprisingly, self-esteem, self-monitoring, involvement,
and sharing propensity were not found to reliably moderate effects
of motives. Although these some of these traits (involvement,
sharing propensity) directly relate to what type of content was
shared (Table 3), these dispositional factors did not shape how
situational factors (self-presentation motives) impacted sharing.
The results illustrate that taste in mass media is indeed a
component in online self-presentation. Given different impression
motivations, individuals are selective in what media they do and do
not share with their online networks. However, the main effects
observed here were quite modest; media sharing is just one
component in selective self-presentation, and the need for
authenticity necessarily restricts how selective and strategic the
choice of shared media can be. This study also adds to prior contributions (Jeong & Lee, 2013; T.; Kim & Kim, 2016; Marder et al.,
2012; Whitty, 2008) illustrating the utility of self-discrepancy
theory for understanding (online) self-presentation. Future
research into media sharing should consider the role of emotions in
this motivational process (Higgins, 1987; Marder et al., 2012).
Our findings also support the idea that cultural goods and online
experiences can intersect (Walther, 2017; Walther et al., 2010) to
provide an important part of the extended digital self (Belk, 2013;
Lehdonvirta, 2012; Sheth & Solomon, 2014). We did observe
some differences between music and film: Unique music was
associated with the actual-self and unique films associated with the
own-ideal self. Future research should consider how different
media inform the repertoire of media sharing. For example, how do
users balance their curation of entertainment versus news and
information? Other critical questions about selective sharing
include the extent to which media sharing shapes subsequent behaviors and perceptions such as such media consumption (Cappella
et al., 2015; H.; Kim, 2015), social influence (Oeldorf-Hirsch &
Sundar, 2015), and impression formation (Hall, 2007).
When individuals engage in motivated selective sharing, these
patterns of bias will directly impact which content will circulate in
online social networks and be selected by peers. The results show
that self-presentational motivations produce patterns of sharing
that encourage conformity in media consumption (especially
155
among less intensive Facebook users) as well as the pursuit of social
status via prestige (especially among those low on need for
uniqueness). Therefore, accounting for motivated selective sharing
is key to understanding opinion leadership and social influence
€mer,
(Batinic & Appel, 2013; Cappella et al., 2015; Neubaum & Kra
2017; Oeldorf-Hirsch & Sundar, 2015). Individuals who aspire to
present their own-ideal self, or to present a self that meets an
other-ideal, influence the success of word-of-mouth and networklevel engagement with mass media content. This can be used to
target desired audiences in order to foster word-of-mouth campaigns. Content that satisfies these self-presentation needs is more
likely to be shared. These processes also have important implications beyond entertainment, in advertising and marketing (J. Lee,
Kim, & Ham, 2016), and the spread of inaccurate or polarizing
messages in contexts such as politics (Y. Liu, Rui, & Cui, 2017;
Marder et al., 2016c; Pang et al., 2016) and health and science
(Southwell, 2013).
With regard to effects on the individual, media sharing provides
social gratifications which can boost personal feelings of relatedness and integration, and even the expansion of personal networks
and perspectives (J. Lee & Choi, 2017; Tsay-Vogel & Sanders, 2017).
In other words, the display of cultural capital could facilitate the
acquisition of social capital for users (Bourdieu, 1979/1984),
enhancing their online experience and the gratifications they
obtain. Future work should investigate the potential that media
sharing has for social capital and the formation and management of
relationships (Lewis et al., 2012). And, to what extent does media
sharing help individuals strive toward ideal selves and achieve
positive self-presentation over time? Finally, selective sharing of
media content is also likely to impact the individual's own later
media preferences and self-concept (Johnson & Van Der Heide,
2015; Valkenburg, 2017). How and where mass media are shared
within social media (cf. Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012) may moderate
those effects of sharing: Cultivating preferences on a profile page
may yield a different self-concept or sense of publicness than
interacting with official or fan pages for media brands and
personalities.
6.1. Limitations and future directions
A number of limitations should be noted. First of all, the
experimental conditions used manipulations in which participants
imagined the desired motivational states. This approach does not
directly induce the motivations in the way that a real or anticipated
social situation might (Walther, 2007; Winter et al., 2016). However, it allowed us to dispense with deception in the procedure, and
also allowed us to target specific discrepancy states that might be
difficult to produce with real or anticipated interactions. To the
extent that the manipulation primed participants to think about
these discrepancies and motivations, or allowed them to retrieve
memory representations of these states that they have experienced
in the past, the inductions should be valid manipulations of the
independent variables (Neubaum & Kr€
amer, in press).
