Neuroscience Fundamentals - Facebook, twitter and other social media are 'brain candy'.pdf

7/30/2019 Neuroscience Fundamentals - Facebook, twitter and other social media are 'brain candy'.pdf

1/7

19/04/13 09:euroscience Fundamentals - Facebook, twitter and other social media are 'brain candy'

Pgina 4 ttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'

wikispaces

Facebook, twitter and other social media are 'brain

candy'EditarEditar 1212 5050

Table of Contents

Introduction

Neuroscientific

Context

Reward System

in the Brain

Study linking

self-disclosure to

the reward

system

Self-disclosure

and Social

media

Addiction to

Social Media

Facebook, Twitter and other Social media

are 'brain candy'

By Phil Green (z3331757), Anouk Aleva (z 3432069), Cecilia Robinson ( z3393600),

Michael Berger (z3258469) and Jamie Dracup (z3218566)

Source of the LA Times Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/08/business/la-fi-tn-self-

disclosure-study-20120508Based on following paper: http://www.pnas.org.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/content/109/21/8038

IntroductionThe use of social media is growing each month (Online Marketing Agency,

2011). There are already 175 million tweets on Twitter a day, 2.7 billion likes

on Facebook and 15 photos get uploaded onto Instagram per second

(Infographic Labs, 2012). Recently scientists have begun to investigate the

fascinating topic of why social media is so incredibly popular. Recent internet

surveys indicate that 80% of posts to social media sites consist simply of

self-disclosure, specifically announcements about ones own immediate

experiences (Tamir & Mitchell, 2012). The article Facebook, Twitter, other

social media are brain candy, study says was published on the Los Angeles

Times website on 18th May 2012 and reports on a study published in

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in May 2012. The

study was carried out by Diana Tamir and Jason Mitchell and titled

' Disclosing Information About the Self is Intrinsically Rewarding'. The

research investigated why so many people share their everyday thoughts,

movements and opinions through social media (Netburn, 2012). According to

the authors, the act of disclosing information about oneself activates a

reward system in the brain. This results in a pleasurable experience, similar

to that which we receive from natural rewards such as food or sex.

Considering social media's popularity and wide impact on society, this topic

is of immense importance (Online Marketing Agency, 2011). The activation of
http://www.pnas.org.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/content/109/21/8038http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/08/business/la-fi-tn-self-disclosure-study-20120508http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Neuroscientific%20Context-Addiction%20to%20Social%20Mediahttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Neuroscientific%20Context-Self-disclosure%20and%20Social%20mediahttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Neuroscientific%20Context-Study%20linking%20self-disclosure%20to%20the%20reward%20systemhttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Neuroscientific%20Context-Reward%20System%20in%20the%20Brainhttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Neuroscientific%20Contexthttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Introductionhttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/page/menu/Facebook%2C+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+%27brain+candy%27http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/page/history/Facebook%2C+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+%27brain+candy%27http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/page/messages/Facebook%2C+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+%27brain+candy%27http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook%2C+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+%27brain+candy%27http://help.unsw.wikispaces.net/home


2/7



Analysis

Critique on the

article

Appendix

References

Group

Details

the aforementioned neural reward system could explain the increasing

usage trend, which has been witnessed in recent years. There have also

been reported instances of the use of social media becoming an addiction

(Kuss & Griffiths, 2011), prompting the development of a Facebook Addiction

Scale (Andreassen, Torshem, Brunborg & Pallesen, 2012). This shows that

excessive posting to social media can become a serious problem. It is

possible that the activation of the reward pathways in the brain, by self

disclosing on social media, can be linked to the development of this

addiction, similar to drug addictions (Grilly & Salamone, 2012).

Neuroscientific ContextThe study by Tamir and Mitchell (2012) experimentally examines the

connection between self-disclosure and reward within an online social media

framework, seeking to explain the prolific rise in the usage of social media sites such as Facebook and

Twitter. According to the article, approximately 80% of posts to social media consist of announcements

about ones own immediate experiences. The authors explain that at nine months of age, human infants will

try and draw others' attention to parts of the environment they think are important; this can be seen as an

early form of self-disclosure. In addition, adults in all cultures attempt to pass on their knowledge to others.

