Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Social media has been an increasingly utilized communication tool, and it has gained popularity among adolescent athletes. Our aim here was to investigate whether a positive and honest self-presentation on social media increased adolescent athletes' self-esteem, and we examined the moderating effect of perceived responsiveness. After receiving informed consent of participants and their parents/legal guardians, we recruited 468 adolescent athletes/participants (244 males, 224 females; Mage = 15.39 years, SD = 1.61) through purposive sampling and engaged them in completing face-to-face or online self-report measures of their: (a) self-presentation on social media, (b) perceived responsiveness of others, and (c) Rosenberg self-esteem scales. Given the continuous nature of our moderating variable (i.e., perceived responsiveness), we conducted regression analysis using Hayes’s PROCESS macro in SPSS software. A positive self-presentation showed no significant relationship with self-esteem, except when the level of perceived responsiveness was high. Conversely, an honest self-presentation was positively related to higher self-esteem, and the relationship between honest self-presentation and self-esteem was moderated by perceived responsiveness. Our findings extend existing psychological theory into the online environment and have practical implications. These data highlight the link between social media self-presentation and self-esteem among adolescent athletes and illustrate the crucial role of perceived responsiveness in the social media context.

Keywords

self-presentation responsiveness social networking site online social interaction self-development student athletes

Introduction

Self-esteem is recognized as an important personal attribute for adolescent athletes (Jung et al., 2016; Kang et al., 2015), among whom higher self-esteem has been correlated with lower stress, anxiety, and depression, and greater happiness, competence, and athletic performance (Baumeister et al., 2003; Gotwals et al., 2003). Self-esteem is shaped not only by self-perception of personal worth but also by external evaluations that evolve organically within the context of interpersonal relationships (Leary et al., 1995). Despite this recognition of the significance of interpersonal networks during adolescence for improving self-esteem (Valkenburg et al., 2017), youth athletes frequently face temporal and spatial limitations to interpersonal relationships while they are juggling academic responsibilities and sports participation (Smith, 1986).

In most modern cultures, adolescents grow up with new media technologies that expand interpersonal interactions beyond physical spaces. Individuals can accelerate the formation of social networks by sharing photos, updating their status, and engaging in comments on social media (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Social media is a decentralized internet-based interpersonal communication channel that enables mass communication and facilitates perceived user interactions (Carr & Hayes, 2015). Youth athletes attempting to balance academics and sports demands have begun to use social media to share their experiences both on and off the field, connecting them with a variety of other people and fostering new relationships while strengthening old ones (including coaches, parents, and teammates) (Dunn et al., 2021). In addition, social media offers adolescents a convenient and powerful means of self-presentation to others (Baumeister & Hutton, 1987; Yang et al., 2017). Self-presentation plays a crucial role in shaping one’s identity and establishing a social reputation (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Features of social media platforms empower and challenge adolescents to enhance their self-presentation on online environments (Hollenbaugh, 2021; Walther, 2007). Previous investigators have shown a positive association between self-presentation on social media and self-development (Metzler & Scheithauer, 2015; Twomey & O’Reilly, 2017). However, much of the prior research on social media use in sports has focused on its negative effects on athletes, including increased sports anxiety, mental fatigue, and abusive behaviors (Encel et al., 2017; Fortes et al., 2021; Sanderson & Weathers, 2020).

Yet, since social media is a platform for diverse interactions, it may also positively impact young athletes’ self-esteem. Particularly within the Korean context of a collectivistic culture, social media users tend to engage more in self-presentation to convey desired impressions (Yoo et al., 2012). In collectivistic cultures, the formation of self relies heavily on relational factors such as others’ opinions and evaluations (Cho, 2010). These cultural contexts place high importance on social media expressions and responses in forming adolescents’ self-esteem. Therefore, we aimed in this study to empirically examine the relationship between adolescent athletes’ self-presentation on social media and their self-esteem, as potentially moderated by self-perceived responsiveness.

Self-Presentation on Social Media and Self-Esteem

Social media are internet-based networks or platforms through which individuals can selectively present themselves to audiences who respond to user-generated content (Carr & Hayes, 2015). In comparison to face-to-face interactions, online interactions can provide greater opportunities for ideal self-presentation through features such as asynchronicity, editability, and reduced communication cues (Walther, 2007). Asynchronicity allows individuals to control their self-presentation at preferred times; as it does not require immediate attention and responses from others, asynchronous comments give users time to shape their desired identity and self-presentation. On social media, nonverbal cues are minimized, which enables users to intentionally withhold their physical characteristics and unintentional actions (Walther, 2007). Also, compared to anonymous online environments, social media networks impose certain limitations on exaggerated self-presentations. Since users’ real names and information are publicly visible to others, authentic selves are revealed when interacting with real offline relationships (Zhao et al., 2008). In other words, in institutional contexts where real names are mandated, individuals anticipate long-term ongoing relationships with their social media friends, which encourages them to express themselves honestly rather than give only favorable impressions (Ellison et al., 2007).

