The present study was conducted to answer a single question: What is the role of picture-posting activities on social networking sites in emotion regulation? Across three studies, we find evidence suggesting that posting “psychologically distant” pictures is related to online negative emotional disclosure and could be a strategy for reducing negative affect by promoting cognitive reappraisal. We discuss important theoretical and practical implications of our study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LobingerK. Photographs as things—photographs of things. A texto-material perspective on photo-sharing practices. Information Communication & Society, 2016; 19:475–488.
2.
RedsickerP. (2014) Social photos generate more engagement: new research. www.socialmediaexaminer.com/photos-generate-engagement-research (accessed Nov.4, 2017).
3.
Pew Research Center. (2013) Social Media Update. www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013 (accessed Nov.4, 2017).
4.
China Tech Insight. (2017) WeChat User & Business Ecosystem Report. 2017. www.chinatechinsights.com/report/21370582.html (accessed Nov.4, 2017).
5.
SeongokL. Travel selfies on social media as objectified self-presentation. Tourism Management, 2016; 54:185–195.
6.
MalikA, DhirA, NieminenM. Facebook photo tagging culture and practices among digital natives. Global Media Journal, 2015; 13:1–21.
7.
HeideBVD, D'AngeloJD, SchumakerEM. The effects of verbal versus photographic self-presentation on impression formation in Facebook. Journal of Communication, 2012; 62:98–116.
8.
EftekharA, FullwoodC, MorrisN. Capturing personality from Facebook photos and photo-related activities: how much exposure do you need?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 37:162–170.
9.
HumNJ, ChamberlinPE, HambrightBL, et al.A picture is worth a thousand words: a content analysis of Facebook profile photographs. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:1828–1833.
10.
WuYCJ, ChangWH, YuanCH. Do Facebook profile pictures reflect user's personality?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 51:880–889.
11.
MühlbergerA, NeumannR, WieserMJ, et al.The impact of changes in spatial distance on emotional responses. Emotion, 2008; 8:192–198.
12.
Bruehlman-SenecalE, AydukO. This too shall pass: temporal distance and the regulation of emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015; 108:356–375.
13.
DavisJI, GrossJJ, OchsnerKN. Psychological distance and emotional experience: what you see is what you get. Emotion, 2011; 11:438–444.
14.
DolcosS, AlbarracinD. The inner speech of behavioral regulation: intentions and task performance strengthen when you talk to yourself as a You. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2014; 44:636–642.
15.
NookEC, SchleiderJL, SomervilleLH. A linguistic signature of psychological distancing in emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2017; 146:337–346.
16.
ParkJ, Ayduk Ö, KrossE. Stepping back to move forward: expressive writing promotes self-distancing. Emotion, 2016; 16:349–364.
17.
QiuL, LinH, LeungAK, et al.Putting their best foot forward: emotional disclosure on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012; 15:569–572.
18.
UtzS. The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 45:1–10.
19.
TropeY, LibermanN. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 2010; 117:440–463.
20.
Bar-AnanY, LibermanN, TropeY, et al.Automatic processing of psychological distance: evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2007; 136:610–622.
21.
LeeJ, ShrumLJ. Conspicuous consumption versus charitable behavior in response to social exclusion: a differential needs explanation. Journal of Consumer Research, 2012; 39:530–544.
22.
MoldenDC, LucasGM, GardnerWL, et al.Motivations for prevention or promotion following social exclusion: being rejected versus being ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Ppsychology, 2009; 96:415–431.
23.
GrossJJ, JohnOP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003; 85:348–362.
24.
HayesAF, PreacherKJ. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 2014; 67:451–470.
25.
KrossE, AydukO. Making meaning out of negative experiences by self-distancing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2011; 20:187–191.
26.
CohnMA, MehlMR, PennebakerJW. Linguistic markers of psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 2004; 15:687–693.
27.
DoréB, OrtL, BravermanO, et al.Sadness shifts to anxiety over time and distance from the national tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Psychological Science, 2015; 26:363–373.
28.
FoxJ, VendemiaMA. Selective self-presentation and social comparison through photographs on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2016; 19:593–600.
29.
EllisonNB, SteinfieldC, LampeC. The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1143–1168.
30.
ValenzuelaS, ParkN, KeeKF. Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2009; 14:875–901.
31.
CaltabianoML, SmithsonM. Variables affecting the perception of self-disclosure appropriatenes. Journal of Social Psychology, 1983; 120:119–128.
32.
SnyderDK, SimpsonJ, HughesJN. (2006) Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