Based on this, the authors argue that human's may have an intrinsic motivation to self-disclose and that it

may be possible that the reward systems of the brain are recruited in order to reinforce this behaviour

(Tamir & Mitchell, 2012).

Reward System in the Brain

A large concentration of neurons synthesising the neurotransmitter dopamine have been identified in the

ventroanterior midbrain, specifically the ventral tegmental area (VTA), the substania nigra and the nucleus

accumbens (Schultz, 2002; Tamir & Mitchell, 2012).

This system is known as the mesolimbic

dopamine pathway, where the dopamine

producing neurons project to a number of

important brain areas, including the prefrontal

cortex, which has been implicated in decision

making processes (Milner, 1964; Bechara et

al.,1997). The nucleus accumbens and ventral

tegmental area (VTA) have been shown to

respond consistently to the presentation of

natural rewards, as well as reward-predicting

stimuli; indicating that these brain areas are

likely to be critical for the identification and

utilisation of important rewards and events in

the environment (Schultz, 2002; Hernandez &Hoebel, 1988). Example of such rewards are

food and mating opportunities.

Study linking self-disclosure to the reward system

An overview of all the used study methods can be found in Table 1 at the end of this section. They will be

discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. The study by Tamir and Mitchell (2012) examines the link

between self-disclosure and brain activation in the nuclues accumbens (NAcc). It examines the different

processes that might affect this link.

In study 1a participants either disclosed their own opinions or judged the opinions of others, while in study

1b participants disclosed their own perceived personality traits or judged the traits of others. The results of

study 1a showed increased activation in the NAcc when participants disclosed their own opinions compared

to when they judged the opinions of others. In study 1b increased activation in NAcc and VTA was seen in

response to participants disclosing their own perceived personality traits compared to judging the traits of

others. These results are shown in Figure 1.
http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#References---Group%20Detailshttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Referenceshttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Appendixhttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Analysis-Critique%20on%20the%20articlehttp://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/Facebook,+twitter+and+other+social+media+are+'brain+candy'#Analysis


3/7



Figure 1: Results of study 1a & 1b - Bilateral NAcc activation

Previous results indicate that self-disclosure activates the NAcc and VTA, the reward system, more than

judgements of others do. However, the authors stated that these brain areas have also been shown to

respond to non-rewarding stimuli. Therefore study 2 was designed to behaviourally examine whether self-

disclosure is experienced as being more rewarding than evaluating non-rewarding stimuli, namely the

responses of others. In study 2 participants were given the choice to self-disclose, answer questions about

another persons opinion or answer a factual question. Randomised pay-off rewards were allocated to each

choice and it was found that participants overall were willing to give up some amount of these pay-off

rewards (~$0.63 per trial) in order to have the ability to answer the self questions and self-disclose.

Additionally, when pay-off amounts were equal, participants chose to answer question about themselves

rather than questions about others 69% of the time.

Despite the aforementioned results, the activation of the reward pathways can also be due to merely

thinking about the self; i.e. thinking about oneself (presumably in a positive light) is experienced asrewarding (Tamir & Mitchell, 2012). If true, this would mean that self-disclosing is not necessary for reward

system activation (Tamir & Mitchell, 2012). In this way, the results of studies 1 and 2 may have simply been

a result of participants having the opportunity to self-reflect, and not a direct result of self-disclosure. Study

3 was designed to examine this by adding another factor to the previous design; that being shared vs.

private conditions; participants responded to either self-private, self-shared, other-private or other-shared

questions. The self trials were found to elicit greater activation in the NAcc and VTA compared to the other

trials (averaging across shared and private), while the shared trials also elicited greater activation in the

NAcc and VTA compared to the private trials (averaging across self and other). This provides evidence for

two separate mechanisms by which self-disclosure is rewarding the act of self-introspection as well as the

act of disclosing information to others. In this way the effects are compounding; self-reflection is

experienced as rewarding, but even more so when these introspections are communicated to others (Tamir

& Mitchell, 2012). The results are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Results of study 3

Finally, study 4 examined the possibility that participants simply choose the self option more often because

it was easier to answer. Assumedly because participants have more information to draw on, and these

questions would require less cognitive effort than answering questions about another. However, whenparticipants were given the option to answer a self question, other question or rest passively, participants

still chose to answer a self-shared (69%) other shared (67%) or self-private (62%) over resting passively. A

summary of the different study methods and their results can be found in Table 1.