Given these technological features, prior research on impression management in computer-mediated communication (CMC) and self-presentation on social media has suggested two distinct self-presentation strategies (Gao et al., 2023; Kim & Lee, 2011; Niu et al., 2015). In one strategy, positive self-presentation refers to minimizing negative impressions of oneself by selectively exposing one’s identity to other users to form an ideal image of oneself. This can be achieved through posting solely “happy” status updates or sharing stunning images, along with favorable information (Kim & Lee, 2011). In another strategy, honest self-presentation entails the nonselective posting of personal information, ideas, and sentiments in a manner that is true-to-self. This second, honest, strategy can include uploading both positive and negative emotions, as well as unaltered photographs (Gao et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2017; Yang & Brown, 2016). Based on Walther’s (1996) hyperpersonal model, initially developed in the context of the CMC and later extended to social media, several studies have investigated the relationship between social media self-presentation and well-being/self-development (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011).

According to the hyper-personal model, users can upload or update content that highlights their positive aspects, thereby confirming these qualities and enhancing self-esteem (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). However, there has been relatively less research conducted on the impact of honest self-presentation on the presenter’s self-esteem (Yang et al., 2017). In the field of psychotherapy, individuals who genuinely express their negative experiences and emotions through writing have been found to better acknowledge and mitigate factors that threaten their self-worth, resulting in a more positive self-perception (Bolton et al., 2004). Moreover, there is a positive relationship between authenticity and perceived self-worth (Harter, 2012). These findings suggest that honest self-presentation may be related to higher self-esteem.

In sum, adolescent athletes who are familiar with online interactions can effectively manage their impressions through the various technological features that characterize internet interactions. They can also honestly present their genuine emotions and experiences on social media platforms (Frederick & Clavio, 2015). Based on the hyper-personal model and clinical psychology research showing such open strategies were associated with higher self-esteem, we examined the hypothesis that both positive self-presentation and honest social media self-presentation would be positively related to adolescent athletes’ self-esteem.

Positive self-presentation would positively predict the self-esteem of adolescent athletes.

Honest self-presentation would positively predict the self-esteem of adolescent athletes.

Perceived Responsiveness of Others: A Potential Moderator

As noted, a substantial body of self-presentation research has emphasized the importance of social interaction in enhancing or diminishing the presenter’s self-esteem (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Mead & Schubert, 1934). However, the online environment differs from face-to-face situations in terms of the nature of social communication. For example, in asynchronous communication, the interaction between the presenter and the receiver does not occur immediately, and the receiver’s response may be simplified through streamlined features such as the ability to post simple “likes” or “heart” icons (Boyd, 2010). Furthermore, as self-presentation content is exposed to a great many individuals on social media, the user may be able to observe diverse responsiveness from others without physical or temporal constraints to the interaction (Brake, 2012). In other words, adolescent athletes who must balance their role as a student and an athlete have opportunities to expand their social networks through social media, gaining access to diverse perspectives through the responses to the content they share.

Previous investigators revealed positive associations between social support (e.g., the number of likes a person receives on social media) and self-esteem (Gao et al., 2023; Zell & Moeller, 2018). However, individual perceptions of the responses of social media friends (i.e., followers) have received limited research attention. Reis and Gable (2015) found that presenters subjectively interpreted responses from recipients in any interaction situation, and this can also apply to online interactions. In a face-to-face situation, perceived responsiveness has been shown to account for the extent to which an individual perceives that close others understand them, value their choices and opinions, and care for them (Reis & Gable, 2015). In the social media context, this is constrained by one user’s perception of understanding, respect, and care for them based on the response they receive from other users.

It has been suggested the high level of perceived others’ responsiveness to one’s communication is linked with the communicator’s enhanced self-esteem (Carr, 2013; Rouquette et al., 2021a, 2021b, 2021). Specifically, these investigators have shown that when young athletes have perceived positive responsiveness from their significant others, they have tended to experience increased self-esteem and a heightened sense of pride in their achievements. Additionally, several researchers have reported similar findings within social media. For example, Bazarova et al. (2015) found that responses to social media content contributed to users’ life satisfaction; and “likes” or “comments” from social media followers were positively related to the users’ happiness and self-esteem (Zell & Moeller, 2018). A meta-analysis by Liu and Baumeister (2016) revealed that the frequency of social media activities, primarily involving self-presentation, had a negligible impact on self-esteem, while a users’ number of friends was strongly associated with self-esteem. These findings align with Leary’s (1999) sociometer theory, by which an individual’s self-esteem is significantly influenced by their relational values and is more sensitive to their perception of how others evaluate them than the actual assessments of their real abilities (Mead & Schubert, 1934). Thus, youth athletes’ self-esteem may vary depending on how they perceive social media followers’ responses to their self-presentation.

We selected perceived responsiveness as a moderator variable in this study. While some researchers have shown a positive relationship between self-presentation and self-esteem (Gil-or et al., 2015; Michikyan et al., 2015), others have not (Metzler & Scheithauer, 2015; Twomey & O’Reilly, 2017). Memon and his colleagues (2019, p. 3) claimed that “inconsistent findings in past studies about the effect of the same Antecedent (independent variable) on the outcome can also be a strong case for testing a moderator.” Furthermore, unlike self-presentation determined at the individual level, the level of responsiveness to self-presentation varies within a social context. This implies that when individual expectations of self-presentation on social media do not align with corresponding responses, concerns about impression management may increase, potentially threatening self-esteem. Conversely, obtaining desired responses from great numbers of people might enhance one’s self-worth. Thus, we formulated these further hypotheses regarding presumed moderating effects on the relationship between social media self-presentations and self-esteem among adolescent athletes.:

Perceived responsiveness would strengthen the positive relationship between positive self-presentation and self-esteem.

