Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0801-6

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Social Media Social Comparison of Ability (but not Opinion) Predicts

Lower Identity Clarity: Identity Processing Style as a Mediator
Chia-chen Yang1 Sean M. Holden2 Mollie D.K. Carter3
● ●

Received: 30 November 2017 / Accepted: 19 December 2017 / Published online: 11 January 2018
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Social comparison on social media has received increasing attention, but most research has focused on one type of social
comparison and its psycho-emotional implications. Little is known about how different types of social comparison influence
youth’s identity development. Drawing on the theories of identity processing styles and social comparison, we examined
how two different forms of social comparison on social media related to three identity processing styles, which in turn
predicted youth’s global self-esteem and identity clarity. We surveyed 219 college freshmen (Mage = 18.29; 74% female)
once in the Fall and once in the Spring. Social comparison of ability on social media was related to concurrent diffuse-
1234567890();,:

avoidant identity processing style, which predicted lower identity clarity months later. In contrast, social comparison of
opinion on social media did not influence college freshmen’s global self-esteem and identity clarity through identity
processing styles. The findings clarified the implications of online social comparison for youth’s identity development.
Keywords Social media Social comparison Identity processing styles Identity Self-esteem Emerging adult
● ● ● ● ●

Introduction
Social comparison, the process of comparing oneself with
others, takes two forms (Festinger 1954). Social comparison
of ability, which entails comparison of achievement and
performance broadly defined, is inherently judgmental and
competitive. It centers on determining how well one is doing,
relative to others (Festinger 1954; Gibbons and Buunk 1999;
Suls et al. 2002). A common example is students comparing
their grades with others’ as a way to assess their own aca-
demic performance. Social comparison of opinion, which
includes comparison of thoughts, attitudes, values, and
beliefs, is usually free from the competitive and judgmental
characteristics embedded in social comparison of ability
(Festinger 1954; Suls et al. 2000). The goal of opinion
comparison is not to distinguish the better from the worse,
* Chia-chen Yang
cyang2@memphis.edu
1
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research,
University of Memphis, 303D Ball Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA
2 identity, others suggest that such differentiation is artificial (see a
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research
& Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of
Memphis, 318 Browning Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA
3
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research,
University of Memphis, 100 Ball Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA
but to learn about facts and social norms, construct or modify
one’s own value systems, and regulate behaviors (Festinger
1954; Suls et al. 2000). For instance, when people face
problems, they often engage in social comparison of opinion
to explore what others would do in a similar situation.
The process of social comparison is particularly relevant
in the digital age as social media platforms (e.g., Facebook,
Instagram, etc.) allow users to easily access others’ daily
updates, providing rich opportunities for social comparison.
Although scholars have started studying the implications of
social media social comparison, existing literature has
several limitations. First, despite the growing literature on
the negative relationship between online social comparison
and various psycho-emotional outcomes (de Vries and
Kühne 2015; Feinstein et al. 2013; Lee 2014; Lim and Yang
2015; Vogel et al. 2014; Weinstein 2017), most research
focuses on the judgmental form of comparison, and thus
little is known about social comparison of opinion on social
media. Second, the implications of social media social
comparison for youth’s identity development1 remain
1
Although some scholars emphasize the distinction between self and
review in Vignoles et al. 2011). In this study, we use the terms of “self”
and “identity” interchangeably, both referring to a person’s organized
knowledge related to himself or herself (e.g., traits, beliefs, values,
worth, etc.; Berzonsky 2011; Campbell et al. 1996; Erikson 1968;
Rosenberg et al. 1989).
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
largely unexamined. Identity development is a central
developmental task for adolescents and emerging adults
(Arnett 2014; Erikson 1968), who are among the major
users of social media (Greenwood et al. 2016; Lenhart
2015). Self-esteem and identity clarity represent two
important dimensions of identity development (Campbell
et al. 1996; Erikson 1968; Heppner and Kernis 2011), both
of which have crucial psychosocial implications, such as
better interpersonal relationships, better mental health,
lower levels of rumination, and fewer depressive symptoms
(Campbell et al. 1996; Heppner and Kernis 2011; Luychx
et al. 2007; Trzesniewski et al. 2013). Although existing
literature has revealed the relationship between social
comparison and poor self-assessment (de Vries and Kühne
2015; Vogel et al. 2014), there is virtually no research on
how social media social comparison associates with youth’s
identity clarity. Further, the identity processes through
which social comparison may influence youth’s global self-
esteem and identity clarity remain unclear.
Drawing on the theory of identity processing styles
(Berzonsky 1990, 2011) and literature of social com-
parison, we aimed to shed light on these gaps through this
research. We sampled college freshmen because identity
development and social comparison may be particularly
important to this group. Emerging adults transitioning to
college are presented with opportunities to negotiate and (re)
construct identity. Part of this process may involve evaluation
of one’s abilities and values, which can be conducted through
social comparison. We administered a short-term long-
itudinal survey study, in which we tested a path model where
the associations between the two types of social media social
comparison and two identity variables (global self-esteem
and identity clarity) were examined, with three identity pro-
cessing styles (Berzonsky 1990, 2011) being potential
mediators.
Identity Processing Styles
Identity processing theory (Berzonsky 1988) provides a
social-cognitive reconception of Marcia’s (1966) identity
status paradigm. Within this theory, individuals are viewed as
self-theorists who make sense of themselves and their
environment through the ongoing processing of information
gained through experience (Berzonsky 1993). Inciting this
framework is the notion that identity exploration and com-
mitment are often confounded within statuses, thereby pre-
venting clear understanding of how individuals cognitively
handle identity information (Berzonsky et al. 2013). By
looking beyond such statuses, attention is redirected onto the
processes underlying identity formation and revision to focus
on the strategies employed to engage with or avoid identity
information (Berzonsky 2011). Specifically, this framework
takes the stance that individuals process self-referent
2115
information and traverse identity crises/conflicts through
either information seeking and rational analysis, normative
assimilation, or avoidance and procrastination (Berzonsky
and Barclay 1981; Berzonsky 2011).
Corresponding with these differences in processing, three
identity processing styles have been noted: informational,
normative, and diffuse-avoidant (Berzonsky 1990, 2011).
The informational processing style encompasses a deliberate,
iterative, and integrative stance toward identity formation and
conflict, with one actively seeking out and analyzing relevant
information as well as openly challenging and revising self-
perceptions when faced with dissonant feedback (Berzonsky
et al. 2013). In contrast, normative identity processing
involves automatized assimilation of identity information,
internalization of externally derived identity components
(e.g., goals and values from a certain group), and preserva-
tion of self-conceptions despite dissonant information (Ber-
zonsky et al. 2013). While both styles involve engaging with
identity, the important difference is in the level of active,
conscious engagement and internal versus external focus.
This divide is further displayed in the relations of each
construct, where informational processing is associated with
using intrinsic, self-developed values and goals to inform
overall identity, while normative processing is associated
with using external, collective self-characteristics (Berzonsky
et al. 2011; Duriez et al. 2012).
Finally, unlike the previous two styles, diffuse-avoidant
processing involves distancing oneself from identity infor-
mation, conflicts, and decisions. Thus, one cognitively
avoids conscious processing of identity matters, shifting
attention away from meaningful life decisions, evading self-
feedback, and perpetually accommodating to situational
factors (Berzonsky et al. 2013). Further, this avoidance
serves as a way to protect the self from negative feedback
while reducing individual contemplation in favor of relying
on social sources of positive feedback, such as popularity
and reputation, to inform one’s sense of self (Berzonsky
et al. 2011; Duriez et al. 2012).
By late adolescence, almost all individuals have the
capacity to utilize all three types of strategies, although they
vary in their preference toward each approach (Berzonsky
2011). The preference for and deployment of the identity
processing strategies are not static, but are influenced by
both motivational and situational factors. Whereas scholars
have explored how motivational variables (e.g., need for
cognition, need for self-knowledge) contribute to one’s
identity processing styles (Berzonsky 2011), there remains
little information regarding how situational or contextual
conditions and processes facilitate or hinder the use of these
styles. In this study, we conceptualized social comparison
on social media as a situational/contextual factor that would
associate with youth’s choice of identity processing style,
which in turn would influence their global self-esteem and
2116
identity clarity. Below, we review how identity processing
styles would/should relate to the identity outcomes and
online social comparison.