Explicitly asking participants to bring a self-presentation scenario to mind may be prone to demand characteristics, such that
participants could have reported perceptions of music and film that
they thought the researchers expected. However, this possibility
was mitigated by first asking participants to list specific titles they
would share, and then measuring perceptions after commitments
to sharing particular media had been made. This places some distance between the induction and the dependent variables of interest, and discourages reporting of perceptions of the induction
rather than perceptions of the shared media. Future research
should attempt to take advantage of naturally occurring motivational situations, or measure pre-existing discrepancies and
156
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
motivations. Self-discrepancies may be highly specific and
momentary, or more broad and persistent (Strauman, 1996); both
situations and dispositions are likely related to self-presentation
and selective sharing of media. Future research could account for
trait orientations toward ideal or ought selves (Higgins, Roney,
Crowe, & Hymes, 1994) or toward one's own versus others'
standards.
Likewise, sharing behaviors can vary from short-lived (sharing
or liking a single post) to more persistent (liking a film or artist
page, or repeatedly sharing related content). To cast a broad net, the
present study operationalized sharing as “sharing a post about the
[song or artist] [movie]” on Facebook. However, sharing on Facebook and other social media platforms can take a wide variety of
forms, which should be considered in future research. When do
people use different affordances available for sharing content? How
social media users talk about their mass media use may also matter.
Guilty pleasures, for example, may often be shared with qualifiers
or self-deprecation. Sharers may also make appeals to nostalgia or
other ways in which their consumption could be framed. Also, the
relatively publicness of sharing should be considered as a key factor, from the private exchanges of content in direct messages to
group-level or truly public venues for sharing taste.
The dependent variables were limited by a small number of
items for each measure. The measure of uniqueness/popularity in
particular suffered from low reliability, owing in part to some
tension between uniqueness and popularity. However, these two
perceptions have been conceptualized as two poles of the same
dimension in the past (Berger & Heath, 2007; Chan et al., 2012;
Knobloch-Westerwick et al., 2005); future research should
consider this relationship further and build improved measures of
media perceptions relative to self-presentation. Further dimensions
of media may also be relevant to self-presentation through media
sharing, and should be explored in future research.
Additionally, the dependent variables were limited in that they
were applied to a set of three songs or three films identified by each
participant. While reporting three titles per medium was used to
identify consistent and reliable trends in sharing, participants (and
social media users in general) may share heterogeneous sets of
media, as a strategy for balancing different motivations. More finegrained perceptions may provide a fuller picture of selective
sharing. Future research could also use content analysis of shared
titles to assess their relevant characteristics; however, perceptions
such as popularity, prestige, and guilty can be highly idiosyncratic
and bound in time, place, and social context. To that end, employing
individual-level perceptions of media content (cf. Potter &
Tomasello, 2003) by those individuals sharing it for selfpresentational purposes provides the most valid and nuanced
assessment of these media characteristics, and as such it is a
strength of the present study.
7. Conclusion
This study illustrates that social media users are selective in
their use of mass media as an important type of self-presentation
strategy. There are many means by which social media users can
attempt to selectively self-present, attempting to appear attractive,
successful, or savvy to others. Displaying cultural capital in order to
transform it into social dividends (Bourdieu, 1979/1984) is an
aspect of self-presentation which has been given new facility in
social media environments, as media brands and content creators
seek to expand their influence through audience engagement and
sharing behaviors on online platforms. The present findings show
that individuals are strategic in which media they share online, and
that this has the potential to help them present desired identities to
their social network. The motive to present an own-ideal self was
linked to sharing prestigious media, especially among those with a
low need for uniqueness. Among all but the most intense Facebook
users, the desire to present an other-ideal self that meets the
standards of others predicted sharing popular media that conforms
to group tastes. Guilty pleasures were shared by those with a need
for uniqueness and a desire to present the actual self. By clicking to
share mass media content, social media users can efficiently convey
their cleverness to their network connections and obtain social
gratifications from interpersonal interactions.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Sophie Passe and Rowie
Schopman for their assistance in study design and data collection.
References
Atkin, C. K. (1972). Anticipated communication and mass media informationseeking. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 188e199. https://doi.org/10.1086/267991.