Perceived responsiveness would strengthen the positive relationship between honest self-presentation and self-esteem.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We recruited participants through purposive sampling of middle and high school athletes registered with the Korean Sport and Olympic Committee. We informed coaches and one of the athlete’s parents/legal guardians about this recruitment process to obtain consent from the parent/legal guardian and assent from the participants, and we then collected questionnaires from willing participants using both face-to-face and online methods (via a Google Form). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Seoul National University (No. 2202/002-017).

Prior to data analyses, we removed 24 unproductive replies (such as insincere answers or no social media use) from the dataset. Consequently, in the present study, we conducted analyses with data from 468 middle- and high-school athletes. We conducted a power analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.7 software (Faul et al., 2009). The G*Power version 3.1.9.7 has a default value of .02 for small effect size, .15 for medium effect size, and .35 for large effect size in effect size conventions. We selected the F tests from Test family and “Liner multiple regression: Fixed model R² deviation from zero” named from the statistical test as recommended by Faul et al. (2009). We assumed an effect size (f²) of .15, a significance level (alpha, α) of .05, a power level (1-β) of .95, and a total of three predictors. The results of the power analysis indicated that our study’s sample size exceeded the required threshold (n = 119). Subsequently, a post hoc power analysis was computed with the same parameters to calculate the power of the collected data (N = 468). The power value was .99, which is greater than the recommended cutoff value of .80 (Cohen, 1992). Thus, our sample size of 468 was appropriate for ensuring robust statistical power. The participants’ demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participants’ Demographic Characteristics.

Measure	Item	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	244	52.1
Gender	Female	224	47.9
School level	Middle school	235	50.2
School level	High school	233	49.8
Sport events	Individual	198	42.3
Sport events	Team	270	57.7
Primary social media	Facebook	112	23.9
	Instagram	284	60.7
	Twitter	3	0.6
	TikTok	24	5.1
	etc.	45	9.6
Time spent on social media (Per a week)	<2 hours	166	35.4
	2–4 hours	162	34.7
	4–6 hours	67	14.3
	>6 hours	73	15.6
Social media use experience	<1 years	30	6.4
	1–3 years	175	37.4
	3–5 years	161	34.4
	>5 years	102	21.8

Measures

Positive Self-Presentation

Positive self-presentation refers to the extent to which an individual selectively shows favorable aspects of oneself on social media. The Positive Self-Presentation Index that we used in this study was developed by Kim and Lee (2011). It consists of six items (e.g., “I post photos that only show the happy side of me”; “I avoid writing about negative things that happen to me when I update my status”) that respondents rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In previous studies (Gao et al., 2023; Kim & Lee, 2011), the internal consistency for this scale was shown to meet with Cronbach alpha coefficients of .72 and .84 respectively.

Honest Self-Presentation

We obtained five items from the Social Media Self-Presentation Scale (Yang et al., 2017) to measure honest self-presentation. Honest self-presentation refers to the extent to which the user reports a genuine representation of the self on social media (e.g., “I am sincere when I reveal my own feelings on social media”; “My social media posts about my feelings are honest”). Respondents rated the items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α in a previous study (Yang et al., 2017) was .74.

Perceived Responsiveness

To measure the student athletes’ perceptions of exhibited responsiveness by their followers on social media, we used the items of the Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (Laurenceau et al., 1998) with slight revisions to fit the social media context. The instructions for each item began with the phrase “My friends on social media…”. Previous studies investigating perceived partner responsiveness on social media have commonly suggested this practice (Reis et al., 2017; Walsh et al., 2020). The scale consists of six items that respondents rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the perceived responsiveness scale was found to be .86 in previous study (Laurenceau et al., 2005).

Self-esteem

We used the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg, 1965) to measure participants’ self-esteem in this study. The RSES consists of five positive questions (e.g., “I think I have a good point”) and five negative questions (e.g., “I do not have much to boast about” that respondents rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Considering the problem of the reverse scoring method (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we used only five positive questions in this study. Item reliability (Cronbach’s α) was .88 in a previous study with Korean adolescent athletes (Jung et al., 2016).

Data Analysis

For all data analysis, we used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 26.0), PROCESS macro 4.0, and AMOS 21.0. First, we calculated descriptive statistics and a bivariate correlation analysis to identify the overall characteristics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) and the correlations among the measurement variables. Second, to verify the validity of each measurement tool and entire measurement model including the key variables, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation and an internal consistency analysis (Cronbach’s α). In the present study, the following cutoff values, based on previous research criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999), were employed to evaluate goodness-of-fit: non-significant χ² (df) (p > .05), comparative fit index (CFI) > .90, Goodness-of-Fit (GFI) > .90, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < .08. Additionally, we assessed convergent and discriminant validity of the measured variables to confirm the construct validity. Convergent validity was estimated based on average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). AVE measures how much variance is accounted for by a construct in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error, and CR serves as an indicator of the shared variance among the observed variables used to represent a latent construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The adequacy criteria were set as AVE values greater than .50 and CR values greater than .70. Discriminant validity was assessed by examining the square correlation between factors, with each factor considered adequate if the squared correlation was lower than the AVE (Shrestha, 2021). Third, we performed simple moderation analysis to verify the moderating effect of perceived responsiveness by using PROCESS macro model 1. This allowed the identification of statistical interactions between the predictor (self-presentation on social media) and moderator (perceived responsiveness) variables, and the strength and direction of their collective effect on the outcome variable (self-esteem) (Judd et al., 2001). To probe statistically significant interaction effects, we examined the ∆R² value and then calculated the conditional effects at different levels of the moderator (M–1SD, M, and M + 1SD). Considering the unique contribution of each type of social media self-presentation (positive, honest), we separately examined the moderating effects of perceived responsiveness on the relationship between social media self-presentation and self-esteem for each. Finally, we set statistical significance level at α = .05.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

