Review:An experimental test of the effect of online and face to face feedback on self-esteemArinze Michelle EseosaUniversity of Lagos AkokaCRITICAL REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL ARTICLE: An experimental test of the effect of online and face to face feedback on self-esteemHelen G.
M. VossenDepartment of Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht, The NetherlandsMaria KoutamanisUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsJoseph B. WaltherUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, CA, United StatesCurrent issues in psychologyDr IgundunasseSunday 29 July, 2018INTRODUCTIONThe essence of one disclosing self in an online conversation relay consistency in the current work on computer-mediated communication, disclosure has an important role to play when it comes to impression creation online (e.g. Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2007), the growth of intimacy (Bazarova, 2012) and quality of friendly relationship ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2009a), mutual interaction consistently is important online interaction (Walther, 1996), self-disclosure is vulnerable to risk (Jourard, 1964), so social responses to social disclosure should make significant impacts on the social results, also the person that disclosure is a part of, a significant impact of feedback reciprocal is self-esteem on online self-disclosure, an important milestone for young adults is to develop a sense of stability and self-importance and good mental wellbeing(Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger & Vohs, 2003: Sowislo & Orth, 2013) and self-worth is gotten from communications with age groups(Harter, 2012a) and frequently occurs online. Another area of concern has to do with how people respond to feedback to their self-disclosure and what it has to do with their self-worth after all, individuals response to information’s from their interactive partners tend to result to a significant influence in the growth of the communication (Snyder, Tanke, ; Berscheid, 1977) although current research has not been able to explain why response to online self-disclosure could affect individuals self-worth, which is the objective of this research.In changing aspects of reciprocal exchange in online interaction, Jourard (1964) theory of self-disclosure and various theories of disclosures e.g.
the social exchange theory (Atman ; Taylor 1973) handled the changing aspect of self-disclosure in face-face interaction, self-disclosure theories explains how the important result of self-disclosure on interpersonal relationship occur theory reciprocal responses between interactive partners, also that the outcome of online feedback on self -worth could occur through the reciprocal feedback. The outcome of feedback on the receiver’s reciprocal feedback, the mutuality principle is significant in deciding individuals positive and negative behavior in relation to others (Fehr & Gahter, 2000) and also the equivalent of intimacy reciprocated in one another’s interaction (Jourard, 1964), when reciprocating a welcoming gesture by others, individuals could act in a positive way that is acting good and cooperative, the equivalence of feedback individuals get, decides the rate of response, the interaction method by which the interaction occurs could affect the intensity of the response, the decrease in audiovisual cues and increased ability to control enables individuals to be very thoughtful in expressing interpersonal affect of online message via uncontrolled, equivocal nonverbal behaviors without underrating the information message (Walther, 1996), so in other words past journals proposed that online message may increase the intensity of the positive and negative reply to feedback compared to face-face interaction. The outcome of reciprocal feedback on self-esteem is the hyper personal communication model proposed in online interaction effects is based on the important role of reciprocal exchanges (e.g.
Kiesler, Siegel ; McGuire, 1984, Suler 2004) there are two theoretical explanations on how individual’s response online can affect self-worth. First, the individuals deduce how they feel based on their behavior accordingly to the self-perception theory, in relation to this study, it is likely that positive behavior like provision of positive reciprocal feedback to an interactive companion could induce positive self-worth and vice versa, secondly that the reciprocal feedback could affect self-worth through retaliation, this is a method of coping with unpleasant treatment by another individual (e.g. Gollwitzer & Denzler, 2009) when self-esteem is affected, individuals could result to acting in a negative manner towards another and such retaliation could even restore equity in a relationship and might expand self-worth, in deduction, negative brashness towards others is regarded as socially undesirable which could rule out the positive effect or purpose of retribution on self-esteem, in an online conversation, the intensity of self-presentation effect could be intense in online communicating than face-face, individuals can view their message consistently on their screen in online communication which increase the resulting effect of their actions and how they perceive themselves, so the hyper personal communication model proposes that online communication provides a beneficial strengthening feedback circle which increases the intensity of positive interpretation of positive signs (Walther, 1996).
