Procedure: ? Explain what our participants saw or experience ? We obtained inform consent then they answered a series of questions about demographics, basic information about instagram account, uses, and habits then followers up with self esteem and personality, how the order of questions matter to us, the process we wanted participants to go to . The decisions we made Operationzliation: ? talking about different sections (how they’re measured), Likert scale model for last two sections Question for Group: What motives and uses did we write in our lit reviews? Uses and Gratification Theory Application: variables we’re determining? Motivations: ? Entertainment ? Communication ? Information exchange ? Conformity ? Expression ? Social maintenance How often do you use social media applications? Please select which which is more applicable. * Entertainment I use Instagram to follow my friends. Social Maintenance Entertainment Information Exchange I use Instagram to become popular (gain followers) Social Maintenance To see updates of those I follow Social Maintenance Communication Information Exchange Promote self Social Maintenance Expression I became anxious after posting a picture on Instagram Expression I keep checking to see how many likes, comments, or views my post gets Conformity Expression I might delete a post if it doesn’t get enough likes Conformity I ask my friends for help in choosing what to post Conformity I post pictures to appear popular or attractive Social Maintenance I edit/modify my photographs before posting Social Maintenace Expression I compare myself to other people or posts on Instagram Social Maintenance Expression I feel anxious using Instagram sometimes Entertainment Expression I am conscious of my followers to following ratio. Expression Social Maintenance I enjoy using Instagram Entertainment Three references to other methods used in research: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.607948/full ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE Reference: Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Description of Measure: A 10-item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self. The scale is believed to be uni-dimensional. All items are answered using a 4-point Likert scale format ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Abstracts of Selected Related Articles: Gray-Little, B., Williams, V.S.L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 443-451. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a widely used self-report instrument for evaluating individual self-esteem, was investigated using item response theory. Factor analysis identified a single common factor, contrary to some previous studies that extracted separate Self-Confidence and Self-Depreciation factors. A unidimensional model for graded item responses was fit to the data. A model that constrained the 10 items to equal discrimination was contrasted with a model allowing the discriminations to be estimated freely. The test of significance indicated that the unconstrained model better fit the data-that is, the 10 items of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale are not equally discriminating and are differentially related to self-esteem. The pattern of functioning of the items was examined with respect to their content, and observations are offered with implications for validating and developing future personality instruments. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high selfesteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44. Summary — Self-esteem has become a household word. Teachers, parents, therapists, and others have focused efforts on boosting self-esteem, on the assumption that high self-esteem will cause many positive outcomes and benefits— an assumption that is critically evaluated in this review. Appraisal of the effects of self-esteem is complicated by several factors. Because many people with high self-esteem exaggerate their successes and good traits, we emphasize objective measures of outcomes. High self-esteem is also a heterogeneous category, encompassing people who frankly accept their good qualities along with narcissistic, defensive, and conceited individuals. Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Self-Esteem The modest correlations between self-esteem and school performance do not indicate that high self-esteem leads to good performance. Instead, high self-esteem is partly the result of good school performance. Efforts to boost the self-esteem of pupils have not been shown to improve academic performance and may sometimes be counterproductive. Job performance in adults is sometimes related to self-esteem, although the correlations vary widely, and the direction of causality has not been established. Occupational success may boost self-esteem rather than the reverse. Alternatively, self-esteem may be helpful only in some job contexts. Laboratory studies have generally failed to find that self-esteem causes good task performance, with the important exception that high self-esteem facilitates persistence after failure. People high in self-esteem claim to be more likable and attractive, to have better relationships, and to make better impressions on others than people with low selfesteem, but objective measures disconfirm most of these beliefs. Narcissists are charming at first but tend to alienate others eventually. Self-esteem has not been shown to predict the quality or duration of relationships. High self-esteem makes people more willing to speak up in groups and to criticize the group’s approach. Leadership does not stem directly from self-esteem, but selfesteem may have indirect effects. Relative to people with low self-esteem, those with high self-esteem show stronger in-group favoritism, which may increase prejudice and discrimination. Neither high nor low self-esteem is a direct cause of violence. Narcissism leads to increased aggression in retaliation for wounded pride. Low self-esteem may contribute to externalizing behavior and delinquency, although some studies have found that there are no effects or that the effect of self-esteem vanishes when other variables are controlled. The highest and lowest rates of cheating and bullying are