Selfie Behaviors-Review
Creators: name: Felig, Roxanne
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences

description: This registration is formatted to follow the NIRO pre-registration guidelines. A word document version of this exact registration will be uploaded for easier reviewing. A1. A theoretical review and meta-analysis of the relationship between selfie behaviors and self-evaluations. A2. The past two decades witnessed the birth of social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram, which allow individuals to consume, create, and share content with a broad audience. While the earliest of these platforms primarily enabled users to communicate with their social networks via writing (e.g., tweets; Facebook status updates), they have evolved to encourage users to connect by sharing photos and visual media (e.g., Twitter ‘fleets’, Facebook ‘stories’; Harris &amp; Haveson, 2020). Younger generations, particularly those under 30, gravitate toward uniquely photo and video-based sites such as Instagram, Snapchat, and Tiktok over other types of social networking sites (Auxier &amp; Anderson, 2021). The increased popularity of these platforms, coupled with the rise of ‘the selfie’ (i.e., photos of the self; Taylor, 2014) have together contributed to the increased presence of selfie related behaviors, such as taking, editing, and posting selfies, which are a unique product of modern social media culture. This increase in social media use has corresponded with an increase in research investigating such behaviors, and as such, research related to selfies is increasingly common. One focus of this line of research is to understand the relationship between selfie behaviors and self-evaluations. While most theoretical frameworks offer clear predictions, the existing body of research portrays an inconsistent relationship between selfie behaviors and self-evaluations, which may be a reflection of methodological differences employed by scholars. Given the omnipresence of the selfie with no sign of leaving soon, as well as its interest to researchers, it is necessary to holistically evaluate the current state of research related to selfie behaviors. More specifically: 1) theoretically driven predictions for the relationship between selfie behaviors and self-evaluations need to be specified; 2) the current literature needs to be systematically and meta-analytically reviewed to investigate which theoretical perspectives related to selfie use are best supported, and which require further investigation; 3) inconsistent aspects of current selfie related research need to be identified and considered in their implications of the interpretation of results. Through this investigation, this review seeks to identify gaps in the research and outline key considerations to guide future selfie related research. A3. This review seeks to identify the relationship between engagement in selfie behaviors and self-evaluations. Most of the extant research is correlational and therefore the direction of this research will likely not be identified. In cases of experimental designs, and depending on how many studies with experimental designs are located, it might be possible to speculate on the direction of the relationship. However, a preliminary search suggests that there are very few experimental manipulations of selfie behaviors, suggesting that it will be difficult to identify the direction of the relationship with certainty. Thus, a major goal of the theoretical background is to present theoretically driven hypotheses about the direction of the relationship. These hypotheses will be evaluated against the existing findings. Primary Variables of Interest: • Selfie behavior (e.g., taking, editing, or posting selfies. This does not include viewing selfies) • General self-evaluations (self-esteem) • Evaluations of the bodily self (e.g., body esteem, body satisfaction/dissatisfaction, appearance satisfaction/dissatisfaction, body image, body shame, and others, should they emerge). Participants of Interest • Anyone who is not included in a clinical sample (i.e., those with eating disorder diagnosis, or with a diagnosis related to general or body specific self-evaluations). Study Designs of Interest • Observational • Longitudinal (to be determined how the data will be used, but most likely just the first time point of data will be included in the analyses. However, these studies will serve as excellent indications of the relationship of these variables). • Cross-sectional • Experimental A4. This review seeks to determine how distinct selfie behaviors differ in their relationship with self-evaluations. Specifically, this project seeks to parse 1) taking selfies; 2) editing selfies; and 3) posting selfies as three distinct selfie behaviors. Each of these will be uniquely evaluated in terms of their relationship with self-evaluations. Possible Moderators There are several study level and person level moderators that will be coded for and potentially analyzed. These include: • Study design (correlational vs experimental) • Self-reported versus behavioral/objective measures of selfie behaviors • Within versus between person design • Gender of participants • Age of participants A5. H1. There will be a negative relationship between selfie