Identity Processing Styles and Identity Development
Self-esteem and identity construction have been theorized to
associate in different manners. Self-esteem can play the role
of an identity motive (Heppner and Kernis 2011), an identity
outcome (Heppner and Kernis 2011), or a parallel correlate
of identity clarity (Campbell et al. 1996). In this study, we
took the last, parallel perspective. Global self-esteem con-
cerns evaluation of the identity content, reflecting an indivi-
dual’s overarching sense of self-worth (Campbell et al. 1996;
Rosenberg et al. 1989). Identity clarity regards organization
of the identity structure, denoting the extent to which an
individual has fashioned multiple identities, values, and goals
into a coordinated sense of self (Campbell et al. 1996; Harter
2012; Erikson 1968).
For emerging adults, the life transition into college
may bring particular salience to self-esteem and identity
clarity. Specifically, though individuals often experience
developmental trajectories of increasing self-esteem
(Erol and Orth 2011; Galambos et al. 2006; Orth et al.
2015) and greater identity integration (Harter 2012) from
adolescence to adulthood, these positive trends may be
disrupted by the transition to college. For instance, findings
show significant decreases in global self-esteem in the first
semester at college (Chung et al. 2014). Likewise, identity
clarity appears in simultaneous disarray (Kroger et al.
2010), with students often reporting feeling lost, unac-
knowledged, and without place (Chow and Healey 2008;
Scanlon et al. 2007).
Given such salience of self-esteem and identity clarity at
the college transition, it is crucial to investigate how they
are informed by identity processing styles. Theoretically,
individuals using the informational style should display
higher global self-esteem and identity clarity. These people
are openly and proactively engaged with identity concerns
and likely to engage in problem-focused reconciliation of
self-conflicts that may otherwise undermine feelings of self-
worth (Berzonsky 2011). Further, they are inclined toward
self-reflecting, learning about themselves, and adapting to
dissonant identity feedback, allowing them to develop a
clear, integrated, and committed sense of self (Berzonsky
2011). In contrast, those adopting the diffuse-avoidant style
tend to rely on unstable, situational identity components
(Berzonsky and Adams 1999), leaving a limited footing
from which to coordinate identity components and prohi-
biting identity integration. Lack of control over these
external identity components can also lead to a low sense of
agency and thus low self-esteem (Erol and Orth 2011;
Wojciszke et al. 2011).
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
Empirical findings generally support these propositions.
The informational processing style is more adaptive than the
diffuse-avoidant style (Phillips and Pittman 2007), with the
former often associated with higher and the latter with lower
self-esteem (Crocetti et al. 2009; Eryigit and Kerpelman
2009; Soenens et al. 2011, 2016). The styles have also been
examined in reference to identity clarity and other related
constructs, such as self-concept clarity, identity integration,
and identity commitment2. The informational processing
style is often related to higher and the diffuse-avoidant style
to lower levels of commitment (Berzonsky 2003; Crocetti
et al. 2009; Johnson and Nozick 2011; Luychx et al. 2007;
Soenens et al. 2011, 2016) and self-concept clarity (Eryigit
and Kerpelman 2009).
The implications of the normative style for identity
development seem less conclusive. From the theoretical
perspective, people adopting the normative style “internalize
and adhere to goals, values, and prescriptions appropriated
from significant others and referent groups” (Berzonsky
2011, p. 59) and thus may be viewed positively by these
significant individuals or communities. The positive per-
ceptions from others can contribute to higher global self-
esteem (Harter 2012). Identity validation may be quite
accessible to these people, which, along with the tendency
toward identity preservation (Berzonsky 1999, 2011; Soe-
nens et al. 2005), can lead to a clear and committed sense of
self. However, empirical findings do not always support
these propositions. While the style had a positive associa-
tion with self-esteem, identity commitment, or identity
integration in some reports (Crocetti et al. 2009; Luychx
et al. 2007; Passmore et al. 2005; Soenens et al. 2011,
2016), it did not relate to identity development in others
(Crocetti et al. 2009; Eryigit and Kerpelman 2009; Soenens
et al. 2016).
Social Media Social Comparison and Identity
Processing Styles
Festinger (1954) posits that individuals have the need to
evaluate themselves, and in the conditions where objective
criteria for evaluation are unavailable, people compare
themselves with others. This process is referred to as social
comparison. In order to achieve accurate self-evaluation,
people often compare themselves with those who seem to
be similar. Festinger’s theory focuses on two types of social
comparison: ability and opinion.
The nature of the two types of social comparison differs
(Gibbons and Buunk 1999). Social comparison of ability is
2
Identity clarity, identity integration, and self-concept clarity can be
considered synonymous, as they primarily vary semantically in terms
of the intended breadth of focus (Campbell et al. 1996). These con-
structs also overlap with identity commitment to a large degree
(Crocetti et al. 2016).
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
competition-oriented, and the goal is to determine super-
iority versus inferiority (Festinger 1954). When individuals
see themselves fall behind others in an ability, the resolution
is to improve their own ability, usually through non-social
processes such as practicing (Festinger 1954). On the other
hand, social comparison of opinion focuses on information
collection as a way to learn about the context and the self
(Suls et al. 2000). The goal of this information-oriented
comparison is to make informed decisions rather than
judgments. When individuals observe differences in opi-
nions, they take social approaches, such as discussion and
persuasion, to reduce the opinion gaps (Festinger 1954). In
their review of Festinger’s work, Park and Baek (2018)
argue that in social comparison of ability people view
comparison targets as competitors, whereas in social com-
parison of opinion individuals see comparison targets as
role models, consultants, or informants.
Social media provide a unique context for social com-
parison. With hundreds of social media friends sharing their
life updates, social media users have almost limitless
materials for social comparison. They can compare them-
selves with a large number of people, including those who
are geographically distant, whenever they have access to the
platforms. However, information shared on social media
does not reflect the full spectrum of users’ lives. Most users
strategically present highly polished and socially desirable
images through selective self-presentation (Gardner and
Davis 2013; Yang and Brown 2016).
The easy access to other users’ selective self-presentation
makes social media a convenient channel for social com-
parison of ability, broadly defined. Scholars have explored
the judgmental form of social media social comparison by
studying comparison of competence, social skills, social
connectedness, popularity, and whether others are doing
better or worse in general (e.g., de Vries and Kühne 2015;
Feinstein et al. 2013; Stapleton et al. 2017; Vogel et al.
2014). Alarmingly, the practice is associated with low self-
esteem (Stapleton et al. 2017; Vogel et al. 2014), negative
self-perceptions (de Vries and Kühne 2015), poor mental
health (Feinstein et al. 2013; Jang et al. 2016), and low
affective well-being (Lim and Yang 2015; Weinstein 2017).
The findings are concerning but unsurprising. After all,
people perform more upward social comparison than
downward comparison on social media, meaning they often
compare themselves with superior others rather than inferior
others (Vogel et al. 2014). Such comparison can associate
with poor well-being by triggering rumination and negative
interpersonal emotions (Feinstein et al. 2013; Lim and Yang
2015).
In contrast to the rich literature on social media social
comparison of ability, there is only one study on social
media social comparison of opinion. Park and Baek (2018)
found that people who were inclined to perform social
2117
comparison of opinion on Facebook experienced less
upward contrastive emotions, such as depression and envy,
and thus reported higher satisfaction with life. On the
contrary, those inclined to engage in social comparison of
ability on Facebook reported higher levels of these emo-
tions, and thus lower life satisfaction. The findings showed
that the two types of social comparison had opposite
implications for psycho-emotional well-being.
The imbalanced attention to the two types of social
comparison is a missed opportunity, especially for emerging
adults who are transitioning into college and are eager to
reclaim their identity in the new environment. Social com-
parison is a major mechanism to self-knowledge (Harter
2012). While most research focuses on social comparison of
ability, social comparison of opinion may serve as an
important venue to clarify or challenge one’s own beliefs,
attitudes, and values, all of which are crucial components of
identity. In fact, both forms of social comparison may play a
part in college youth’s identity negotiation, assisting one in
knowing where to position herself/himself in the new
environment. Emerging adults are avid social media users
(Greenwood et al. 2016) and they are likely to perform both
types of social comparison when accessing social media
platforms. It is thus important to explore the identity
implications of both types of social comparison.