The results of the descriptive statistics showed that the skewness values of the measured variables ranged from – .33 to .06, and the kurtosis ranged from .13 to .76. Since the absolute value of the skewness was less than 3 and the kurtosis did not exceed 8, we found the data to be normally distributed (Kline, 2011). All variables exhibited positive and significant inter-correlations (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlation.

Variables	M	SD	PSP	HSP	PR	SE
PSP	3.10	.77	—
HSP	3.30	.59	.15**	—
PR	3.25	.77	.21***	.51***	—
SE	3.88	.83	.16**	.35***	.31***	—

Note. N = 468. M: Mean; SD, Standard Deviation; PSP, Positive Self-presentation; HSP, Honest Self-presentation; PR, Perceived Responsiveness; SE, Self-esteem.

**p < .01, ***p < .001.

Measurement Model

The CFA for each measurement tool were demonstrated as follows: First, for positive self-presentation, the model fitness was acceptable (χ² = 37.69, df = 5, χ²/df = 3.01, p < .001, CFI = .96, GFI = .97, SRMR = .04) and Cronbach alpha coefficient was .81 when one item (item number 2) with a standardized factor loading <.5 was excluded. Second, the CFA for honest self-presentation indicated satisfactory goodness-of-fit (χ² = 36.72, df = 2, χ²/df = 18.36, p < .001, CFI = .92, GFI = .96, SRMR = .05), further we deleted one item (item number 3) with factor loading of less than .5. This scale had good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .74). Third, the CFA for perceived responsiveness exhibited an acceptable fit (χ² = 101.47, df = 9, χ²/df = 11.27, p < .001, CFI = .96, GFI = .93, SRMR = .03), and Cronbach’s α was .87. Lastly, the CFA for self-esteem revealed acceptable construct validity of RSES (χ² = 57.38, df = 5, χ²/df = 11.48, p < .001, CFI = .97, GFI = .95, SRMR = .03). Items’ reliability (Cronbach’s α) was .89. Furthermore, the results of a CFA for the entire measurement model including 20 observational variables for four latent variables demonstrated excellent fit (χ² = 495.10, df = 164, χ²/df = 3.01, CFI = .94, GFI = .90, SRMR = .05). All standardized factor loadings for the items in the measurement model were significant with .52–.89 (p < .001), which means that the latent variables included in the model explain the data well. The AVE and CR values for each variable ranged from .46 to .78 and .77 to 95, respectively. Although the AVE values for the positive self-presentation and honest self-presentation did not meet the cut-off (>.5), Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested that it can be acceptable if the CR values are above .7. Therefore, the convergent validity for each construct could be considered as acceptable. Additionally, we found that discriminant validity was adequate, as the calculated AVE values were higher than the square correlation coefficient values for each latent variable.

Moderating Analysis

The PROCESS Macro Model, proposed by Hayes (2022) in regression analysis by the simultaneous input method, was employed to investigate the effect of social media self-presentation and perceived responsiveness on self-esteem, and confirm the moderating role of perceived responsiveness. The PROCESS Macro Model has the advantage of eliminating multicollinearity by automatically providing the mean-centering function of an independent variable and moderating variable. Furthermore, the method can verify in more detail the significance of the simple slope, which is the effect of the independent variable on the outcome variable according to the moderating variable (Hayes, 2022).

Relationship Between Positive Self-Presentation and Self-Esteem, and the Role of Perceived Responsiveness

We conducted regression analysis using PROCESS Macro model 1 to examine the moderating effect of perceived responsiveness on the relationship between positive self-presentation and self-esteem. The results are shown in Table 3. Positive self-presentation was not found to have a significant effect on self-esteem (B = .08, p > .05), while perceived responsiveness had a significant effect on self-esteem (B = .32, p < .001). The interaction term between positive self-presentation and perceived responsiveness had a significantly positive effect on self-esteem (B = .13, p < .01). Additionally, the amount of change in R² according to the addition of the interaction term was statistically significant (∆R² = .018, p < .01). Therefore, the moderating effect of perceived responsiveness on the relationship between positive self-presentation and self-esteem was verified. Thus, hypothesis 1 was rejected, while hypothesis 3 was supported.

Table 3.

Interaction Effects of Positive Self-presentation and Perceived Responsiveness.

Model	Self-esteem
Model	B	SE	t	p	∆R²	LLCI	ULCI
PSP	.083	.048	1.721	.086		−.012	.177
PR	.323	.048	6.718***	.001		.228	.417
PSP × PR	.130	.042	3.074**	.002	.018**	.047	.212

Note. PSP, Positive Self-presentation; PR, Perceived Responsiveness; SE, Self-esteem; LLCI, lower limit of 95% confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit of 95% confidence interval; Bootstrap sample size = 1000.