This study method was carried out with a 2 by 2 between subject design that is the communication: online as opposed to face-face and feedback valence: confirming as opposed to disconfirming, there were four research conditions that the participants were assigned to randomly to either the first, that is the online disconfirming response, face-face disconfirming response and a confederate gave response, for the participants, individuals younger than 30 years were selected and originated from Netherlands, and data’s were collected in 2013 sept-nov , 149 individuals participated as age was a factor to avoid bias in the confederates criticism since they were in their twenties, they were chosen via commercials on their web page and accepted by the ethical board in the department to be applicants, they were told that the research was about people knowing one another, there was money strengthened to it, per mins and hour per tests or could exchange it for course acclaim, applicants was selected and matching with same sex confederates, they were prepared ; instructions were given and were consented , now the message method was either online or face-face they would have a short interaction and fill out a questionnaire, then the participants was involved in an intense self-disclosure to the allied who were neutral in their response, after the feedback, a survey on self-esteem was completed twice, also their demographic date and at the end they were examined, suspected( 20 were suspected but didn’t affect self-esteem) and acknowledged and the responses were not real and no following discussion either, the questions that was used for self-disclosure was given by Taylor & Altman (1966) and some examples are “what is the greatest knowledge you ever had?, what have you ever been nervous about? Etc. to influence the conversation manner, it took place in a active kind of laboratory for the online both the confederate and applicants were in different rooms, they never saw but for face-face they met at the entry and interactions were audiotaped and for the handling of the rate of feedback, it was inspired by (Cissna and Sieburg’s, 1981), e.g. the confirming response was “the things you like to do to please me, stuffs about yourself and disconfirming response was first imprint, not sure, someone I wouldn’t want to be friends with, tools used include the state self-esteem scale, valence of participants mutual feedback and demographic’s, Using Annova for the 4 investigational conditions, for the first hypothesis that receiving confirming response to one’s self-disclosure leads to higher self-esteem associated to receiving disconfirming response (H1a) was not reinforced in the outcome of communication method and feedback on self-esteem, also for the effects of confirming and disconfirming feedback are stronger in online communication compared to face-to-face communication (H1b) it was also not reinforced, for the outcome of communication and feedback on participants mutual feedback secondly, that receiving confirming response leads to more confident mutual feedback, while disconfirming response leads to additional negative reciprocal feedback (H2a) was reinforced and vice versa, and individuals gave more attention in the face-face interaction mode than online, and the results of confirming and disconfirming response on the valence of the receiver’s reciprocal response are stronger in online communication equated to face-to-face communication (H2b) was not fully reinforced, an Annova was carried out as the dependent factor been the mutual feedback to check the outcome of response and communication and individuals showed an increase in the positive feedback that was given to the confederate regardless if it was a conforming or disconfirming response and participants gave negative answer to disconfirming feedback than face-face method.DISCUSSIONThe study on the outcome of online response on self-esteem can be said that constant feedback from design interaction partners on self-disclosure is compulsory to increase self-esteem of the receiver but could not discover the increase the influence of online mode on the interpretation of the cues as stated by hyper personal communication model ( Walter 19960), the study on the outcome of feedback on the receiver’s mutual response was expected that the online interaction would make positive and negative response intense which shows that the ability of an individual to be willing depends if the response is negative & positive, for online feedback subtleties in online communication shows the managing behavior via retaliation also that individuals in face-face and online interaction could react differently with regards to expressing negatively to another and a restraint in the study is the responses by the confederate is universal so to appropriate the self-disclosure of the applicants, also the future study will emphasize on individuals characteristics information’s are received differently and how we understand information is reliant on our different characteristics and can influence how we also understand depends on selective signs.
REFERENCESAltman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: An experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 831-836.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.
9945Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.
I., & Vohs, K.D.
(2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in Public Interest, 4, 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.
01431Bazarova, N. N. (2012).
Public intimacy: Disclosure interpretation and social judgments on Facebook. Journal of Communication, 62, 815-832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.
01664.xCissna, K. N., & Sieburg, E.
(1981). Patterns of interactional confirmation and disconfirmation. In C. Wilder-Mott & J.
H. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 253-282). New York, NY: Praeger.Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000).
Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159-181. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.
159Gollwitzer, M., & Denzler, M. (2009). What makes revenge sweet: Seeing the offender suffer or delivering a message? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 840-844.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.
2009.03.001Harter, S. (2012a).
The construction of the self: A developmental perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Jourard, S. M. (1964). The transparent self: Self-disclosure and well-being.
New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological effects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
HYPERLINK “https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123” https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.
39.10.1123Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977).
Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.
9.656Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321-326. https://doi.
org/10.1089/1094931041291295Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I.
(1966). Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in studies of interpersonal relations. Psychological Reports, 19, 729-730. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1966.
19.3.729Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J.
(2009a). The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents’ existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 59, 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1460-2466.2008.01405.xWalther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction.
Communication Research,23,343. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