Banister, E. N., & Hogg, M. K. (2004). Negative symbolic consumption and consumers' drive for self-esteem: The case of the fashion industry. European Journal
of Marketing, 38, 850e868. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410539285.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me?
Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social
Issues, 58, 33e48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00247.
Batinic, B., & Appel, M. (2013). Mass communication, social influence, and consumer
behavior: Two field experiments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43,
1352e1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12090.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497e529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Beam, M. A., Child, J. T., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (in press). Context
collapse and privacy management: Diversity in Facebook friends increase online new reading and sharing. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444817714790.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15, 139e168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154.
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40,
477e500. https://doi.org/10.1086/671052.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity
signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 121e134.
https://doi.org/10.1086/519142.
Birnholtz, J., Fitzpatrick, C., Handel, M., & Brubaker, J. R. (2014). Identity, identification, and identifiability: The language of self-presentation on a locationbased mobile dating app. In A. Quigley, & S. Diamond (Eds.), MobileHCI ’14:
Proceedings of the 16th international conference on human-computer interaction
with mobile devices & services (pp. 3e12). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://
doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628406.
Bobkowski, P. S. (2015). Sharing the news: Effects of informational utility and
opinion leadership on online news sharing. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 92, 320e345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015573194.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. [R. Nice,
trans., originally published in 1979]. London, UK: Routledge.
boyd, d. m. (2008). Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Berkley, Berkley, CA, USA: University of
California.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same
time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475e482. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0146167291175001.
Cappella, J. N., Kim, H. S., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological
motives and message characteristics. Media Psychology, 18, 396e424. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.941112.
Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical: Combining
social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer Research,
39, 561e573. https://doi.org/10.1086/664804.
Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2005). Development and validation of value-, outcome-, and
impression-relevant involvement scales. Communication Research, 32, 235e264.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204273764.
Doster, L. (2013). Millennial teens design and redesign themselves in online social
networks. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12, 267e279. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cb.1407.
Ellison, N. B., & boyd, d. m (2013). Sociality through social network site. In
W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 151e172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2012). Profile as promise: A framework for
conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society, 14, 45e62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410395.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Selfpresentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
Computer-mediated Communication, 11, 415e441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.10836101.2006.00020.x.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”:
Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-mediated Communication, 12, 1143e1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.
Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on
social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their
role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 19,
855e870. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12078.
Fu, W. W. (2012). Selecting online videos from graphics, text, and view counts: The
moderation of popularity bandwagons. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 18, 46e61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01593.x.
Fu, P.-W., Wu, C.-C., & Cho, Y.-J. (2017). What makes users share content on Facebook? Compatibility among psychological incentive, social capital focus, and
content type. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 23e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2016.10.010.
Gomillion, S., Gabriel, S., Kawakami, K., & Young, A. F. (2017). Let's stay home and
watch TV: The benefits of shared media use of close relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 855e874. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407516660388.
Gonnerman, M. E., Jr., Parker, C. P., Lavine, H., & Huff, J. (2000). The relationship
between self-discrepancies and affective states: The moderating roles of selfmonitoring and standpoints on the self. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 810e819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200269006.
Good, K. D. (2013). From scrapbook to Facebook: A history of personal media
assemblage and archives. New Media & Society, 15, 557e573. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1461444812458432.
Grieve, R., & Watkinson, J. (2016). The psychological benefits of being authentic on
Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 420e425.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0010.
Hagen, A. N., & Lüders, M. (2017). Social streaming? Navigating music as personal
and
social.
Convergence,
23,
643e659.
https://doi.org/10.1177/
1354856516673298.
Hall, A. (2007). The social implications of enjoyment of different types of music,
movies, and television programming. Western Journal of Communication, 71,
259e271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310701653794.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis. A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy theory: A theory relating self and affect.
Psychological Review, 94, 319e340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought
predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276e286. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276.
Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing
performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,
30, 377e386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893.
Hollenbeck, C. R., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Consumers' use of brands to reflect their
actual and idea selves on Facebook. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 395e405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.002.
Jeong, H. J., & Lee, M. (2013). The effect of online media platforms on joining causes:
The impression management perspective. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 57, 439e455. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845824.
Johnson, B. K., & Van Der Heide, B. (2015). Can sharing affect liking? Online taste
performances, feedback, and subsequent media preferences. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 181e190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.018.