**p < .01, ***p < .001.

The next step was to analyze the conditional effects of positive self-presentation on self-esteem according to the level of perceived responsiveness, and the results are shown in Table 4. The perceived responsiveness level was given as three conditions (M-1SD, M, and M + 1SD), and the effect of perceived responsiveness was only significant in M + 1SD (p < .001). In other words, only when the level of perceived responsiveness is high, positive self-presentation affects the self-esteem of young athletes.

Table 4.

Condition Effects of Positive Self-presentation at Level of Perceived Responsiveness.

Perceived responsiveness	Self-esteem
Perceived responsiveness	B	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
M–1SD (2.480)	−.017	.062	−.280	.780	−.139	.104
M (3.252)	.082	.048	1.721	.086	−.012	.177
M + 1SD (4.025)	.183	.054	3.380***	.001	.077	.289

Note. LLCI, lower limit of 95% confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit of 95% confidence interval; Bootstrap sample size = 1000.

***p < .001.

Finally, the effect of positive self-presentation on self-esteem, depending on the perceived responsiveness level, was visualized in Figure 1 using a pick-a-point approach to confirm the interaction pattern.

Figure 1.

Moderating Effect of Perceived Responsiveness on the Relationship Between Positive Self-presentation and Self-esteem.

Relationship Between Honest Self-Presentation and Self-Esteem, and the Role of Perceived Responsiveness

We performed regression analyses in the same way as noted earlier. The results are shown in Table 5. Specially, honest self-presentation had a significant effect on self-esteem (B = .366, p < .001), and perceived responsiveness significantly predicted self-esteem (B = .188, p < .001). The interaction term between honest self-presentation and perceived responsiveness had a significant positive effect on self-esteem, indicating a moderating effect (B = .122, p < .01). In addition, the amount of R² changed because the addition of the interaction term was .011 (p < .05), which was statistically significant. Therefore, the moderating effect of perceived responsiveness on the relationship between honest self-presentation and self-esteem was verified. Hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported.

Table 5.

Interaction Effects of Honest Self-presentation and Perceived Responsiveness.

Model	Self-esteem
Model	B	SE	t	p	∆R²	LLCI	ULCI
HSP	.366	.069	5.342***	.001		3.777	3.922
PR	.188	.053	3.561***	.001		.084	.292
HSP × PR	.122	.050	2.468**	.014	.011*	.025	.220

Note. HSP, Honest Self-presentation; PR, Perceived Responsiveness; SE, Self-esteem. LLCI, lower limit of 95% confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit of 95% confidence interval; Bootstrap sample size = 1000.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The next step was to analyze the conditional effects of positive self-presentation on self-esteem according to the level of perceived responsiveness, and the results are shown in Table 6. The perceived responsiveness level was given as three conditions (M-1SD, M, and M + 1SD), and the effect of perceived responsiveness was significant at all conditions. In other words, when the level of perceived responsiveness was high did the effect of honest self-presentation on the self-esteem of adolescent athletes is strengthened.

Table 6.

Condition Effects of Honest Self-presentation at Level of Perceived Responsiveness.

Perceived responsiveness	Self-esteem
Perceived responsiveness	B	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
M–1SD (2.480)	.272	.079	3.418**	.002	.115	.428
M (3.252)	.366	.069	5.342***	.001	.231	.501
M + 1SD (4.025)	.183	.077	5.943***	.001	.308	.613

Note. LLCI, lower limit of 95% confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit of 95% confidence interval; Bootstrap sample size = 1000.

**p < .01, ***p < .001

Figure 2 illustrates the moderating effect, confirming the interaction pattern, and allowing a visualization of the association between honest self-presentation and self-esteem according to the level of perceived responsiveness. The higher the perceived responsiveness, the stronger was the relationship between honest self-presentation and self-esteem.

Figure 2.

Moderating Effect of Perceived Responsiveness on the Relationship between Honest self-presentation and Self-esteem.

Discussion

Overall, we found partial support for our hypotheses that positive and honest self-presentation on social media by adolescent athletes would result in higher self-esteem and be moderated by perceived responsiveness.

Positive Self-presentation and Self-esteem

We did not find the relationship between positive self-presentation on social media to be significantly related to higher self-esteem, but the relationship was significant when the level of perceived responsiveness by others was high. This finding differs from some previous studies in which findings suggested that self-esteem could be improved by selectively presenting oneself positively on social media (Kim & Lee, 2011; Metzler & Scheithauer, 2015; Yang et al., 2017). However, previous research on the link between social media use and self-esteem yielded mixed results (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011; Meeus et al., 2019). In response to these inconsistencies across studies, scholars have noted the important role of cognitive appraisal of responses evoked from social media users, and they have called for a more fine-grained approach to investigating the third variable that would facilitate this relationship (Meeus et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2017). In turn, we found that positive self-presentation significantly predicted self-esteem only when the level of the young athletes’ perceived responsiveness by others was high.

Drawing from Goffman’s (1959) theory of impression management, individuals typically consider the normative and evaluative aspects of others when presenting their desired image. Given that the participants in this study were adolescents, their perspective-taking ability for inferring others’ perspectives was heightened, and they concurrently sought feedback and validation from their peers (Hollarek & Lee, 2022). Compared to non-athletes, young athletes have tended to be more concerned about how they are perceived physically and aesthetically by others (Prapavessis et al., 2004). As a result, our findings suggest that our participants may have employed strategies to enhance their attractiveness and athletic image on social media platforms. This behavior could be driven by the need for recognition and approval from peers. Given the potential repercussions of an exaggerated need for approval during adolescence (Ellis, 2002), it is advisable to avoid pursuing positive self-presentation driven by irrational beliefs. In addition, since this strategy proved to be significantly related to higher self-esteem only when accompanied by supportive responses on social media, we recommend that adolescent athletes focus more on their self-presentation of a positive sense of self, rather than relying entirely on the uncontrollable responsiveness of others.