Study Method Results

1a Participants disclosed their own opinions or judged the

opinions of other

Self-disclosure increased activation in

NAcc

1b Participants disclosed their own perceived personality

traits or judged the traits of others

Self-disclosure increased activation in

NAcc & VTA

2 Participants answered questions about themselves, Participants willing to give up on average


4/7



others, or a factual question. Random

monetary pay-offs assigned to each choice on each trial.

~0.63c per

trial in order to answer questions about the

self, and

when pay-offs were equal chose to answer

self

questions 69% of the time.

3 Participants answered questions about the self or other,

and their responses were either

shared or private.

Increased activation in the NAcc and VTA

when

answering questions about the self, as well

as when

responses were shared.

4 Participants given the choice to answer questions about

the self or other,

with responses private or shared, or rest passively.

Participants chose to answer a self-shared

(69%) other

shared (67%) or self-private (62%)

question over resting passively.

Table 1: Study methods

Self-disclosure and Social media

Both the news and the journal article argue that the activation of the reward system in response to the act

of self-disclosure to others is one of the possible explanations for the increasing use of social media, as

well as the propensity for people to comment on their everyday experiences in these mediums.

However, Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012) found that besides sharing information about oneself, the need to

belong is also an important motivation to use social media. Another important point to address is the

possibility for users of social media to display their idealised, rather than accurate, selves through their

profiles. This has been referred to as the idealised-virtual identity hypothesis and has been tested by several

studies (Back, Stopfer, Vazire, Gaddis, Schmukle & Egloff, 2010; Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010). A

study by Zhao, Grasmuck and Martin (2008) found that Facebook profiles appear to present socially

desirable identities that individuals aspire to have offline but have not yet been able to achieve. Facebook

users who show a mismatch between offline and online behaviours might attempt to compensate for any

perceived or actual deficiencies in social contact and peer-relations. Studies have also explored the

correspondence between interpersonal impressions made online versus face-to-face (Weisbuch, Ivcevic &

Ambady, 2009). It was found that impressions formed from personal webpages provided perceivers with

valid information about the webpage authors likability in the offline world. The contrast between the results

suggesting a contradiction between offline and online personalities, and the results indicating people share

valid information is suggested as an area for further research (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012).

Tamir and Mitchell (2012) state that self-disclosure on social media has a positive connection to the reward

system in our brains. The study does not however report on results that show that there is a different

outcome for people with low-self-esteem. Opposed to what one might expect, it was found that although

people with low self-esteem considered social media an appealing venue for self-disclosure, the lowpositivity and high negativity of their disclosures elicited undesirable responses from other people (Forest &

Wood, 2012). They tend not to benefit from self-disclosure on social media sites as they tend to post

negative information which is largely ignored by their peers. When these individuals post positive

information however, it is rewarded by their peers, perhaps in order to encourage this positive behaviour. It

is important to point out that these results from the study by Tamir and Mitchell (2012) gives the impression

that self-disclosure on social media is beneficial for everyone.

Addiction to Social Media

Since the reward system is activated in response to self-disclosure to others, it is also important to

consider the possibility of excessive social media usage within an addiction framework. Many

pharmacological addictions such as illicit drugs, also recruit the mesolimbic dopamine pathway, described

as the reward system above, in order to deliver their effects to the individual (Schultz, 2002). Therefore it is

reasonable to suggest that excessive Facebook usage may result in an addiction being formed. Currently

the only behavioural addiction that is formally recognised as a psychiatric disorder is pathological gambling,

although many researchers are now suggesting that other behavioural addictions should also be consideredsuch as shopping addiction or online addiction ( Andreassen, Torshem, Brunborg & Pallesen, 2012).

