# data[].attributes.body
People are turning to Livestreaming on Instagram, and video calling apps such as HouseParty to "get their social needs met that they can't get in 'real life'".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Livestreaming on Instagram has seen a 70% increase in use in the US over the last month.

Social distancing orders have led many to find new ways to interact and communicate, but the reaction online to the surge of live videos has been widely negative.

A psychologist told Business Insider the increase in people going Live could be due to a desire to share the mundane details of daily life people would usually share during in-person conversations.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

It seems like everyone, from Cardi B to your distant high school classmate, is going live on Instagram these days - an Instagram spokesperson told Business Insider the platform has seen a 70% increase in use of the Live feature in the last month.

And, although these videos may accrue few views or show off mundane activities - like cooking dinner, making a drink, or chatting with another user - going Live may be how your friends are adequately coping with the loss of daily in-person conversations they're used to.

"Generally, people are not designed to be isolated from each other. It's not evolutionary how we've been programmed," Chris Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University told Business Insider. "People are turning to screens and technology to get their social needs met that they can't get in 'real life.'"

Despite the increase in the number of people using the Live function, a lot of users are not happy about it.

-carol (@bookish_notes) April 6, 2020

Twitter is full of complaints about the row of Instagram Stories at the top of users' feeds being replaced with a slew of livestreams. Others have sworn that tuning into a friend's livestream is an activity reserved as a last resort out of sheer boredom.

-Faaji Alhaji (@Damii_aros) April 11, 2020

As the coronavirus pandemic forces millions to adhere to shelter-in-place guidelines, people are figuring out how to adjust to a norm that finds them lacking social interaction. Ferguson said that social media has become one of the crutches people are relying on to get that social contact they usually would have at school or work.

Instagram Live, specifically, offers a way for people to connect and engage in "real-time," he said. Video-calling platforms that offer similar virtual face-to-face interactions - like Zoom, Google Hangouts, and Houseparty - have also skyrocketed in popularity for not only work meetings, but also happy hours with friends and Passover seders. A browser plug-in called Netflix Party, which lets you watch streaming content alongside friends, has also seen increased interest.

It's no surprise then that a rising slice of Instagram's more than 1 billion users have turned to its Live feature on the platform during a time of crisis and isolation.

Not all Instagram Live videos have been unpopular. High-profile figures like Miley Cyrus have delighted fans with celebrity-studded Q and A's, musicians from Keith Urban to Diplo have put on bedroom concerts, and fitness instructors have taught free workout classes.

While some people spend many hours on YouTube watching creators unbox toys or play video games, livestreaming is just another opportunity for entertainment, according to Ferguson.

"On a daily basis, were not doing anything super fascinating," he said. "You'd be surprised how people will follow things on the surface that they think are stupid."

Just like the celebrities who can draw virtual crowds, your college acquaintance or a friend's girlfriend or maybe even you yourself are using the Live function as a way to cope with breaking up the monotony of isolation and social distancing.

Ferguson told Business Insider, "Whether three people see it or 1,000 people see it, we want to share some aspects of our lives with others."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instagram Live usage jumped 70% last month. A psychologist says it's because 'people are not designed to be isolated.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Livestreaming on Instagram has seen a 70% increase in use in the US over the last month. Social distancing orders have led many to find new ways to interact and communicate, but the reaction online to the surge of live videos has been widely negative.

# data[].attributes.headline
Uses & Gratification Theory and Binge Watching

# data[].attributes.subject
Uses & Gratification Theory and Binge Watching

# data[].attributes.body
When reading this weeks readings, I began to think that this theory could explain some part of a reason on why people choose to binge watch certain tv series. In 2015, a grad student at Clemson University conducted a study that determined why people chose certain tv series to watch. She proves that gender and college major could have a play in what students choose to binge. Within the study, she surveyed using closed-ended questions for 8 different tv series. In the end, she determined that it was not only demographically targeted shows that had a role in choosing what to binge watch, but also the suggested tv series Netflix uses in order to keep users involved.
This really got my mind going once again about how much Netflix is using our information to their advantage. I can't imagine what else they're looking into and how they plan to use it to benefit their company.

# data[].attributes.headline
Social Cognitive Theory: Does Having a Bad Boss Make You More Likely to Be One Yourself?

# data[].attributes.subject
Social Cognitive Theory: Does Having a Bad Boss Make You More Likely to Be One Yourself?

# data[].attributes.body
This Harvard Business Review article touches on SCT through an experiment of leadership style.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive Summary

Toxic bosses harm employees in countless ways, and estimates suggest abusive supervision costs organizations millions in lost productivity, employee turnover, and litigation each year. Although studies have found that leader behaviors can "trickle down" to affect the actions of employees at lower organizational levels, surely not all abused supervisors abuse their own subordinates. So when do supervisors perpetuate abuse in organizations, when don't they, and why? Research shows that people who disidentify with their toxic boss are less likely to adopt bad behavior - especially when the person has high integrity and morals.