Honest Self-presentation and Self-esteem

We found that honest self-presentation by adolescent athletes had a significant positive association with their self-esteem. Additionally, the level of perceived responsiveness significantly strengthened the relationship between honest self-presentation and self-esteem. Consistent with prior studies, these findings suggest that honest self-presentation can contribute to the development of a sense of self, making individuals feel valuable and increasing their self-worth (Yang & Brown, 2016). Yang et al. (2017) mentioned that presenting an authentic image could be liked to higher self-esteem as it focuses on one’s current emotions and thoughts, rather than their concerns or anxiety. Metzler and Scheithauer (2015) noted that adolescents who express their true selves on social media like Facebook tended to have high self-esteem, and it has been considered beneficial in counseling and psychotherapy to present one’s genuine self to others (Pennebaker, 1997).

By sharing their daily lives outside the field on social media, adolescent athletes could reveal aspects of themselves beyond their identity as athletes. Therefore, our findings suggest that encouraging them to express not only their experiences as athletes but also various other facets of their self on social media could contribute to their development of a stable self-esteem. Moreover, in contrast to a positive self-presentation, an honest self-presentation was associated with self-esteem even without a high level of perceived responsiveness by others (which is hard to control in the social media environment).

The Moderating Effect of Perceived Responsiveness by Others

A main finding in this study was the moderating effect of perceived responsiveness between types of self-presentation on social media and self-reported self-esteem. Based on the assumption that the individuals presenting themselves on social media are consciously responsive to their content due to attempts at impression management, we hypothesized that the adolescent athlete, regardless of their self-presentation strategies (e.g., positive or honest), would report strengthened self-esteem when they encountered positive responsiveness from other social media users. In other words, the more positively youth athletes perceived their friends’ (followers) responses to their self-presentation, the higher their self-esteem. We interpreted this finding to be consistent with the results of previous studies in showing that reactions to social media can be associated with individuals’ psychological well-being and self-development (Bazarova et al., 2015; Davis, 2013; Meeus et al., 2019; Zell & Moeller, 2018). Individuals who perceived that several people are viewing their status updates on social media or who receive emotional support and advice were more apt to evaluate themselves positively (Greitemeyer, 2016). Conversely, individuals who failed to receive encouraging responses to their status tended to be disappointed and depressed (Gao et al., 2023; Zell & Moeller, 2018).

Perceived responsiveness, in essence, refers to how individuals subjectively interpret the recognition, understanding, and care they receive from others (Reis & Gable, 2015). Particularly, in environments like social media, where the range of responsiveness from diverse individuals is extensive, the impact of self-presentation on self-esteem can vary with how they perceive and interpret others’ responsiveness. Thus, we show, in these data, the moderating role of perceived responsiveness in the relationship between social media self-presentation and self-esteem among student athletes who have faced limited opportunities for relationship formation due to busy schedules. This research establishes a foundation for those caring for these adolescents (e.g., parents, coaches, or sport psychologists) to express support and care towards them, even within online environments beyond the offline experience. For instance, it can be an effective mediation strategy to monitor and discuss together the content adolescents share on social media (Daneels & Vanwynsberghe, 2017). Furthermore, these results underscore the necessity for appropriate training of youth athletes to prevent them from misinterpreting the others’ responsiveness on social media.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

We identified several limitations in the current study. First, we utilized data collected through self-report and various social media channels. We acknowledge that the number of social media platforms is increasing with evolving technologies, and that presentation strategies and patterns may differ, depending on the characteristics of each platform (Hollenbaugh, 2021). Additionally, it is not ideal to understand self-presentation phenomena solely through self-report questionnaires (Goffman, 1959). Future researchers should consider the functions of each social media platform, and they should utilize both content analysis and interview to best understand whether self-presentations are positive or honest. Second, although our results were statically significant, there are limitations in the ability to infer causal relationships from this a cross-sectional design and correlational data. To clearly understand causal relationships between these variables, longitudinal investigations would be useful. Finally, we designed this study to investigate the positive relationships between types of self-presentations on social media and self-esteem. Future, researchers might address how using social media relates to diverse outcomes (e.g., relationship with others, well-being, and peak performance) for sports participants.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our results suggest that the association between positive self-presentation and self-esteem, as expected, depended on the level of perceived responsiveness by others. For honest self-presentation, the impact on self-esteem remains significant regardless of the level of others’ responsiveness, and the strengthened moderating effect of perceived responsiveness from others is also noteworthy. These findings empirically confirm the role of perceived responsiveness from others as a moderator between self-presentation on social media and the presenter’s self-esteem. We anticipate that this contribution extends to the broader literature on online interactions beyond face-to-face contexts. Furthermore, these findings emphasize the need for coaches and parents who have close relationships with young athletes, even if they are not familiar with online environments, to pay attention to how athletes portray themselves and perceive feedback within the realm of social media. Future studies are needed to further investigate variables related to online social interactions and self-development at individual, interpersonal, and group levels.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Kyoungjin Yang

Sungho Kwon

Dojin Jang

Author Biographies

Kyoungjin Yang is a Doctoral Student in Sport Studies at Seoul National University. He received a master's degree from currently attending graduate school and a bachelor's degree in the Division of Sport Science at Incheon National University.