Specifically, the two types of social comparison may
indirectly contribute to college youth’s global self-esteem
and identity clarity by prompting adoption of different
identity processing styles. For instance, comparing one’s
ability and opinion with others’ on social media may both
relate to adoption of the informational style—the informa-
tion gleaned from online social comparison and the
accompanying self-assessment may prompt individuals to
actively explore, analyze, and make sense of their identity.
At the same time, social comparison (particularly that of
ability) on social media may also relate to subscription to
the diffuse-avoidant style. Because judgmental social
comparison on social media contributes to negative emo-
tional reactions and poor self-perceptions (de Vries and
Kühne 2015; Feinstein et al. 2013; Lee 2014; Lim and Yang
2015; Vogel et al. 2014; Weinstein 2017), such online
social comparison may urge youth to turn to the diffuse-
avoidant style and delay consideration for identity-related
issues as a way to protect their self-images. In contrast, the
normative style is related to following significant referent
others’ expectations and values (Berzonsky 1990, 2011).
Given peer norms can be easily enacted and observed on
social media (Chua and Chang 2016; Manago et al. 2008;
Sherman et al. 2016), online social comparison (particularly
that of opinion) may bring to users’ awareness salient norms
and thus activate the normative style. These possibilities,
however, have not been empirically examined.
2118
Fig. 1 Hypothesized model. SMSC-Ab = social media social com-
parison of ability, SMSC-Op = social media social comparison of
opinion
Current Study
Our major goal was to investigate how the two forms of
social comparison on social media related to the three
identity processing styles, which in turn predicted college
freshmen’s global self-esteem and identity clarity (Fig. 1).
Although there is theoretical reason to believe that social
comparison of ability and opinion may have differential
relations with identity processing styles, there is a lack of
empirical evidence from which to hypothesize these rela-
tions. Therefore, we posited the following research ques-
tions: how would social media social comparison of ability
(Research Question 1a) and that of opinion (Research
Question 1b) each associate with the identity processing
styles? Regarding the relationships between identity pro-
cessing styles and identity outcomes, the consistency
between empirical results and theoretical propositions for
the informational and diffuse-avoidant styles allowed us to
formulate hypotheses for the paths involving them. Speci-
fically, we hypothesized that the informational style would
relate to higher global self-esteem and identity clarity
(Hypothesis 2a), while the diffuse-avoidant style would
relate to lower levels of both (Hypothesis 2b). For the
normative processing style, we refrained from hypothesiz-
ing any relationships due to inconsistent empirical evidence
in this area. Instead, we opted to raise the question: how
would the normative style relate to global self-esteem and
identity clarity (Research Question 2)?
Although we believed the hypothesized directionality
was theoretically sound, we also recognized the possibility
of the reverse paths. For instance, empirically, global self-
esteem can influence the identity processing styles (Soenens
et al. 2016), and the styles may predict youth’s engagement
in online social comparison (e.g., those who adopt the
informational style tend to actively seek out identity-related
information, and thus they may perform more social com-
parison of opinion as a way to explore their own thoughts
and values). To examine these directionalities and to control
for the Time 1 score of the outcome variables, we included
in the model four Time 1 independent variables (social
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
media social comparison of ability, social media social
comparison of opinion, global self-esteem, identity clarity)
and four Time 2 outcome variables (social media social
comparison of ability, social media social comparison of
opinion, global self-esteem, identity clarity), with the three
Time 1 identity processing styles being the mediators (see
Fig. 2).
Methods
Participants
The research was conducted at a U.S. university in the mid-
south. At the beginning of the Fall semester (T1), research
information was announced via e-mail to a random sample
of freshmen and face-to-face in various courses enrolling a
high percentage of first-year students. Interested students
filled out an online survey after informed consent, and were
invited to complete a follow-up survey in the following
Spring semester (T2). As part of the research requirement,
all participants had to use social media at least once a week.
The study had been approved by the institutional review
board. Participants received a small amount of monetary
incentive or course credits for their participation.
A total of 219 college freshmen (Mage = 18.29, S.D.
= .75; 74% female; 41% White, 38% Black) completed the
first survey, and 136 of them also completed the second
questionnaire (Mage = 18.24, S.D. = .65; 74% female; 45%
White, 37% Black). Compared with the university freshman
population (54% female; 47% White, 36% Black), female
students were overrepresented but the ethnic distributions
Fig. 2 The path model. SMSC-Ab = social media social comparison
of ability, SMSC-Op = social media social comparison of opinion.
The lines represent significant paths. Three indirect paths were sig-
nificant: T1 SMSC-Ab → T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 identity clarity; T1
identity clarity → T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 self-esteem, T1 identity
clarity → T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 identity clarity. Numbers are stan-
dardized coefficients. For the clarity of presentation, controlled paths
are excluded. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
were similar. When asked which social media platform they
used most often, 35% (T1) and 37% (T2) of the participants
selected Instagram from a pull-down menu; 27% (T1) and
25% (T2) chose Facebook; 20% (T1) and 19% (T2) selected
Twitter. Among those who chose “Other,” 78% (or 14% of
the full sample at T1) and 69% (or 13% of the full sample at
T2) nominated Snapchat as their most frequented social
media channel. Attrition of the 83 participants (38% of the
T1 sample) was neither related to age, t(217) = 1.44, p
= .15, gender, χ2 (1) = .04, p = .85, race/ethnicity, χ2 (2) =
2.53, p = .28, nor platform preference, χ2 (3) = 2.06, p
= .56. Independent t tests suggested no difference in the
focal variables between those who completed both surveys
and those who only participated at T1 (ps = .10 to .95).
Little’s (1988) missing completely at random test indicated
that the data were missing completely at random, χ2 (23) =
23.04, p = .46.
Measures
The data of this report were collected as part of a long
survey study. To reduce participants’ burden, we shortened
some scales by removing the items that had lower factor
loadings as reported by the scale designers or based on the
results of our pilot study.
Social media social comparison (SMSC)
Nine items of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orienta-
tion Measure (INCOM; Gibbons and Buunk 1999) were
adapted to measure social comparison activities on social
media. Although the scale was originally designed to
measure an “orientation,” given the significant correlation
between the orientation and actual online social comparison
behavior (Lee 2014), the scale can serve as a proper mea-
sure of online social comparison activities after modifica-
tion (see Cramer et al. 2016 for a similar approach).
We added “when using social media” or “on social media”
to each item, and reworded the item “I’m not the type of
person who compares often with others” to avoid the sole
emphasis on social comparison as a personality trait. Par-
ticipants were instructed to consider the extent to which
they compared themselves with other people when using
social media and indicate how well each statement applied
to them on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at All, 5 = Very
Well). Results of a confirmatory factor analysis confirmed
the two-factor structure identified by Gibbons and Buunk
(1999). A sample item of the social media social compar-
ison of ability (SMSC-Ability) scale was “On social media,
I compare what I have done with others as a way to find out
how well I have done something.” A sample item of the
social media social comparison of opinion (SMSC-Opinion)
scale was “On social media, I try to know what others in a
2119
similar situation would do.” Gibbons and Buunk avoided
the word “compare” in the Opinion subscale, likely because
the term can prompt respondents to consider the judgmental
form of comparison. Instead, in the Opinion subscale,
Gibbons and Buunk used the verbs such as “find out” and
“know” to capture the information orientation of this form of
social comparison. See the Appendix for the final items,
factor loadings, and model fit indices. Both the SMSC-
Ability (5 items; αT1 = .84, αT2 = .84) and SMSC-Opinion
(4 items; αT1 = .87, αT2 = .86) scales had good reliability.
The αs of our sample were between those reported by other
scholars (e.g., Park and Baek 2018; αability = .92, αopinion
= .72). Higher mean scores reflected higher engagement in
the given type of social comparison on social media.