Jan Stromme/Getty Images

Toxic bosses harm employees in countless ways - for instance, by lowering morale, diminishing well-being, and increasing work-family conflict. Estimates suggest abusive supervision costs organizations millions in lost productivity, employee turnover, and litigation each year. Although prior research has found that leader behaviors can "trickle down" to affect the actions of employees at lower organizational levels, surely not all abused supervisors abuse their own subordinates. So when do supervisors perpetuate abuse in organizations, when don't they, and why?

To begin answering these questions, we turned to existing research from the non-business world. Psychologist Albert Bandura, for example, developed social cognitive theory to explain how behavior - including abusive behavior - is learned from role models. For modeling to be successful, Bandura argued, an observer must pay attention to the modeled behavior, remember the behavior, and be motivated to reproduce it. In what is now considered a classic study, Bandura and his colleagues supported his theory by modeling aggressive or nonaggressive behavior to children from the Stanford University nursery. Kids who watched an adult (the model) throw, kick, and whack with a mallet an inflatable Bobo doll were significantly more likely to do the same (13 acts of aggression) than children who watched the adult play quietly with tinker toys (one act of aggression).

Despite what the theory suggests, however, other studies show that many individuals do not model observed behavior. Developmental psychology research, for example, reveals that adult children of abusive parents can respond in ways that suggest another process - disidentification - motivates their own parenting style. These parents report wanting to do right by their own kids and resolving not to repeat the pattern of abuse.

These conflicting bodies of research suggest that the processes that interrupt cycles of abuse are not well understood. So we turned to research on identity and identification to understand when and why abused supervisors in particular might change course by being less abusive and more ethical leaders.

We tested our idea across several studies. In one experiment, we asked 288 online participants to play the role of a supervisor at a café. They were told the café had a program that awarded employee suggestions and that they had given their manager an idea to improve the café's efficiency. For some participants, the manager became angry and belittled their idea in front of other supervisors. For others, the manager simply passed their idea along to upper management. We also manipulated the extent to which participants disidentified with their manager - for example, whether they were proud to be nothing like their manager, and whether they psychologically distanced themselves from their manager or not.

We then gave participants an opportunity to display their leadership style: In the scenario, one of their subordinates sent them an email with a suggestion to improve the café. The employee had created an advertisement to be used in a Facebook campaign, but it was littered with typos and grammatical mistakes. Would the participant - acting as supervisor - appreciate the employee's good intentions or lambaste the poor execution? After coding participants' responses, we found that when they disidentified with their manager, those who experienced abuse demonstrated more ethical leadership behaviors than those who weren't mistreated. In other words, being abused by a fictional manager and seeing yourself as different from him or her made participants more ethical than participants who weren't mistreated by a manager at all.

To determine whether our findings applied to real work settings, we also surveyed 500 employees and their leaders working in various organizations and industries in India. We found that, overall, abusive behavior from the manager resulted in a 12% increase in a supervisor's disidentification from that person. But the strongest tendencies to disidentify occurred among those supervisors who relied on their morals and integrity - what researchers refer to as having a strong moral identity. Among these people, abusive manager behavior resulted in a 14% increase in disidentification, slightly higher than the total group. Importantly, when supervisors were able to disidentify, this psychological distancing led to an 8% increase in ethical behaviors and a 6% decrease in abusive behaviors toward the supervisors' team members.

In contrast, when supervisors relied less on their moral identity, abuse from their managers did not result in any significant disidentification. These results support the idea that abused supervisors engage in more ethical and less abusive behavior with their own subordinates because they disidentify with their abusive managers, and that this is more likely to occur when supervisors possess a strong moral identity.

So what should employees and leaders take away from our research? Though we certainly don't recommend abusive treatment as a way to inspire ethical behavior, our study highlights one silver lining to come from the dark cloud cast by abusive supervision. That is, individuals might be able to inoculate themselves from the abuses of their supervisor through disidentification, which can lead to more ethical and less abusive behavior. This suggests the cycle of abuse isn't inevitable in organizations, just as developmental psychology research shows that abusive parenting does not always lead the next generation of parents to become offenders.

But if efforts to short-circuit the modeling of bad behaviors are to be successful, organizations should select supervisors who have strong moral identities, or work to strengthen the moral identities of current managers. An 18-month long ethnographic study of a leadership development program suggests one way organizations might do this is by "undoing" the identities of supervisors who perpetuate abuse. Other work suggests organizations can increase ethical behavior by reminding people of organizational or professional standards - for example, by displaying codes of ethics or conduct throughout the office.