found in different subcategories of high self-esteem. Self-esteem has a strong relation to happiness. Although the research has not clearly established causation, we are persuaded that high self-esteem does lead to greater happiness. Low self-esteem is more likely than high to lead to depression under some circumstances. Some studies support the buffer hypothesis, which is that high self-esteem mitigates the effects of stress, but other studies come to the opposite conclusion, indicating that the negative effects of low self-esteem are mainly felt in good times. Still others find that high self-esteem leads to happier outcomes regardless of stress or other circumstances. High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex. If anything, high self-esteem fosters experimentation, which may increase early sexual activity or drinking, but in general effects of self-esteem are negligible. One important exception is that high self-esteem reduces the chances of bulimia in females. Overall, the benefits of high self-esteem fall into two categories: enhanced initiative and pleasant feelings. We have not found evidence that boosting self-esteem (by Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Self-Esteem therapeutic interventions or school programs) causes benefits. Our findings do not support continued widespread efforts to boost self-esteem in the hope that it will by itself foster improved outcomes. In view of the heterogeneity of high self-esteem, indiscriminate praise might just as easily promote narcissism, with its less desirable consequences. Instead, we recommend using praise to boost self-esteem as a reward for socially desirable behavior and self-improvement. Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C. L., & Fiona, D. (2007). The impact of hope, self-esteem, and attributional style on adolescents’ school grades and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study. We examined the distinctiveness of three “positive thinking” variables (self-esteem, trait hope, and positive attributional style) in predicting future high school grades, teacher-rated adjustment, and students’ reports of their affective states. Seven hundred eighty-four high school students (382 males and 394 females; 8 did not indicate their gender) completed Time 1 measures of verbal and numerical ability, positive thinking, and indices of emotional well-being (positive affect, sadness, fear, and hostility), and Time 2 measures of hope, self-esteem, and emotional well-being. Multi-level random coefficient modelling revealed that each positive thinking variable was distinctive in some contexts but not others. Hope was a predictor of positive affect and the best predictor of grades, negative attributional style was the best predictor of increases in hostility and fear, and low self-esteem was the best predictor of increases in sadness. We also found that sadness at Time 1 predicted decreases in self-esteem at Time 2. The results are discussed with reference to the importance of positive thinking for building resilience. Scale: Instructions Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. 1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 2. At times I think I am no good at all. Strongly Agree Agree 3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 6. I certainly feel useless at times. Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Self-Esteem Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 7. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 10. I take a positive attitude toward myself. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Scoring: Items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 are reverse scored. Give “Strongly Disagree” 1 point, “Disagree” 2 points, “Agree” 3 points, and “Strongly Agree” 4 points. Sum scores for all ten items. Keep scores on a continuous scale. Higher scores indicate higher self-esteem. Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Self-Esteem Example from Professor’s article: Method The sample consisted of 633 undergraduate students (56.7% female) from two universities in the United States (one a midsized private university in the Southwest, n = 401, 63.3%; one a large public university in the Southeast, n = 232). Participants were recruited from undergraduate communication courses and received course or extra credit (less than 2% of final course grade) for participating. The majority of the participants were freshmen (45.8%), with sophomores (26.7%), juniors (15.2%), and seniors (12.3%) accounting for the remainder of our participants (we did not directly ask about participant age although most students at these universities are the age of stereotypical college students, that is, between 18 and 24 years). Most self-identified their ethnicity or race as White/Caucasian (84.7%). Procedures Participation in this study consisted of completing an online survey about media use patterns among interpersonal ties (e.g., friends and family). Participants first consented to participate in the study, and then they provided basic demographic information about themselves (e.g., sex, education level). The survey software then randomly assigned participants to report on one of four commonly used communication media: “voice phone calls” (25.8%), “email” (25.0%), “text messaging” (24.0%), or “Facebook status messages” (25.3%). The remainder of the survey consisted of questions about the assigned medium. Because we were interested in the attitudes and perceptions of users and nonusers, we wrote and designed the survey so that it could be completed whether or not the participant actually used the medium (e.g., even those who do not use text messaging may have attitudes toward it, perceive the attitudes of other people toward it, and so forth). Measures Medium enjoyment Following Ledbetter et al. (2016), medium enjoyment was operationalized using the ease/enjoyment dimension of the measure of online communication attitudes (Ledbetter, 2009a). Although this survey instrument was designed to assess attitudes generally across all forms of online communication, the survey has demonstrated reliability and validity in assessing specific communication media (Ledbetter & Kuznekoff, 2012; Ledbetter et