Posting to social media has also been considered as a sub-category of online addiction, and this has led to

the recent development and validation of a measure designed to measure Facebook addiction: The Bergen

Facebook Addiction Scale (Andreassen, Torshem, Brunborg & Pallesen, 2012).

AnalysisThis article was published in the Los Angeles Times, a daily newspaper published in Los Angeles, which

between it's printed editions and it's website ( www.latimes.com ) reaches almost five million people

per week. As such its target audience is very broad, including multiple racial groups, a wide range of ages,

both genders and a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. The Los Angeles Times is targeted
http://www.latimes.com/


5/7



primarily towards residents of the west-coast of the United States, however its internet edition is far more

widespread both within and outside of the United States. As social media is so widespread, with an

extensive range of implications including financial, societal or health concerns, it can be assumed that this

specific article is also pitched at a broad audience. This broad audience has several important implications

for how the scientific information is presented.

Perhaps the most significant implication is that highly technical information, which will likely only be

understood by those with specific tertiary level education, should be limited. The article does an excellent

job of pitching information appropriately. It includes enough technical information to represent the study well

and educate the audience, without including so much that the audience will either not understand or will

simply lose interest. Examples of this include correctly identifying specific brain regions associated with

reward, including the nucleus accumbens and the ventral tegmental area. It also correctly mentions intrinsic

rewards such as the sensation of pleasure in the brain that we receive from food or sex. One drawback is

that it does not contrast this type of reward with instrumental rewards as Tamir and Mitchell (2012) do,

which has important theoretical implications. Overall, the article gives a good summary of how the research

was carried out, the most important neural areas involved and the technology used in the study, without

being overly confusing for a broad audience. This information is also articulated in a fairly unbiased manner,

which is often a serious issue with the medias reporting on scientific studies.

Critique on the article

The article states that the researchers have arrived at the answer to why so many of us are compelled to

share our every thought, movement, like and want through social media. This implies that the hypothesis of

human self-disclosure being intrinsically rewarding can completely explain social media. In reality, Tamir

and Mitchell (2012) specifically mention other theories of motivation, such as instrumental rewards, which

may also contribute to the social media phenomenon. While Tamir and Mitchells (2012) hypothesis gives

much more importance to intrinsic over instrumental rewards as motivators of social media behaviour, the

article does not discuss this. Failing to discuss and contrast motivational theories means that the article fails

to educate the audience on a key aspect of the study. Issues related to the publication type such as the

concern of whether a theoretical discussion would be particularly interesting to the readers, as well as the

requirement for brevity that many articles must deal with, likely impacted the decision to not cover this part

of the study. They also mention Harvard, representing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. This is

likely meant to give the study weight in the eyes of the public, who may not understand the technicalities of

scientific publication.

As the previous paragraphs have outlined, the quality of information in the article is high. It is largely in line

with current accepted understandings in neuroscience, and is not overly affected by bias and pitches its

information well, considering its broad audience. It does however make some mistakes, which are likely

caused by the limitations inherent in commercial publications such as the Los Angeles Times. It fails to

contrast the motivational theories of intrinsic rewards versus instrumental ones, which was a key factor in

the study. Overall the article does a very good job and while there are some areas that could be improved

upon, this does not overly detract from the quality of the article.

AppendixAll research was conducted using the PsycINFO database through the UNSW library to search for journal

articles related to self-disclosure and social media. Examples of keywords used include 'Facebook', 'social

media', 'self-disclosure' and various combinations of these. Appropriate articles from peer-reviewed journals

were then downloaded and briefly read, and any relevant to the wiki were used and referenced

appropriately. Some articles were also sourced from the reference lists of other articles that were used.

Based on feedback regarding the clarity of the description of the article and the lack of figures, we added a

summary table of the experiment as well as some result graphs from the paper. This was done in order to

make this section easier to read and understand, as well as more visually engaging.

Feedback regarding subheadings was also acted on, with the neuroscientific context section in particular

featuring multiple subheadings to break up the content and make it easier to navigate. In this section we

also edited the sentence lengts which we were given feedback on. Issues regarding in-text references were

also addressed.

Unfortunately some feedback, especially those regarding further description and explanation, as well as

suggestions for related areas of research that could be discussed were unable to be addressed given the

word limit. However we have tried to discuss more information related to social media usage and possible

addiction elements as we believe these are the most important and closely related areas to the topic of

interest.