Regardless of what organizations might do to curb abusive behavior, leaders who experience abuse from their manager should know this: You are not your boss, and his or her leadership style doesn't have to define yours. If nothing else, you can view your experience as an opportunity to learn how not to lead a team. With that attitude, having a bad boss could make you a great one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Having a Bad Boss Make You More Likely to Be One Yourself?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive Summary Toxic bosses harm employees in countless ways, and estimates suggest abusive supervision costs organizations millions in lost productivity, employee turnover, and litigation each year. Although studies have found that leader behaviors can "trickle down" to affect the actions of employees at lower organizational levels, surely not all abused supervisors abuse their own subordinates.

# data[].attributes.body
Sorry, the other post with the same title was me but I accidentally made it anonymous and then couldn't edit it.

# data[].attributes.body
This 2018 study in the journal of new media & society used eye-tracking as a way to measure selective attention in Facebook news feeds. Facebook can be thought of as a place where diverse ideas can be shared, but are people really exposing themselves to diverse content, or just reinforcing their own beliefs?

# data[].attributes.body
This TED Talk reminded me of selective attention: how media shows us what we want to hear (politically) and minimizes the importance of discourse and compromise between party lines. (Sorry for the double post, can't figure out how to delete)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yaël Eisenstat: Dear Facebook, this is how you're breaking democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Lies are more engaging online than truth," says former CIA analyst, diplomat and Facebook employee Yaël Eisenstat. "As long as [social media] algorithms' goals are to keep us engaged, they will feed us the poison that plays to our worst instincts and human weaknesses."

# data[].attributes.body
U&G theory says that an individual is an active user that seeks out specific media to satisfy one's needs or wants. However, after watching a documentary called, "The social dilemma", on Netflix, I have a question. If a person is addicted, then can we still say that person has an active role in interpreting media into one's lives?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"If you're not paying for the product, you are the product."

This intriguing documentary discusses the negative effects of social media such as suicide and depression, manipulation, addiction and increased spread of fake news.

"The Social Dilemma," hit Netflix on Sept. 9. The documentary consists of interviews with many people who have worked inside the tech companies we all use in our daily lives. Some worked at Google, Pinterest, Twitter, Apple and Instagram.

Their eye-opening revelations left me stunned by how much of our data is being watched. These companies are able to tell aspects of our lives from our personalities, to how long we looked at a photo. They use this information to help better predict the user's actions.

The documentary also had parts with actors. I thought this was a great addition because it portrayed the concept like a dystopian movie.

For example, there are three men in a control room scene where they manipulate everything that appears on the teenage boy's phone. They notice when he is inactive and will purposely send a notification to grab his attention again. Because of advertising, the longer he looks at the phone, the more money the company makes.

This documentary has changed the way I view social media and my cell phone in general. We as a society have become hooked on these devices that display a false reality. Some studies have connected suicide, depression and anxiety to cell phone usage. By putting the phone down, we can become more present in the moment with our friends and family and more productive in our work life. Applications like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are designed to be addictive, and that is why stepping away can be so hard to do.

After finishing "The Social Dilemma," I went into my iPhone settings and turned off my notifications for all of my social media apps. I then logged out of my Instagram, avoided apps such as Facebook and Twitter, and ended my Snapchat streaks.

By doing this, I already feel happier and more productive. Social media is a great way to stay connected, especially now because of COVID-19 coronavirus regulations, but there comes a point where it does more harm to our social lives than good.

"The Social Dilemma" has an 89% Rotten Tomatoes rating and is an official selection for the 2020 Sundance Film Festival. The documentary is avaliable on Netflix. Students can get access a 30-day free trial of Netflix and or purchase the service monthly for $8.99.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Review: 'The Social Dilemma' reveals shocking truth of cell phone, social media usage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"If you're not paying for the product, you are the product." This intriguing documentary discusses the negative effects of social media such as suicide and depression, manipulation, addiction and increased spread of fake news. "The Social Dilemma," hit Netflix on Sept. 9.

# data[].attributes.body
People choose certain TV shows, such as Friends, to meet social needs (a concept part of Uses and Gratifications Theory)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Everyone wants to be liked.

Humans have a natural need to feel they belong and to interact with each other, a UTA expert said. Upon this quality of human nature, social media has thrived and changed the way people connect on a daily basis.

Jarryd Willis, psychology graduate teaching assistant, said people's need for social interaction is what drives them to strive for friends and followers on social media websites.

Rules of 'unfriending'

To delete or not is a question most Facebook users have experienced when it comes to that awkward task of "unfriending" someone.

If you're of the same mind-set as history junior Milaun Murry, an extreme action is needed to remove someone from your friends list.