al., 2016). A total of six questions addressed the medium assigned to each participant (“I enjoy communicating through [text messaging],” “[Text messaging] is convenient,” “I like that it is easy to get ahold of people through [text messaging],” “When life gets busy, [text messaging] is a great way to communicate efficiently,” “[Text messaging] is a stress-free way to get in touch with someone,” “[Text messaging] is fun”). Reliability for this scale was acceptable (? = .86). We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to examine the fit of the items across medium conditions (see below). Communication competence Adapted from Guerrero’s (1994) General Communication Competence scale, participants responded to five questions about their competence using the assigned medium. This measure is appropriate for this study because the scale items tap both effectiveness (“I have effective social skills when communicating across [email]”) and appropriateness (“My [text messaging] communication is usually appropriate to the situation at hand”). The measure, which was first used in the context of romantic relationships, has been used to assess communication in family contexts (Afifi & Schrodt, 2003), and has also been used when investigating online communication attitudes (Ledbetter, 2009a). The scale was anchored using 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. We dropped one reverse-coded item from this scale to increase internal reliability (? = .82). Social influence Informed by Fulk (1993), we utilized two different scales to understand the impact of social networks on media choice. First, participants reported on the social influence from their friends. Second, the social influence of family was assessed. Six questions each evaluated social influence of both types of relationships: “My [friends/family] enjoy communicating through [Facebook],” “My [friends/family] think [text messaging] is inconvenient” (reverse-coded), “[Email] is popular among my [friends/family],” “My [friends/family] have a negative attitude toward [text messaging]” (reverse-coded), “My [friends/family] think using [voice phone calls] creates a positive social impression,” and “My [friends/family] think it is important to keep in touch using [email].” All responses were gathered on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). After dropping reverse-coded items, both the friend (? = .87) and family (? = .87) scales demonstrated satisfactory internal reliability. Miscommunication The miscommunication subscale of Ledbetter’s (2009a) measure of online communication attitudes was used to assess participants’ belief that the assigned medium causes communication error. Participants responded to a series of five questions about their specific medium (e.g., “Miscommunication occurs frequently through [Facebook]”). Participants were asked to respond a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). As in Ledbetter (2009a), this scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (? = .84). Medium use frequency We adapted Ledbetter’s (2009b) measure to assess how often participants used their assigned medium. This measure assesses media use based on overall perceived frequency rather than more concrete measures (e.g., number of minutes or messages per day) and thus serves as an effective measure for comparing across media with disparate affordances. A 6-point Likert-type scale was used to collect responses (1 = never, 2 = very rarely, 6 = very frequently) regarding frequency of communication through “email,” “voice telephone,” “phone text messaging,” and “publicly via social networking websites (such as a Facebook status message).” Given the interpersonal scope of MET, participants were instructed to indicate how often you use each of the following communication media for social purposes. In other words, please think about how often you use these media to communicate with family, close friends, and/or a romantic partner, and do not consider use for school- or work-related purposes. Confirmatory Factor Analysis As Krishnan and Hunt (2015) noted, although Ledbetter (2009a) has contended that medium-relevant attitudes generalize across media, this has received minimal empirical testing. Thus, to evaluate the suitability of measuring our constructs across media, we submitted all constructs to multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Each item served as an indicator for its relevant latent construct. After freeing one correlated residual within the enjoyment construct, the configural model demonstrated adequate fit across groups, ?2(1220) = 2,105.33, p < .05, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .98, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .068 (90% confidence interval [CI] = [.063, .073]), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .078. We then imposed constraints for weak (i.e., equality of indicator loadings) and strong (i.e., equality of indicator means) metric invariance across groups, evaluating change in fit via the RMSEA difference test. This test evaluates whether the RMSEA of the constrained model does not exceed the 90% CI of the less constrained model, and is preferable to chi-square tests because they are overly conservative when establishing measurement invariance (Little, 1997). These tests demonstrated that weak metric invariance was tenable, RMSEA = .069 (90% CI = [.064, .073]); however, the initial test of strong metric invariance failed, RMSEA = .076 (90% CI = [.072, .081]). Inspection of the model indicated that constraining intercepts for enjoyment, miscommunication, and communication competence produced a model that passed the RMSEA difference test, RMSEA = .072 (90% CI = [.068, .077]); in other words, the source of the misfit seemed to rest in the friend and family influence constructs. These results suggest that the constructs are generally comparable across communication media although future research might investigate potential differences across media for processes of social influence. Purchase answer to see full attachment Explanation & Answer: 5 pages Tags: ethical implications target population Operationalization of Variables User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.