Identity processing styles
The Revised Identity Style Inventory (ISI-5; Berzonsky
et al. 2013) was administered at T1 to measure the three
identity processing styles: the informational, normative, and
diffuse-avoidant styles. As indicated in other studies, the
scale had good reliability: αinformational = .73–.86, αnormative
= .71–.82; αdiffuse-avoidant = .71–.89 (Berzonsky et al. 2013;
Soenens et al. 2016). Participants indicated how much they
agreed with the statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Sample items
included “When making important decisions, I like to have
as much information as possible” (Informational; 6 items; α
= .90), “I automatically adopt and follow the values I was
brought up with” (Normative; 5 items; α = .79), and “When
personal problems arise, I try to delay acting as long as
possible” (Diffuse-Avoidant; 6 items; α = .84).
Global self-esteem
We used the six-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (6-item RSES; Rosenberg et al. 1989, 1995).
Research using 6 similar (though not identical) items
reported good reliability (Richardson et al. 2009; α = .84).
Participants responded to the questions on a 4-piont Likert
scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4 = Strongly Agree). A higher
mean score reflected more self-acceptance, self-respect, and
more positive self-evaluation (αT1 = .86, αT2 = .86). “I take
a positive attitude toward myself” was a sample item.
Identity clarity
Six items from the Identity subscale of the Erikson Psy-
chosocial Stage Inventory (EPSI; Rosenthal et al. 1981)
were used. Good reliability was reported for this 5-piont
Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) in
other research (e.g., Markstrom and Kalmanir 2001;
Schwartz et al. 2009; αs = .83–.89) as well as in our study
2120 Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations of major variables

Mean (S.D.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1. SMSC-Ab T1 (5-pt) 2.91 (1.05)

2. SMSC-Ab T2 (5-pt) 2.89 (1.04) .60***
3. SMSC-Op T1 (5-pt) 2.80 (1.11) .38*** .35***
4. SMSC-Op T2 (5-pt) 2.89 (1.04) .32*** .48*** .60***
5. Self-esteem T1 (4-pt) 3.17 (.69) −.14* −.16 .01 .01
6. Self-esteem T2 (4-pt) 3.16 (.69) −.12 −.24** −.02 −.04 .70***
7. Identity clarity T1 (5-pt) 3.53 (.86) −.23*** −.23** −.08 −.03 .60*** .46***
8. Identity clarity T2 (5-pt) 3.53 (.83) −.32*** −.49*** −.16 −.19* .54*** .62*** .66***
9. Info T1 (5-pt) 4.00 (.74) .12 .19* .18** .19* .30*** .27** .19** .09
10. Normative T1 (5-pt) 2.55 (.81) .13 .13 .06 .23** .07 −.10 .11 .02 −.07
11. DA T1 (5-pt) 2.75 (.89) .33*** .29** .22** .20* −.37*** −.47*** −.52*** −.59*** −.15* .14*

SMSC-Ab = social media social comparison of ability, SMSC-Op = social media social comparison of opinion, Info = informational identity
processing style, DA = diffuse-avoidant identity processing style
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

(αT1 = .82, αT2 = .83). A higher mean score reflected a
clearer sense of identity. “I know what kind of person I am”
was a sample item.
Data Analysis
We used Mplus to test our hypothesized model, with
maximum likelihood robust (MLR) being the estimator. We
controlled for the effects of gender, race/ethnicity, age, and
self-reported amount of social media use on all mediators
and outcome variables. All the four T2 outcome variables
were set to allow the error terms to covary, and so were the
three T1 mediators. We accepted models whose compara-
tive fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) were
close to or greater than .95 (Hu and Bentler 1999), coupled
with a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
being smaller than .08 (Browne and Cudeck 1993).
Results
For the descriptive statistics and correlations of the major
variables, see Table 1.
The model fit was good: χ2 (12) = 14.32, p = .28; CFI
= .995; TLI = .968; RMSEA = .030, 90% CI [.000–.078].
Path coefficients are available in Table 2. RQ1a explored
the relationships between SMSC-Ability and the identity
processing styles. T1 SMSC-Ability was positively asso-
ciated with T1 normative and diffuse-avoidant styles, but
not the informational style; T2 SMSC-Ability was predicted
by T1 diffuse-avoidant style, but not the other two styles.
RQ1b explored the relationships between SMSC-Opinion
and the identity processing styles. T1 SMSC-Opinion was
associated with higher concurrent informational style, but
not the other two styles; T2 SMSC-Opinion was predicted
by T1 informational and normative styles, but not by T1
diffuse-avoidant style. H2a (the informational style would
relate to higher global self-esteem and identity clarity) was
partially supported: T1 global self-esteem, but not identity
clarity, was related to higher concurrent informational style;
T1 informational style did not predict T2 global self-esteem
nor identity clarity. H2b (the diffuse-avoidant style would
relate to lower global self-esteem and identity clarity) was
also partially supported: T1 identity clarity, but not global
self-esteem, was associated with lower concurrent diffuse-
avoidant style; T1 diffuse-avoidant style predicted lower T2
global self-esteem and identity clarity. For RQ2 (how the
normative style would relate to global self-esteem and
identity clarity), T1 normative style was not associated with
concurrent global self-esteem or identity clarity, nor did it
predict the two identity outcomes at T2. See Fig. 2.
For the indirect paths, the coefficients were calculated by
multiplying the coefficients of the direct paths involved in
the route. We were most interested in whether SMSC pre-
dicted the identity outcomes via identity processing styles
and vice versa. Only one such path was significant: T1
SMSC-Ability predicted lower T2 identity clarity through
its association with higher T1 diffuse-avoidant style. There
were, however, three indirect paths having a p value
between .05 and .10 (ps = .056 to .080), and two of them
involved the diffuse-avoidant style: T1 SMSC-Ability had a
positive concurrent association with the diffuse-avoidant
style, and the style predicted lower T2 self-esteem; T1
identity clarity was associated with lower diffuse-avoidant
style concurrently, and the style predicted higher T2 SMSC-
Ability. In contrast, T1 self-esteem had a positive
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
relationship with T1 informational style, and the style pre-
dicted higher T2 SMSC-Opinion. See Table 2 for all direct
paths of interest, significant indirect paths, and significant
controlled paths.
Discussion
In this study, we explored the short-term longitudinal asso-
ciations between social media social comparison and college
freshmen’s identity states, with the identity processing styles
being potential mediators. Social comparison of ability and
social comparison of opinion are two forms of comparison
serving different purposes; the former is a judgement of
performance and centers on competition, whereas the latter
provides information on how to manage values and behaviors
(Festinger 1954; Gibbons and Buunk 1999; Suls et al. 2002).
As most existing research focused on the judgmental form of
online social comparison and its association with psycho-
emotional well-being (e.g., de Vries and Kühne 2015;
Feinstein et al. 2013; Vogel et al. 2014), our goal was to
expand the literature by attending to both forms of compar-
ison and their identity implications among young emerging
adults. Overall, our results confirmed that the two types of
social comparison were distinguished processes, generating
different direct and indirect associations with identity pro-
cessing styles, global self-esteem, and identity clarity, and
only social comparison of ability on social media indirectly
predicted lower identity clarity. In the following sections, we
start by introducing the direct paths between social media
social comparison and identity processing styles to reveal the
differences between the two types of social comparison.
Then we comment on the indirect paths, followed by dis-
cussions of implications and limitations.
Social Media Social Comparison and Identity
Processing Styles
Social media social comparison of ability was associated
with higher concurrent diffuse-avoidant style; the style then
predicted higher social comparison of ability. On the other
hand, social media social comparison of opinion was
associated with higher concurrent information style; the
style then predicted higher social comparison of opinion.