ReferencesAmichai-Hamburger, Y. & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human

Behaviour, 26, 1289-1295.


6/7



Andreassen,C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S. & Pallesen S. (2012). Development of a facebook

addiction scale, Psychological Reports, 110 (2), 501-517

Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C. & Egloff, B. (2010). Facebook profiles

reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372-374.

Forest, A. L. & Wood, J. V. (2019). When Social Networking Is Not Working: Individuals With Low Self-

Esteem Recognize but Do Not Reap the Benefits of Self-Disclosure on Facebook. Psychological

Science, 23 (3), 295-302.

Grilly, D. M. & Salamone, J. D. (2012). Drugs, Brain and Behavior (6th) , New York: Pearson

Hernandez, L. & Hoebel, B.G. (1988). Food reward and cocaine increase extracellular dopamine in the

nucleus accumbens as measured by microdialysis, Life Sciences , 42, 1705-1712.

Infographic Labs (2012). Twitter 2012, retrieved 28th August 2012,

http://infographiclabs.com/news/twitter-2012/

Infographic Labs (2012), Facebook 2012, retrieved 28th August 2012,

http://infographiclabs.com/infographic/facebook-2012/

Infographic Labs (2012). Rise of Instagram, retrieved 28th August 2012,

http://infographiclabs.com/infographic/here-comes-instagram/

Kuss, D. J. & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Addiction to social networks on the Internet: a literature review of

empirical research, International Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 8, 3528-3552

Nadkarni, A. & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual

Differences, 52, 243-249.

Netburn, D. (2012). Facebook, Twitter, other social media are brain candy, study says, Los Angeles

Times , retrieved 28th August 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/08/business/la-fi-tn-self-

disclosure-study-20120508

Nguyen, M., Bin, Y.S., Campbell, A. (2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic

review, Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking, 15, 103-111.

Online Marketing Agency (2011). 2011 social media statistics show huge growth,retrieved 28th August

2012, http://www.browsermedia.co.uk/2011/03/30/2011-social-media-statistics-show-huge-growth/

Schultz, W. (2002). Getting formal with dopamine and reward, Neuron, 36, 241-263.

Tamir, D. I. & Mitchell, J. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding,

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (21), 8038-8043

Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z. & Ambady, N. (2009). On being liked on the web and in the real world:

Consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous behaviour. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 573-576.

Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in

anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24, 1816-1836.

Group Details

Jobs:

Research: All

Introduction: Anouk

Context: Phil and Cecilia

Analysis: Michael and Jamie

Appendix: All

Deadlines:

Research: 14th August

Key points/outlines: 31st August

Rough draft: Early - Mid September

Meetings:
http://www.browsermedia.co.uk/2011/03/30/2011-social-media-statistics-show-huge-growth/http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/08/business/la-fi-tn-self-disclosure-study-20120508http://infographiclabs.com/infographic/here-comes-instagram/http://infographiclabs.com/infographic/facebook-2012/http://infographiclabs.com/news/twitter-2012/


7/7



Contributions to http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/ are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 License .

1. Minutes from first meeting: Meeting 1.docx (03/08/12)

Present: Everyone

Planned: 17/08/12 after class

2. Meeting 29/08/2012

We had a group meeting in the library at 4PM to discuss our overall thoughts on the project, since we had

all had a chance to think about it.

We finalized who was doing what and decided on deadlines.

Overall it was an insightful and productive meeting.

Present: All members except Michael (extenuating circumstances)

All subsequent meetings (3 - 4 separate meetings) occurred as brief meetings in or immediately following

classes, or through other forms of communication such as online. We heavily employed facebook as a

means of communication for several of these meetings!
http://neurosciencefundamentals.unsw.wikispaces.net/file/view/Social%20Media%20Meeting%201.docx/356393132/Social%20Media%20Meeting%201.docxhttp://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0

Neuroscience Fundamentals - Facebook, twitter and other social media are 'brain candy'.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Neuroscience Fundamentals - Facebook, twitter and other social media are 'brain candy'.pdf