If you think like social work sophomore Keonna Johnson, friends are easily removed and replaced based on a fixed quota.

For Johnson that number is 500.

"I have enough," she said. "I don't need that many people in my life."

When it comes to removing people from your friends list, there seems to be an unspoken rule among social media users. Here are the top 10 reasons you might find yourself on the cutting room floor:

1. Political or religious talk is a quick way to alienate people on and off the internet. Visual communication junior Dustin Hall said posting annoying spam statuses is a deal breaker for him.

2. Being a mild acquaintance of a Facebook friend can leave you low on the totem poll. If your friend is uber popular, remember Facebook only allows individual users a maximum of 5,000 friends.

3. Talking about sex too much is an action probably better left for private conversations. Johnson said her impression of a now ex-friend changed quickly after she posted too much scandalous information.

4. Posting too many pictures of yourself at the club may leave jealous friends a little more than envious of you. History senior Andrew Goldstrich said he doesn't want to see them. If he's not invited to the party, he doesn't want to read about it on his feed.

5.Facebook drama is something accounting senior Casie Matthews does not deal with, especially if it's fellow moms ranting about their problems. While Facebook can be an account of your life, save the drama for your own mama.

6. Posting too many memes is easy to do. They're funny, but beware, not everyone thinks so. Murry said she detests them. While there are several memes easily relatable to your friends, resist the urge to share everything that makes you giggle.

7. Excessive chatting is not as popular as it seems. Both business freshman Kay Nunley and biomedical engineering junior Hussein Diab are put off by people who message too often. If you want to talk to someone, pick up your phone like a normal person and text them. If you don't have their phone number, chances are they don't want to talk to you on a one-on-one basis.

8. Having beef with someone is a sure way to lose a friend. Don't expect your Facebook friends to keep a social commitment if you're fighting in the real world. If a problem arises between mechanical engineering senior Priyank Prajapati and one of his Facebook friends, he deletes them. Even if the issue isn't directly with him, he said he may still delete a person for messing with his friends.

9. Meaningless status updates may seem important to you at the time. Deciding which flavor to spice your coffee with is a big decision, but not one you need to share with the world. Finance junior Jordan Lide's doesn't want a play-by-play of her friends life, and most of your friends, don't care, either.

10. Being negative is a quality no one wants to deal with. The emo-stage is over. No one likes a Debbie Downer, and if you're always blasting negative posts you'll find yourself with a few less friends, quickly.

"You want to feel good about yourself, so you have more and more friends," Willis said about the mind frame behind acquiring friends. "You feel like you're more important, like everyone's looking at your life."

Sociology professor Ben Agger said the problem is most Facebook friends are what he likes to call "weak ties." For example, out of 1000 Facebook friends, probably about 970 of those people are who one might name, "Fake Friends," which are people with whom one has only a casual connection.

Agger said recent research shows the number of really close friends Americans have has dropped in the last 10 or 15 years, from three to two. To explain the upsurge of interest in social media is to look closely at what people really want.

"A lot of people are searching for intimacy, friendship and community," Agger said. "The Internet provides access."

The problem is that with social networking, people substitute weak ties for strong ties, Agger said. Cultivating real friends on social networking sites can be done, but you're bound to make stronger connections by getting out into the real world, he continued.

Economics junior Carl Musozya said he has about 300 friends on Facebook but really only considers about 25 of them close friends. He said he sees most of his real friends during the day, so he doesn't have to be constantly logged into Facebook.

"I rarely keep up with any of them," Musozya said about his Facebook friends. "We can be friends on Facebook. That doesn't mean we're friends in the real world."

What also feeds into our social neediness, Agger said, is the "friending" process. Rejecting or ignoring a friend request on Facebook can increase one's self esteem, Agger said. Agger said it's having the opportunity to be selective that drives this notion.

"You want to have power over the people who friend you by turning some back," he said.

Accounting senior Casie Matthews said she doesn't add anyone she doesn't know and hardly ever sends friend requests.

"I just wait for friend requests," she said. "I never add anybody."

"I just don't really have the time to search for anyone unless I see they are friends with someone else I know," said Matthews. "Then maybe, but very rarely."

Human emotion aside, social media can be a useful tool for the future. Agger said social media has enabled political and social activism. Occupy Wall Street is the obvious American example of that, he said.

"We're using social media to further political and social causes," he said. "There's that aspect that one can view as relatively positive, and I think that's here to stay."

Follow Jessica @_JessLorraine
Jessica.flores@mavs.uta.edu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Psychology of 'friending' explains how social media meets human needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everyone wants to be liked. Humans have a natural need to feel they belong and to interact with each other, a UTA expert said. Upon this quality of human nature, social media has thrived and changed the way people connect on a daily basis.