Although neither indirect effect was significant, the direct
paths clearly revealed the differentiated implications of the
two types of social comparison. Given the informational
style is characterized by proactive search and analysis of
information that could inform one’s sense of self (Ber-
zonsky 2011; Berzonsky et al. 2013), it should not be sur-
prising that the adoption of this style would associate with
the type of social comparison involving learning about
others’ thoughts, values, and beliefs (Festinger 1954; Suls
2121
et al. 2000). In contrast, the defining feature of social
comparison of ability is competition (Festinger, 1954; Park
and Baek 2018). Presenting oneself as popular, well-roun-
ded, and physically attractive is among the major goals of
youth’s social media self-presentation (Chua and Chang
2016; Manago et al. 2008; Zhao et al. 2008). As most users
strive to fulfill the goal by delivering a selectively positive
image (Gardner and Davis 2013; Yang and Brown 2016),
social media are turned into a convenient channel for
upward social comparison (Vogel et al. 2014) where the
comparers easily experience negative emotions, such as
depression, envy, and shame (Feinstein et al. 2013; Lim and
Yang 2015; Park and Baek 2018). Individuals may adopt
the diffuse-avoidant style after engagement in online social
comparison of ability to escape from the self-threatening
information. At the same time, however, adoption of the
diffuse-avoidant style, which relates to the desire for
immediate rewards (Berzonsky 2011), may encourage
individuals to perform more of such comparison to develop
a transient image that would impress others.
Social comparison of ability on social media was also
associated with higher concurrent engagement in the nor-
mative style. This style, as the diffuse-avoidant style, may
serve as a coping mechanism when social comparison of
ability results in threats to the self. Adopting this style,
people can ignore irreconcilable information (e.g., “I am
inferior to my friends” versus “I am a person of worth”),
hold on to the identity prescribed by significant others, and
thus preserve pre-existing self-conceptions (Berzonsky
2011; Berzonsky et al. 2013). Given the normative style is
associated with a foreclosed identity (Berzonsky 2011),
future scholars should explore whether online social com-
parison of ability also contributes to rigid self-constructs
through this style. Interestingly, despite its concurrent
relationship with social comparison of ability, the normative
style predicted higher engagement in social comparison of
opinion on social media. People adopting the normative
style place emphasis on the norms endorsed by the referent
groups (Berzonsky 2011; Berzonsky et al. 2013), and social
comparison of opinion facilitates acquirement of this
knowledge (Suls et al. 2000). Today, young people rely on
social media to enact and perceive peer norms (Sherman
et al. 2016). For instance, teenage girls’ definition of beauty
is largely derived from observation of peers’ Instagram
pictures and feedback to the pictures (Chua and Chang
2016), and emerging adults observe their peers on social
media to keep up with trends (Manago et al. 2008). At the
transition to college, freshmen use social media to famil-
iarize themselves with the conventions in the college
community; proper use of social media per se becomes part
of their identity work (Thomas et al. 2017). Normative-style
freshmen’s need for and attention to norms may have
prompted them to engage in social comparison of opinion
2122 Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128

Table 2 Results of path analysis on social media, asking about or observing what life styles,
β S.E. p behaviors, and even ideologies would be well accepted by
the new group.
Direct paths of interest
It is noteworthy although both the informational and
T1 SMSC-Ab → T1 informational .10 .08 .207
normative styles predicted more social comparison of opi-
T1 SMSC-Ab → T1 normative .20* .08 .010
nion, the specific process may not be identical for the two
T1 SMSC-Ab → T1 diffuse-avoidant .17* .07 .010
styles. When engaging in the informational style, indivi-
T1 SMSC-Op → T1 informational .14* .07 .032
duals are eager to gain new self-knowledge and welcome
T1 SMSC-Op → T1 normative .02 .07 .781
information that challenges their self-schemas; when per-
T1 SMSC-Op → T1 diffuse-avoidant .11 .06 .081
T1 self-esteem → T1 informational .29*** .08 <.001
forming the normative style, individuals prefer information
T1 self-esteem → T1 normative −.02 .08 .767
that confirms their self-conceptions (Berzonsky 2011; Ber-
T1 self-esteem → T1 diffuse-avoidant −.10 .07 .155
zonsky et al. 2013). It suggests the two styles may urge
T1 identity clarity → T1 informational .06 .08 .479
people to seek different kinds of information on social
T1 identity clarity → T1 normative .13 .08 .097 media in the process of social comparison of opinion.
T1 identity clarity → T1 diffuse-avoidant −.41*** .06 <.001 Clarifying what information people seek in this process in
T1 informational → T2 SMSC-Ab .08 .07 .285 relation to the adopted identity processing style will further
T1 informational → T2 SMSC-Op .16* .08 .040 expand this research area.
T1 informational → T2 self-esteem .13 .07 .053
T1 informational → T2 identity clarity .01 .06 .914 Social Media Social Comparison Predicting Identity
T1 normative → T2 SMSC-Ab .05 .08 .514 Outcomes Through Identity Processing Styles
T1 normative → T2 SMSC-Op .14* .07 .034
T1 normative → T2 self-esteem −.08 .07 .241 Social comparison of ability on social media predicted
T1 normative → T2 identity clarity .03 .07 .615 lower identity clarity through its association with higher
T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 SMSC-Ab .15* .07 .043 concurrent diffuse-avoidant style. It appeared that college
T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 SMSC-Op .05 .07 .496 freshmen who compared their ability with others’ on social
T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 self-esteem −.20** .07 .004 media were more likely to adopt the diffuse-avoidant style.
T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 identity clarity −.32*** .07 <.001 According to the identity processing style model (Ber-
Indirect paths of interest zonsky 2011), individuals who subscribe to this style are
T1 SMSC-Ab → T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 −.06* .03 .039 passive self-theorists. They avoid actively processing
identity clarity identity-related information and allow situational demands
T1 SMSC-Ab → T1 diffuse-avoidant → T2 −.03 .02 .064 (e.g., popularity, following the trend) to dictate their sense
self-esteem
of self. It is possible that the judgmental form of online
T1 identity clarity → T1 diffuse-avoidant →T2 −.06 .03 .056
SMSC-Ab social comparison provides rich contextual cues that pro-
T1 self-esteem → T1 informational → T2 .05 .03 .080 mote this approach to self-theorizing. Specifically, the
SMSC-Op negative psycho-emotional reactions coming along with
Significant controlled paths such social comparison (Feinstein et al. 2013; Lee 2014;
T1 SMSC-Ab → T2 SMSC-Ab .46*** .08 <.001 Lim and Yang 2015) may prompt individuals to adopt the
T1 SMSC-Op → T2 SMSC-Op .56*** .06 <.001 diffuse-avoidant style as a way to shelter themselves from
T1 self-esteem → T2 self-esteem .55*** .07 <.001 the sense of inferiority. When people approach their self in
T1 identity clarity → T2 identity clarity .43*** .07 <.001 the diffuse-avoidant manner, however, they tend to have a
Race/Ethnicity: black → T1 normative .29*** .07 <.001 fragmented identity, and their self-worth is more fragile and
Race/Ethnicity: other → T1 normative .22** .07 .002 less stable (Berzonsky 2011; Soenens et al. 2016). The
T1 identity clarity → T1 diffuse-avoidant → .08** .03 .009 diffuse-avoidant style is also related to defense maneuvers
T2 self-esteem
such as turning against oneself (Berzonsky and Kinney
T1 identity clarity → T1 diffuse-avoidant → .13*** .03 <.001
T2 identity clarity 2008), which could also do harm to one’s sense of self.
Although the indirect path from social comparison of ability
The reference group of race/ethnicity is White. “Race/Ethnicity: Other”
includes participants who identified as neither mono-racially/ethnically to prospective self-esteem via the diffuse-avoidant style was
White nor mono-racially/ethnically Black. Non-significant indirect only approaching significance (p = .064), the diffuse-
paths were excluded, except for the paths of interest whose p values avoidant style did predict lower self-esteem. Overall the
were below .10 paths identified in our model supported the profile of people
SMSC-Ab = social media social comparison of ability, SMSC-Op = adopting the diffuse-avoidant style.
social media social comparison of opinion
Whereas the indirect path from Time 1 online social
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
comparison of ability to Time 2 identity clarity through the
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
diffuse-avoidant style was significant, the opposite (Time 1
identity clarity to the diffuse-avoidant style to Time 2 online
social comparison of ability) was not. The p value of the
latter (.056), however, was close to the significance
threshold. It suggests the possibility of a bi-directional
association: youth who perform more online social com-
parison of ability use the diffuse-avoidant style more often,
which predicts lower identity clarity; feeling confused about
who they are, these youth are more likely to approach their
sense of self in a diffuse-avoidant fashion, and the style in
turn may predict further online social comparison of ability.