Kaiser, J., & Quandt, T. (2016). Book lovers, bibliophiles, and fetishists: The social
benefits of heavy book usage. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 356e371.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000077.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the
flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL, USA: Free Press.
Kim, H. S. (2015). Attracting views and going viral: How message features and
news-sharing channels affect health news diffusion. Journal of Communication,
65, 512e534. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12160.
Kim, K., & Johnson, M. K. (2012). Extended self: Medial prefrontal activity during
transient association of self and objects. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 199e207. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq096.
Kim, T., & Kim, O. (2016). Self- and social motivation to interact with a brand on
Facebook: The moderating roles of self-expression and brand engagement in a
student sample. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 328e334.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0094.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Sharma, N., Hansen, D. L., & Alter, S. (2005). Impact of
popularity indications on readers' selective exposure to online news. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 296e313. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15506878jobem4903_3.
€mer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of
Kra
self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social
networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20, 106e116. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106.
Kudeshia, C., Sikdar, P., & Mittal, A. (2016). Spreading love through fan page liking: A
perspective on small scale entrepreneurs. Computers in Human Behavior, 54,
257e270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.003.
Lee, J., & Choi, Y. (2017). Shifting from an audience to an active public in social
viewing: Focusing on the discussion network. Computers in Human Behavior, 75,
157
301e310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.027.
Lee, J., Kim, S., & Ham, C.-D. (2016). A double edged-sword? Predicting consumers'
attitudes toward and sharing intention of native advertising on social media.
American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 1425e1441. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0002764216660137.
Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications
and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 331e339. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002.
Leguina, A., Arancibia-Carvajal, S., & Widdop, P. (2017). Musical preferences and
technologies: Contemporary material and symbolic distinctions criticized.
Journal of Consumer Culture, 17, 242e264. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1469540515586870.
Lehdonvirta, V. (2012). A history of the digitalization of consumer culture: From
Amazon through Pirate Bay to FarmVille. In M. Molesworth, & J. Denegri-Knott
(Eds.), Digital virtual consumption (pp. 11e28). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
Lewis, K., Gonzalez, M., & Kaufman, J. (2012). Social selection and peer influence in
an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 109, 68e72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109739109.
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of
college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of
Computer-mediated Communication, 14, 79e100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.10836101.2008.01432.x.
Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who's there? The imagined audience. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 330e345. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08838151.2012.705195.
Liu, H. (2007). Social network profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computermediated Communication, 13, 252e275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.10836101.2007.00395.x.
Liu, Y., Rui, J. R., & Cui, X. (2017). Are people willing to share their political opinions
on Facebook? Exploring roles of self-presentational concern in spiral of silence.
Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 294e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2017.07.029.
Marder, B., Houghton, D., Joinson, A., Shankar, A., & Bull, E. (2016a). Understanding
the psychological process of avoidance-based self-regulation on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 321e327. https://doi.org/
10.1089/cyber.2015.0564.
Marder, B., Joinson, A., & Shankar, A. (2012). Every post you make, every pic you
take, I’ll be watching you: Behind social spheres on Facebook. In
R. H. Sprague, Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 45th annual Hawaii international
conference on system sciences (pp. 859e868). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE
Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.12.
Marder, B., Joinson, A., Shankar, A., & Houghton, D. (2016b). The extended ‘chilling’
effect of Facebook: The cold reality of ubiquitous social networking. Computers
in Human Behavior, 60, 582e592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.097.
Marder, B., Slade, E., Houghton, D., & Archer-Brown, C. (2016c). “I like them, but
won't ‘like’ them”: An examination of impression management associated with
visible political party affiliation on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 61,
280e287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.047.
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter
users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13,
114e133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313.
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on
the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9e31. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00246.
Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2014). Can you tell who I am?
Neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among young adults.
Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 179e183. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2014.01.010.
Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Highbrow films gather dust:
Time-inconsistent preferences and online DVD rentals. Management Science, 55,
1047e1059. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0994.
Moretti, M. M., Rein, A. S., & Wiebe, V. J. (1998). Relational self-regulation: Gender
differences in risk for dysphoria. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 30,
243e252. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087067.
Neubaum, G., & Kr€
amer, N. C. (2017). Opinion climates in social media: Blending
mass and interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 43,
464e476. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12118.
Neubaum, G., & Kr€
amer, N. C. (in press). What do we fear? Expected sanctions for
expressing minority opinions in offline and online communication. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215623837.