Sungho Kwon is a Professor of the Department of Physical Education at the Seoul National University and is conducting research and classes related to Sport Psychology.

Dojin Jang is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the BK21 Four: Training program for Global Leaders in Sports Science at Seoul National University. He earned his bachelor's degree in physical education, as well as master's and doctorate degrees in sports science from Seoul National University, with a focus on Sport Psychology. He has conducted research to explore the connections between cognition, perception, emotion, and physical movement or activity and employed psychological theories grounded in cognitive-behavioral perspectives.

References

Baumeister

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 the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431

Baumeister

R. F.

Hutton

D. G.

(1987). Self-presentation theory: Self-construction and audience pleasing. In Theories of group behavior (pp. 71–87). Springer.

Bazarova

N. N.

Choi

Y. H.

Schwanda Sosik

Cosley

Whitlock

(2015). Social sharing of emotions on Facebook: Channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 154–164). https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675297

Bolton

Howlett

Lago

Wright

J. K.

(2004). Writing cures. An introductory handbook of writing in counseling and therapy. Brunner-Routledge.

Boyd

(2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In A networked self (pp. 47–66). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876527-8

Boyd

D. M.

Ellison

N. B.

(2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Brake

D. R.

(2012). Who do they think they’re talking to? Framings of the audience by social media users. International Journal of Communication, 6, 21, 1056–1076.

Carr

(2013). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and human strengths. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203156629

Carr

C. T.

Hayes

R. A.

(2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972282

10.

Cho

S. E.

(2010). Cross-cultural comparison of Korean and American social network sites: Exploring cultural differences in social relationships and self-presentation. Doctoral dissertation. Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, State University of New Jersey.

11.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

12.

Daneels

Vanwynsberghe

(2017). Mediating social media use: Connecting parents’ mediation strategies and social media literacy. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-3-5

13.

Davis

(2013). Young people’s digital lives: The impact of interpersonal relationships and digital media use on adolescents’ sense of identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2281–2293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.022

14.

Dunn

Kim

Poucher

Z. A.

Ellard

Tamminen

K. A.

(2021). A qualitative study of social media and electronic communication among Canadian adolescent female soccer players. Journal of Adolescent Research, 0(0), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584211045131

15.

Ellis

(2002). The role of irrational beliefs in perfectionism. In Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

(Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 217–229). American Psychological Association.

16.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

17.

Encel

Mesagno

Brown

(2017). Facebook use and its relationship with sport anxiety. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(8), 756–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1186817

18.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

19.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

20.

Fortes

L. S.

Fonseca

F. S.

Nakamura

F. Y.

Barbosa

B. T.

Gantois

de Lima-Júnior

Ferreira

M. E. C.

(2021). Effects of mental fatigue induced by social media use on volleyball decision-making, endurance, and countermovement jump performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 128(6), 2745–2766. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125211040596

21.

Frederick

E. L.

Clavio

(2015). Blurred lines: An examination of high school football recruits’ self-presentation on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication, 8(3), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2014-0089

22.

Gao

Wei

Wang

Fang

(2023). Motivations for social network site use and users’ well-being: Mediation of perceived social support, positive self-presentation, and honest self-presentation. Aslib Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-08-2021-0224

23.

Gil-Or

Levi-Belz

Turel

(2015). The “Facebook-self”: Characteristics and psychological predictors of false self-presentation on Facebook. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(99), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00099

24.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor Books.

25.

Gonzales

A. L.

Hancock

J. T.

(2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1–2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411

26.

Gotwals

J. K.

Dunn

J. G.

Wayment

H. A.

(2003). Self-esteem in intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26(1), 17–38. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/examination-perfectionism-self-esteem/docview/215870911/se-2

27.

Greitemeyer

(2016). Facebook and people’s state self-esteem: The impact of the number of other users’ Facebook friends. Computers in Human Behavior, 59(1), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.005

28.

Harter

(2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

29.

Hayes

A. F.

(2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Publications.

30.

Hollarek

Lee

N. C.

(2022). Current understanding of developmental changes in adolescent perspective taking. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45(1), 101308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101308

31.

Hollenbaugh

E. E.

(2021). Self-presentation in social media: Review and research opportunities. Review of Communication Research, 9(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.027

32.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

33.

Judd

C. M.

Kenny

D. A.

McClelland

G. H.

(2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6(2), 115. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115

34.

Jung

Kang

Kwon

(2016). Team commitment as a mediator between self-esteem and team climate as perceived by Korean youth soccer players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 122(3), 988–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512516649345

35.

Kang

Jeon

Kwon

Park

(2015). Parental attachment as a mediator between parental social support and self-esteem as perceived by Korean sports middle and high school athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 120(1), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.2466/10.PMS.120v11x6

36.

Kim

Lee

J.-E. R.

(2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0374

37.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

38.

Laurenceau

J.-P.

Barrett

L. F.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

(1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238

39.

Laurenceau

J. P.

Barrett

L. F.

Rovine

M. J.

(2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314

40.

Leary

M. R.

(1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00008

41.

Leary

M. R.

Kowalski

R. M.

(1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34

42.