Because the diffuse-avoidant style is associated with efforts
of impression management and sensitivity to evaluation
(i.e., having high contingent self-esteem; Berzonsky 2011;
Soenens et al. 2016), the rich cues for social comparison of
ability on social media may be appealing to diffuse-avoidant
individuals. These people may try to fathom how to present
a polished image that would win them immediate rewards
(Berzonsky 2011) by comparing how well they are doing
with others through online channels. Eventually, it may
become a vicious cycle that hinders, rather than benefits,
youth’s identity clarity. More research is needed to examine
whether the bi-directional associations are existent and
robust.
In contrast, social comparison of opinion on social media
did not predict the identity outcomes through identity pro-
cessing styles, although the positive concurrent correlation
between social comparison of opinion and the diffuse-
avoidant style was approaching significance (p = .081). It
suggests the possibility that social comparison of opinion,
despite its less judgmental nature, can still overwhelm
college freshmen and thus activate the maladaptive identity
processing style. However, readers should not conclude that
the two types of social comparison had similar effects on
identity development and did not need to be differentiated.
Results of factor analysis clearly showed the scale had a
two-factor structure (see Appendix), and, different from
social comparison of ability, none of the indirect paths
involving social comparison of opinion was significant.
Their diverse direct relationships with identity processing
styles summarized in earlier paragraphs also revealed how
the two types of social comparison could associate with the
same constructs in different ways, as suggested in other
research (Park and Baek 2018). All these findings call for
the distinction of one type of social comparison from the
other.
Findings of the indirect paths suggest the diffuse-
avoidant style was the most important mechanism
explaining how social comparison on social media may
contribute to emerging adults’ identity development, parti-
cularly identity clarity. Whereas the diffuse-avoidant style
linked several paths between the Time 1 and Time 2 vari-
ables, the other two styles failed to predict either identity
2123
outcome. The relative significance of the diffuse-avoidant
style echoes research findings on the relationships between
the different styles and identity variables: the diffuse-
avoidant style has a robust association with low self-esteem
and identity commitment (Crocetti et al. 2009; Luychx et al.
2007; Passmore et al. 2005; Soenens et al. 2011, 2016),
whereas the normative style tends to produce mixed find-
ings, with some research reporting its positive role in
identity development (Crocetti et al. 2009; Luychx et al.
2007; Passmore et al. 2005; Soenens et al. 2011, 2016) and
some revealing a null effect (Crocetti et al. 2009; Eryigit
and Kerpelman 2009; Soenens et al. 2016). Although the
informational style is usually related to higher self-esteem
and identity clarity (Crocetti et al. 2009; Eryigit and Ker-
pelman 2009; Luychx et al. 2007; Soenens et al. 2011,
2016), some research presents non-significant results
(Luychx et al. 2007; Passmore et al. 2005; Soenens et al.
2016). One study even showed that the non-significant
association was preceded by decreases in short-term self-
concept clarity (Johnson and Nozick 2011). These findings
suggest that the positive effect of the informational pro-
cessing style, which involves a high level of exploration and
self-reflection, may take more time to emerge. In the future,
longitudinal research adopting a longer time span should
revisit this association.
Implications
Our findings have important theoretical implications. In the
Introduction, we identified several limitations of existing
literature, and results of this study provide preliminary
information to fill these gaps. First, the findings present the
necessity of studying both types of online social compar-
ison. As most research still focuses on measuring or
manipulating social media users’ perception of whether
others are doing better or worse (e.g., de Vries and Kühne
2015; Feinstein et al. 2013; Vogel et al. 2014), the almost
exclusive emphasis on the judgmental form of social com-
parison obscures the full picture of this construct. It easily
leads readers to assume that social comparison is detri-
mental. As shown in this study, however, social comparison
of opinion did not predict low global self-esteem and
identity clarity. In fact, this type of comparison has been
found to associate with less negative emotion and thus
better psychological well-being (Park and Baek 2018).
Essentially, social comparison of ability and that of opinion
are related but different processes (Suls et al. 2002), aiming
at answering different questions about the self as a social
being. More research is needed to unravel how social
comparison of opinion is associated with behavioral, social,
and psychological variables. For instance, given its non-
competitive and communicative nature (Festinger 1954),
social comparison of opinion may relate to better social
2124
outcomes, such as higher social capital or social con-
nectedness. To recognize these new research directions, it is
crucial to start challenging the assumption that social
comparison is unidimensional and is inherently harmful.
Second, literature on social comparison has largely
overlooked its implications for identity development. While
previous research has revealed the negative relationship
between online social comparison (mostly the judgmental
form) and self-esteem or self-perceptions (de Vries and
Kühne 2015; Vogel et al. 2014), our study is the first one
illuminating the longitudinal relationship between online
social comparison and identity clarity. As suggested in a
previous section, future research should explore whether
lower identity clarity and social comparison of ability form
a vicious feedback loop.
Third, our study identified one process through which
online social comparison of ability contributed to lower
identity clarity. We proposed identity processing styles as
possible mediators because this model captures the process
of identity exploration (Berzonsky 1990) and may link
social stimuli (e.g., social comparison) with identity out-
comes. The central role of the diffuse-avoidant style
revealed through this study suggests the possibility of this
style being a mechanism between other social media
activities and identity outcomes. For instance, given that
diffuse-avoidant individuals are more likely to prioritize
receiving immediate rewards over developing a stable self-
theory and to effortfully manage their self-images (Ber-
zonsky 2011), the style could also be a mediator between
online self-presentation and youth’s identity development.
This is another direction for future research.
At the practical level, professionals working with emer-
ging adults may consider informing youth of the identity
implications of online social comparison of ability. Emer-
ging adults are among the most avid social media users
(Greenwood et al. 2016). Given the positive correlation
between intensity of social media use and online social
comparison (Lee 2014), and given college freshmen’s needs
to relocate themselves and learn about their positions rela-
tive to others’ in the new environment, they may be parti-
cularly vulnerable to the negative impact of social
comparison of ability on social media. One research finding
showed that bringing to adolescents’ attention the selec-
tively positive nature of social media self-presentation
mitigated the relationship between negative social compar-
ison and low affective well-being (Weinstein 2017). It may
be helpful to also develop this awareness among emerging
adults and examine whether the awareness would reduce
comparison-triggered emotions such as envy and shame
(Lim and Yang 2015) and poor self-perceptions (de Vries
and Kühne 2015; Vogel et al. 2014). In addition, emerging
adults should be reminded that even when they experience
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
these unpleasant psycho-emotional reactions resulting from
online social comparison of ability, they should still avoid
retreating to the diffuse-avoidant style. Instead, they should
try to adopt the informational style, actively organizing and
making sense of the information gleaned on social media,
with the understanding that other users’ self-presentation
only reflects a partial image. Although the information style
did not predict positive identity outcomes in our model,
theoretically it is still the most adaptive approach to identity
development (Berzonsky 1990, 2011). Finally, the direct
path between the diffuse-avoidant style and prospective
online social comparison of ability suggests youth who
approach identity issues in a maladaptive manner may in
turn rely on social media cues to develop a situational
identity, but this strategy can lead to even more fragmented
and less coherent sense of self. Thus, emerging adults who
constantly avoid processing identity-related information at
the college transition may need more attention and
assistance.