Nolan, K. P., & Harold, C. M. (2010). Fit with what? The influence of multiple selfconcept images on organizational attraction. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational
Psychology,
83,
645e662.
https://doi.org/10.1348/
096317909X465452.
Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects
of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44,
240e249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024.
Oh, J., Bellur, S., & Sundar, S. S. (in press). Clicking, assessing, immersing, and
sharing: An empirical model of user engagement with interactive media.
Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215600493.
O'Sullivan, P. B., & Carr, C. T. (in press). Masspersonal communication: A model
bringing the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1461444816686104.
Pang, N., Ho, S. S., Zhang, A. M. R., Ko, J. S. W., Low, W. X., & Tan, K. S. Y. (2016). Can
spiral of silence and civility predict click speech on Facebook? Computers in
158
B.K. Johnson, G. Ranzini / Computers in Human Behavior 82 (2018) 148e158
Human Behavior, 64, 898e905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.066.
Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of selfaccountability in influencing preferences for produces with ethical attributes.
Journal of Marketing, 77, 104e119. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0454.
Potter, W. J., & Tomasello, T. K. (2003). Building upon the experimental design in
media violence research: The importance of including receiver interpretations.
Journal of Communication, 53, 315e329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14602466.2003.tb02593.x.
Reeves, A., Gilbert, E., & Holman, D. (2015). Class dis-identification, cultural stereotypes, and music preferences: Experimental evidence from the UK. Poetics,
50, 44e61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2015.01.002.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ, USA:
Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online impression management: Personality
traits and concerns for secondary goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics
on Facebook. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 17, 1e18. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01560.x.
Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In
J. Bryant, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd
ed., pp. 165e184). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
Sarkhosh, K., & Menninghaus, W. (2016). Enjoying trash films: Underlying features,
viewing stances, and experiential response dimensions. Poetics, 57, 40e54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.04.002.
Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 385e404. https://doi.org/
10.1086/378616.
Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving
impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43,
133e168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.001025.
Scholz, C., Baek, E. C., O'Donnell, M. B., Kim, H. S., Cappella, J. N., & Falk, E. B. (2017).
A neural model of valuation and information virality. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1615259114, 28881e2886.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality
influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 402e407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009.
Sheth, J. N., & Solomon, M. R. (2014). Extending the extended self in a digital world.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22, 123e132. https://doi.org/10.2753/
MTP1069-6679220201.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30, 526e537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039.
Southwell, B. (2013). Social networks and popular understanding of science and
health: Sharing disparities. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Strauman, T. J. (1996). Stability within the self: A longitudinal study of the structural
implications of self-discrepancy theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1142e1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1142.
Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media
exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26, 309e328. https://doi.org/
10.1111/comt.12087.
Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50e66.
https://doi.org/10.1086/321947.
van den Tol, A. J. M., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2017). Listening to ironically-enjoyed
music: A self-regulatory perspective. Psychology of Music, 45, 321e337.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616658956.
Tosun, L. P. (2012). Motives for Facebook use and expressing “true self” on the
Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1510e1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2012.03.018.
Tsay-Vogel, M., & Sanders, M. S. (2017). Fandom and the search for meaning:
Examining communal involvement with popular media beyond pleasure. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 6, 32e47. https://doi.org/10.1037/
ppm0000085.
Valkenburg, P. M. (2017). Understanding self-effects in social media. Human
Communication Research, 43, 477e490. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12113.
Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of
prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1),
1e15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200920758.
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538e2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2006.05.002.
Walther, J. B. (2017). The merger of mass and interpersonal communication via new
media: Integrating metaconstructs. Human Communication Research, 43,
559e572. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12122.
Walther, J. B., Carr, C. T., Choi, S., DeAndrea, D. C., Kim, J., Tong, S. T., et al. (2010).
Interaction of interpersonal, peer, and media influence sources online: A
research agenda for technology convergence. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.),
A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp.
17e38). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,
1707e1723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002.
Winter, S., Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective use of news cues: A
multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication, 66, 669e693. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcom.12241.
Wong, P., Hogg, M. K., & Vanharanta, M. (2012). Consumption narratives of extended
possessions and the extended self. Journal of Marketing Management, 28,
936e954. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.698632.
Yang, J. (2016). Effects of popularity-based news recommendations (“mostviewed”) on users' exposure to online news. Media Psychology, 19, 243e271.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1006333.