Leary

M. R.

Tambor

E. S.

Terdal

S. K.

Downs

D. L.

(1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(3), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518

43.

Liu

Baumeister

R. F.

(2016). Social networking online and personality of self-worth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 64(6), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.024

44.

Mead

G. H.

Schubert

(1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). University of Chicago Press.

45.

Meeus

Beullens

Eggermont

(2019). Like me (please?): Connecting online self-presentation to pre-and early adolescents’ self-esteem. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2386–2403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819847447

46.

Memon

M. A.

Cheah

J. H.

Ramayah

Ting

Chuah

Cham

T. H.

(2019). Moderation analysis: Issues and guidelines. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.47263/jasem.3(1)01

47.

Metzler

Scheithauer

(2015). Adolescent self-presentation on Facebook and its impact on self-esteem. International Journal of Developmental Science, 9(3–4), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.3233/dev-150163

48.

Michikyan

Dennis

Subrahmanyam

(2015). Can you guess who I am? Real, ideal, and false self-presentation on Facebook among emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood, 3(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814532442

49.

Niu

G. X.

Bao

Fan

C. Y.

Zhou

Z. K.

Kong

F. C.

Sun

X. J.

(2015). The effect of self-presentation in online social network sites on self-esteem: The mediating role of social support. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(4), 939–945.

50.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science, 8(3), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00403.x

51.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

52.

Prapavessis

Grove

J. R.

Eklund

R. C.

(2004). Self-presentational issues in competition and sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200490260035

53.

Reis

Gable

(2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1(1), 67–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.001

54.

Reis

H. T.

Crasta

Rogge

R. D.

Maniaci

M. R.

Carmichael

C. L.

(2017). Perceived responsiveness scale. In Worthington

D. L.

Bodie

G. D.

(Eds.), The sourcebook of listening research: Methodology and measures (pp. 516–521). Wiley. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781119102991.ch57

55.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton university press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

56.

Rouquette

O. Y.

Knight

C. J.

Lovett

V. E.

Barrell

Heuzé

J.-P.

(2021). The positive association between perceived parental responsiveness and self-esteem, anxiety, and thriving among youth rugby players: A multigroup analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(13), 1537–1547. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.1883311

57.

Rouquette

O. Y.

Knight

C. J.

Lovett

V. E.

Heuzé

J. P.

(2021b). The influence of perceived parental responsiveness on athletes’ goal accomplishment, trait cognitive sport anxiety, and thriving: A semi-longitudinal study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 57(1), 102044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102044

58.

Rouquette

O. Y.

Knight

C. J.

Lovett

V. E.

Heuzé

J. P.

(2021a). Effect of parent responsiveness on young athletes’ self-perceptions and thriving: An exploratory study in a Belgian French-Community. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52(1), 101801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101801

59.

Sanderson

Weathers

M. R.

(2020). Snapchat and child sexual abuse in sport: Protecting child athletes in the social media age. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.04.006

60.

Shrestha

(2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-9-1-2

61.

Smith

T. L.

(1986). Self-concepts of youth sport participants and nonparticipants in grades 3 and 6. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62(3), 863–866. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1986.62.3.863

62.

Twomey

O’Reilly

(2017). Associations of self-presentation on Facebook with mental health and personality variables: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(10), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0247

63.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Koutamanis

Vossen

H. G.

(2017). The concurrent and longitudinal relationships between adolescents’ use of social network sites and their social self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior, 76(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.008

64.

Walsh

R. M.

Forest

A. L.

Orehek

(2020). Self-disclosure on social media: The role of perceived network responsiveness. Computers in Human Behavior, 104(1), 106162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106162

65.

Walther

J. B.

(1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001

66.

Walther

J. B.

(2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538–2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002

67.

Yang

C.-C.

Brown

B. B.

(2016). Online self-presentation on Facebook and self-development during the college transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(2), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0385-y

68.

Yang

C.-C.

Holden

S. M.

Carter

M. D. K.

(2017). Emerging adults’ social media self-presentation and identity development at college transition: Mindfulness as a moderator. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 52(1), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.08.006

69.

Yoo

J. J.

Kim

Moon

(2012). Exploring cross-cultural differences in self-presentation and self-disclosure in social networking sites: A comparison of Korean and American SNS users. Journal of Advertising and Promotion Research, 1(2), 77–118. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2422292

70.

Zell

A. L.

Moeller

(2018). Are you happy for me… on Facebook? The potential importance of “likes” and comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.050

71.

Zhao

Grasmuck

Martin

(2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012

Adolescent Athletes’ Self-Presentations on Social Media and Their Self-Esteem as Moderated by Their Perceptions of Responsiveness by Others

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Self-Presentation on Social Media and Self-Esteem

Perceived Responsiveness of Others: A Potential Moderator

Method

Participants and Procedure

Measures

Positive Self-Presentation

Honest Self-Presentation

Perceived Responsiveness

Self-esteem

Data Analysis

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Measurement Model

Moderating Analysis

Relationship Between Positive Self-Presentation and Self-Esteem, and the Role of Perceived Responsiveness

Relationship Between Honest Self-Presentation and Self-Esteem, and the Role of Perceived Responsiveness

Discussion

Positive Self-presentation and Self-esteem

Honest Self-presentation and Self-esteem

The Moderating Effect of Perceived Responsiveness by Others

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References