behaviors and self-evaluations, such that more frequent engagement in selfie behaviors will be related to negative evaluations of the body and the self. H2. Differences are anticipated in the strength of the relationship between distinct selfie behaviors, but there are no clear predictions. H3. There is no clear prediction of whether selfie behaviors will differ in how they relate to body versus general self-evaluations. H4. Gender and age will be significant moderators of these relationships, such that women and younger people will experience negative self-evaluations more strongly than men and older people. A6. Databases PsycInfo Science Direct PsycArticles Scopus Web of Science PsyArXiv ProQuest Titles, abstracts, and keywords will be screened for mention of selfie behaviors (taking, posting, or editing), as well as some component of self-evaluations. A7. Self* AND Selfie* "Self-esteem" AND Selfie* "Self-evaluation" AND Selfie* Self* AND Photo* "Self-evaluation" AND Photo* "Self-esteem" AND Photo* Body* AND Selfie* Appearance* AND Selfie* Appearance* AND photo* Body* AND photo* A preliminary search suggests that for some databases, using the above pairs of terms results in a significant number of results (&gt;800). As such, when necessary, limiters such as the year of publication, or subject areas will be implemented. All search strategies will be thoroughly documented. A8. Additional Sources The following past conference programs will be hand-screened: SESP SPSP APA Psychological Science BPS SPSSI Authors of relevant research will be contacted. A call for unpublished data will be sent through the SPSP listserv. A9. • The search strategy aims for completion (requesting unpublished data, searching theses and dissertations, searching conference proceedings, etc). • A librarian was consulted to finalize search terms and find any additional databses. • If a date limit is used, it will be for data published in 2010 or later, as Instagram was launched in 2010, which marks the beginning of the social media selfie behaviors. • Any non-English articles will be translated to be used. • Extra effort: o Seeking unpublished data, searching PsyArXiv (a pre-print server), and scanning past conference proceedings o Unless subject area is specified due to a very high number of results, the search results on some non-psychology specific databases will reflect other disciplines. Any research relevant to the research question, regardless of subject area, will be considered for inclusion. o There is not country-level inclusion or exclusion criteria o Non-English articles will be translated to be included A10. The search will be updated before peer-review. A11. Search results will be exported as csv, excel, and text files and manually combined in Excel. Excel will be used to screen for duplicates. Any deviations from this will be reported in the final review. A12. There will be screening instructions for co-reviewers. The finalized instructions will be included in the materials section of this registration. As of now (the search has not concluded) the instructions are as follows: Title, Keyword, and Abstract Coding This is to determine what articles will be used in the analyses. In the column with your name (not yet made), put a “1” if you think the article should be included in the analyses. Criteria: a. Must measure or manipulate selfie behavior in some way. This can be taking, posting, or editing selfies. Some studies simply refer to “social media behaviors”, and abstract screening can let you know if that includes selfies. If the abstract is vague, track down the article and skim the methods. For SELF b. Must measure or manipulate self-evaluations. The most common of these is self-esteem. Look for key-words “self-evaluations” or “self-esteem” For BODY c. The keywords here are broader. Must measure or manipulate appearance-evaluations. These can include: Body satisfaction, body dissatisfaction, body esteem, appearance satisfaction, facial satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Sometimes, the study will reference “body image”—review the abstract or the methods to see if any of the measures are evaluative (good or bad evaluations) d. Do not include ‘self-objectification’, measures of disordered eating, or studies including clinical samples (eating disorder recovery patients) Qualitative studies will not be included. A13. • Must include a measure or manipulation of selfie behavior. This can be taking, posting, or editing selfies, but not viewing selfies. This can be behavioral (participants take selfies in the lab), or self-report (participants indicate how often they take selfies). • Must include a measure or manipulation of self-evaluations (either general OR body-related). Standardized measures of these are preferred (e.g., Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; Body-Esteem Scale), but non-standard measures will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. • There is no age, gender, or other demographic criteria. However, samples of clinical patients will be excluded. • Qualitative studies will be excluded. See A3 for more information. • All methods of data collection will be included, but differences will be coded for (e.g., self-report vs behavioral measures; correlational versus experimental designs; differences in measures used). Including all ages will allow for investigation of if selfie behaviors differentially affect younger people. Including all genders allows for the same exploration of gender differences. Including all methods of data collection will allow for a better understanding of what kinds of designs are best to answer specific research questions related to selfies, especially in relation to distinct theoretical hypotheses. A14. Either two or three reviewers will screen the records. Reviewers will collaboratively discuss any discrepancies. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed simultaneously, and the same reviewers will screen the abstracts/titles as well as full texts. A15. • Sample size and demographic information (gender, age, and race/ethnicity characteristics) o As possible moderators • Study design o As a possible moderator • Selfie behavior (s) and operationalization o As a primary variable of interest • Self-evaluation measure and operationalization o As primary variables of interest • IV and DV (if experimental) o To investigate the direction of the relationship • Mean, SD, effect size, r, or other effect size value o To conduct the meta-analysis of the effect size of the relationship • If each variable is self-report or objectively measured o As a possible moderator • If selfie behavior is theorized to be the predictor or the outcome o To investigate the direction of the relationship Overall, these questions will offer empirical support for the theoretical background that this review will present and will help to identify flaws and areas of improvement in current selfie research. For instance, if several studies frame selfie behaviors as the predictor and self-evaluations as the outcome but rely on trait measures of self-evaluations and only use correlational design, it will provide clear suggestions for how to move forward with future selfie related research. A16. This will be included as a supplementary file, as it is not yet created. A17. In the event of missing data, effect sizes will try to be computed if the necessary data is present. If not, authors will be contacted. If no response is received, the studies will not be included in the meta-analysis. Depending on the data available, they may still be included to inform the theoretical background and discuss future direction. A18. Either two or three, and all data will be collected in an extraction log. A19. Either NIRO or PRISMA bias assessment tools will be used. This will be specified in the finalized report. A20. Either two or three reviewers will assess bias. A21. To assess publication bias, a funnel plot will be created (effect sizes plotted against standard errors). The p curve will be examined • if there’s a “real” effect, we would see much smaller p values more often • if no effect, we expect p distributions to be evenly distributed • seeing a left-skew ( just under .05 range) will be indicative of selective reporting and publication bias A22. A planned meta-analysis will provide a quantitative value of the relationship between selfie behaviors and self-evaluations. Analyses will be conducted on specific selfie behaviors (taking, editing, and posting) to determine if they differ in their relationship with self-evaluations. A more qualitative (but less structured) analysis will take place. Based on the theoretical predictions offered in the background, the existing research will be evaluated to determine which theories are best supported, if certain designs can better be implemented to test specific theories, or if some theories are being improperly tested. A23. Scales and measures used for primary variables of interest will be coded, as well as study design. Differences will be handled on a case-by-case basis. A24. Should any research have risk of bias, they will be handled on a case-by-case basis. An expert in the field of meta-analysis will be contacted to provide suggestions. A25. Due to the nature of this project serving as a replacement for a PhD comprehensive exam, only one person will synthesize the results. A26. At this point, the following databases have been searched and the results have been exported to an excel file: • PsycInfo • Science Direct • PsycArticles • Scopus • Web of Science Note. These sources were searched due to this project needing to be proposed to the PhD committee, which therefore required significant work to have been done already. As such, the preliminary search was replicated after successful proposal to account for any newly published papers. The following sources have not been searched: • PsyArXiv • ProQuest A call for unpublished data has not been made, and conference proceedings have not been screened. No abstract or title screening has begun. A27. No changes have been made; this is the first version of the pre-registration. A28. One unpublished dataset of mine will be considered. The same bias assessment tool will be used, and if all reviewers deem it okay to use, it will be included. A29. At this time, no additional materials are ready to be submitted. However, all screening, extraction, and bias assessments will be uploaded into the OSF, along with any other relevant materials. A30. This will be registered today, 10/29/2021, on the Open Science Framework.