Limitations
A few limitations of the study should be noted. First, our
sample was not particularly large, given the number of paths
examined. In the future, larger samples should be adopted to
revisit the paths approaching significance. The second
limitation concerns the contexts of online social compar-
ison. Research on social media and technology-mediated
communication can take two different approaches. The first
one focuses on a specific social media platform, such as
Facebook or Instagram (e.g., Park and Baek 2018; Vogel
et al. 2014; Weinstein 2017). It allows scholars to interpret
the findings in light of the affordances provided by the
given platform. The second approach focuses on informa-
tion of social media in general without making distinctions
among platforms (e.g., Nesi et al. 2017; Pea et al. 2012;
Yang et al. 2017). Findings from the latter approach are
interpreted by considering characteristics shared by most
social media channels, such as easy access to large audi-
ences and their positive self-presentation. These results are
less vulnerable to the rapid change of the social media
landscape and are less likely to be dismissed for the
declining popularity of a single platform. Our study took the
second, generalist avenue. Despite the strengths mentioned
above, the lack of platform-specific information remains a
limitation of the study. Instagram, for instance, is more
image-oriented than Facebook and Twitter. If “a picture is
worth than a thousand words,” then the Instagram pictures
showcasing vacations, achievements, and popularity may
activate stronger effects of social comparison of ability than
other platforms. On the other hand, because opinion
exchange relies more heavily on written or verbal
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
communication, the text-based platforms may generate
stronger effects of social comparison of opinion. These
hypotheses await future research to examine.
Finally, as the first study investigating the identity
implications of social media social comparison, this project
focuses on a linear model with only three sets of focal
variables, but additional variables and alternative designs
should be considered in the future. For instance, factors
predisposing individuals to social comparison could be
investigated. Individuals who have a strong orientation for
social comparison in general tend to be more self-conscious,
less certain and more negative about the self, but also more
social (Buunk and Gibbons 2006). Clarifying which char-
acteristics are more salient in which type of social com-
parison would advance this line of research. Further, we
chose global self-esteem and identity clarity as our identity
outcomes because they reflect states of established identity
and have important psychosocial implications (Campbell
et al. 1996; Heppner and Kernis 2011; Luychx et al. 2007;
Trzesniewski et al. 2013). On the other hand, constructs
reflecting fluctuations or issues of identity development,
such as barometric self-esteem (Rosenberg 1986) and fra-
gile self-esteem (Heppner and Kernis 2011) can also be
informative and should be included in future research.
Lastly, although we intentionally chose college freshmen as
our target sample because the 1st year in college is a major
developmental transition and a prime time for online iden-
tity work (Thomas et al. 2017), longitudinal research
starting at early adolescence will further illuminate how
young people’s early experience contributes to later social
comparison and identity formation. Data collection invol-
ving more time points spanning across a longer period will
allow for growth curve modeling and depiction of the
dynamic processes of identity development.
Conclusion
The current study pioneers in exploring identity implica-
tions of two types of social media social comparison.
Despite the wide-spread assumption that social comparison
is detrimental to one’s well-being, our study showed that
only the judgmental form was concerning. Specifically,
comparing oneself against others on social media as a
means to assess who was doing better was related to
avoiding or delaying processing identity-related informa-
tion, which contributed to lower identity clarity. On the
other hand, social comparison of opinion on social media
did not predict low identity clarity and global self-esteem
via the identity processing styles. The transition into college
is a prime time for identity development, (re)construction,
2125
and negotiation (Chow and Healey 2008; Scanlon et al.
2007; Thomas et al. 2017). Given the amount of time
emerging adults spend on social media and the rich
information available on these platforms for social
comparison, it is crucial to illuminate the identity implica-
tions of this practice. The differential patterns of how the
two types of social media social comparison associated with
identity processing styles and identity clarity revealed
exciting directions for future research and provided insights
into guiding emerging adults to use social media in an
adaptive manner. We believe more theory-driven research
as this one that attends to nuanced differences between/
among different dimensions of a given construct would
allow us to further our understanding of youth development
in the digital age.
Authors’ Contributions C-cY conceptualized the study, conceived of
the design, collected data, performed the statistical analyses, inter-
preted the results, and composed the manuscript; SMH participated in
developing hypotheses, interpreting results, and drafting the manu-
script; MDKC participated in recruiting participants and drafting the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Data Sharing Declaration The datasets generated and/or analyzed
during the current study are not publicly available but are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval The Institutional Review Board at the University of
Memphis approved this research. All procedures performed in studies
involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical
standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and
with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or com-
parable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Appendix
Social Media Social Comparison Scale
Most people compare themselves from time to time with
others. For example, they may compare the way they feel,
their opinions, their abilities, and/or their situation with
those of other people. There is nothing particularly “good”
or “bad” about such comparison, and some people do it
more than others. In this set of questions, we would like to
find out the extent to which you compare yourself with
other people when using social media. How well do these
statements apply to you?
2126
Social media social comparison of ability
1. When using social media, I .70
compare how my loved ones
(romantic partner, family mem-
bers, etc.) are doing with how
others are doing
2. When using social media, I
compare how I do things with
how others do things
3. On social media, I compare what .85
I have done with others as a way
to find out how well I have done
something
4. On social media, I compare how .82
I am doing socially with other
people
5. I don’t really use social media to .43
compare with others to see how
well I’m doing (reversely coded)
Social media social comparison of
opinion
6. On social media, I talk with
others about mutual opinions
and experiences
7. On social media, I try to find out .88
what others think who face
similar problems as I face
8. On social media, I try to know .82
what others in a similar situation
would do
9. When using social media, I try to .75
find out what others think about
something that I want to learn
more about
χ2
RMSEA
CFI
TLI
These are results of confirmatory factor analysis obtained from Mplus,
with maximum likelihood robust being the estimator
**p < .01
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
References
T1 factor T2 factor
loading loading Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the
late teens through the twenties. 2nd ed New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
.69 Berzonsky, M. D. (1988). Self-theorists, identity status, and social
cognition. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and
identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 243–262). New York, NY:
Springer.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the lifespan: A pro-
cess perspective on identity formation. In G. J. Neimeyer & R. A.
Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in personal construct psychology,
.80 .86 Vol. 1 (pp. 155–186). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1993). A constructivist view of identity develop-
ment: People as post-positivist self-theorists. In J. Kroger (Ed.),
Discussions on ego identity (pp. 169–183). Hillsdale, NJ:
.86 Erlbaum.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1999). Identity styles and hypothesis-testing stra-
tegies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(6), 784–789.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598257.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2003). Identity style and well-being: Does com-
.78 mitment matter? Identity: An International Journal of Theory and
Research, 3(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s1532706xid030203.
Berzonsky, M. D. (2011). A social-cognitive perspective on identity
.43 constuction. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luychx & V. L. Vignoles
(Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York,
NY: Sringer.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Adams, G. R. (1999). Reevaluating the identity
status paradigm: Still useful after 35 years. Developmental
Review, 19(4), 557–590. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0495.
Berzonsky, M. D., & Barclay, C. R. (1981). Formal reasoning and
.72 .60 identity formation: A reconceptualization. In J. A. Meacham & N.
R. Santilli (Eds.), Social development in youth: Structure and
content (pp. 64–87). Basel: Karger.
Berzonsky, M., Cieciuch, J., Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2011). The
.83 how and what of identity formation: Associations between
identity styles and value orientations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.
007.
.90 Berzonsky, M. D., & Kinney, A. (2008). Identity processing style and
defense mechanisms. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 39(3),
111–117. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10059-008-0022-7.
Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Smits, I., Papini, D. R., &
.79 Goossens, L. (2013). Development and validation of the revised
identity style inventory (ISI-5): Factor structure, reliability, and
validity. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 893–904. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0032642.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural
53.23** 51.15** equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
.07 .08 Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2006). Social comparison orientation:
A new perspective on those who do and those who don’t compare
.96 .95 with others. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social
.94 .93 psychology (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L.
F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement,
personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141–156. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141.
Chow, K., & Healey, M. (2008). Place attachment and place identity:
First-year undergraduates making the transition from home to
university. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(4),
362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/l.jenvp.2008.02.011.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
Chua, T. H. H., & Chang, L. (2016). Full length article: Follow me and
like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls engagement in
self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Compu-
ters in Human Behavior, 55, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.09.011.
Chung, J. M., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Noftle, E. E.,
Roberts, B. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2014). Continuity and change
in self-esteem during emerging adulthood. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 106(3), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0035135.
Cramer, E. M., Song, H., & Drent, A. M. (2016). Social comparison
on Facebook: Motivation, affective consequences, self-esteem,
and Facebook fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior, 64,
739–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.049s.
Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., Berzonsky, M. D., & Meeus, W. (2009). Brief
report: The identity style inventory—validation in Italian ado-
lescents and college students. Journal of Adolescence, 32,
425–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.04.002.
Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., Branje, S., Koot, H. M., & Meeus, W. (2016).
Self-concept clarity in adolescents and parents: A six-wave
longitudinal and multi-informant study on development and
intergenerational transmission. Journal of Personality, 84(5),
580–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12181.
de Vries, D. A., & Kühne, R. (2015). Facebook and self-perception:
Individual susceptibility to negative social comparison on Face-
book. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 217–221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.029.
Duriez, B., Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., & Berzonsky, M. (2012). A
process-content approach to adolescent identity formation:
Examining longitudinal associations between identity styles and
goal pursuits. Journal of Personality, 80, 135–161. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00729.x.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Oxford: Norton & Co.
Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2011). Self-esteem development from age 14
to 30 years: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101(3), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a
0024299.
Eryigit, S., & Kerpelman, J. (2009). Using the identity processing style
Q-sort to examine identity styles of Turkish young adults. Jour-
nal of Adolescence, 32(5), 1137–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2009.02.001.
Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latach, J. A., Meuwly,
N., & Davila, J. (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook
and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psy-
chology of Popular Media Culture, 2(3), 121–170. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0033111.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001872675400700202.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Krahn, H. J. (2006). Depression,
self-esteem, and anger in emerging adulthood: Seven-year tra-
jectories. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 350–365. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.350.
Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation: How today’s
youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital
world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social
comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison
orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1),
129–142.
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update
2016. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/
11/11/social-media-update-2016/.
Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and
sociocultural perspectives. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
2127
Heppner, W. L., & Kernis, M. H. (2011). High self-esteem: Multiple
forms and their outcomes. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx & V. L.
Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (Vols.
1 and 2), (pp. 329–355). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_15.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jang, K., Park, N., & Song, H. (2016). Social comparison on Face-
book: Its antecedents and psychological outcomes. Computers in
Human Behavior, 62, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2016.03.082.
Johnson, E. A., & Nozick, K. J. (2011). Personality, adjustment, and
identity style influences on stability in identity and self-concept
during the transition to university. Identity: An International
Journal of Theory and Research, 11(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15283488.2011.540737.
Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. E. (2010). Identity status
change during adolescence and young adulthood: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 33(5), 683–698. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.11.002.
Lee, S. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on
social network sites? The case of Facebook. Computers in Human
Behavior, 32, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.
009.
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview
2015. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/
04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/.
Lim, M., & Yang, Y. (2015). Effects of users’ envy and shame on
social comparison that occurs on social network services. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 51, 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2015.05.013.
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for
multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01621459.1988.10478722.
Luychx, K., Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M. D., Smits, I., Goossens, L., &
Vansteenkiste, M. (2007). Information-oriented identity proces-
sing, identity consolidation, and well-being: The moderating role
of autonomy, self-reflections, and self-rumination. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43, 1099–1111. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2007.03.003.
Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., & Salimkhan, G.
(2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 446–458. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.001.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity
status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Markstrom, C. A., & Kalmanir, H. M. (2001). Linkages between the
psychosocial stages of identity and intimacy and the ego strengths
of fidelity and love. Identity: An International Journal of Theory
and Research, 1(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S1532706XID0102_05.
Nesi, J., Widman, L., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2017).
Technology-based communication and the development of
interpersonal competencies within adolescent romantic relation-
ships: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 27(2), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12274.
Orth, U., Maes, J., & Schmitt, M. (2015). Self-esteem development
across the life span: A longitudinal study with a large sample
from Germany. Developmental Psychology, 51(2), 248–259.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038481.
Park, S. Y., & Baek, Y. M. (2018). Two faces of social comparison on
Facebook: The interplay between social comparison orientation,
2128
emotions, and psychological well-being. Computers in Human
Behavior, 79, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.028.
Passmore, N. L., Fogarty, G. J., Bourke, C. J., & Baker-Evan, S. F.
(2005). Parental bonding and identity style as correlates of self-
esteem among adult adoptees and nonadoptees. Family Relations,
54, 523–534.
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., &
Zhou, M. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media
multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls.
Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0027030.
Phillips, T. M., & Pittman, J. F. (2007). Adolescent psychological
well-being by identity style. Journal of Adolescence, 30,
1021–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.03.002.
Richardson, C. G., Ratner, P. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Further
support for multidimensionality within the Rosenberg self-esteem
scale. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on
Diverse Psychological Issues, 28(2), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12144-009-9052-3.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through
adolescence. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological
perspectives on the self, Vol. 3, (pp. 107–135). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., & Schoenbach, C. (1989). Self-esteem
and adolescent problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American
Sociological Review, 54(6), 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2095720.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995).
Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts,
different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60(1), 141–156.
Rosenthal, D. A., Gurney, R. M., & Moore, S. M. (1981). From trust
on intimacy: A new inventory for examining Erikson’s stages of
psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10
(6), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02087944.
Scanlon, L., Rowling, L., & Weber, Z. (2007). ‘You don’t have like an
identity…you are just lost in a crowd’: Forming a student identity
in the first-year transition to university. Journal of Youth Studies,
10(2), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260600983684.
Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Wang, W., & Olthuis, J. V. (2009).
Measuring identity from an Eriksonian perspective: Two sides of
the same coin? Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2),
143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634266.
Sherman, L. E., Payton, A. A., Hernandez, L. M., Greenfield, P. M., &
Dapretto, M. (2016). The power of the like in adolescence:
Effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses and
social media. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1027–1035. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0956797616645673.
Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M. D., Dunkel, C. S., Papini, D. R., &
Vansteenkiste, M. (2011). Are all identity commitments created
equally? The importance of motives for commitment for late
adolescents’ personal adjustment. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 35(4), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.
1177/01650254111405954.
Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M. D., & Papini, D. R. (2016). Attending to
the role of identity exploration in self-esteem: Longitudinal
associations between identity styles and two features of self-
esteem. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(5),
420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415602560.
Soenens, B., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2005). Social-psychological
profiles of identity styles: Attitudinal and social-cognitive corre-
lates in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 107–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.07.001.
Stapleton, P., Luiz, G., & Chatwin, H. (2017). Generation validation:
The role of social comparison in use of instagram among emer-
ging adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0444
Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2018) 47:2114–2128
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Three kinds of opinion
comparison: The triadic model. Personality & Social Psychology
Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 4(3), 219–237.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why,
with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 11(5), 159–163.
Thomas, L., Briggs, P., Hart, A., & Kerrigan, F. (2017). Under-
standing social media and identity work in young people transi-
tioning to university. Computers in Human Behavior, 76,
541–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.021.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2013).
Development of self-esteem. In V. Zeigler-Hill (Ed.), Self-esteem
(pp. 60–79). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Vignoles, V. L., Schwartz, S. J., & Luyckx, K. (2011). Introduction:
Toward and integrative view of identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K.
Luychx & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and
research. New York, NY: Sringer.
Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social
comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Pop-
ular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/
ppm0000047.
Weinstein, E. (2017). Adolescents’ differential responses to social
media browsing: Exploring causes and consequences of inter-
vention. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 396–405. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.038.
Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., Parzuchowski, M., Szymkow, A., & Abele,
A. E. (2011). Self-esteem is dominated by agentic over com-
munal information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41
(5), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.791.
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.
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, 212–221. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appdev.2017.08.006.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (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.
Chia-chen Yang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research at the University of
Memphis. She received her doctorate in Educational Psychology from
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests focus on
adolescents’ and emerging adults’ use of communication technologies
and its association with young people’s social development, sense of
self, and psychological well-being.
Sean M. Holden is a doctoral candidate in the Department of
Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research at the University of
Memphis and full-time Research Associate at the Center for Research
in Educational Policy. His primary research interests revolve around
supportive factors in adolescent and emerging adult motivation and
identity processes, particularly the role of mindfulness in promoting
adaptive development and achievement of personally satisfying goals.
Mollie D. K. Carter is a doctoral student in the Department of
Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research at the University of
Memphis. Her research interests involve emerging adults’ social media
use, self-efficacy beliefs, and spiritual development during the college
transition.