Predicting a Threshold of Perceived Facebook Post Success via Likes and Reactions: A Test of Explanatory Mechanisms
Abstract
Individuals frequently engage in self-presentation via social media and can subsequently receive various simple communicative cues (paralinguistic digital affordances; PDAs) from which they may determine the success of their self-presentation, including Likes and Upvotes. Previous research has found these communicatively abstract one-click cues are interpreted idiosyncratically when received, but the quantity received matters to users in determining whether a post is “successful.” The present work probes explanatory mechanisms behind the use of PDA responses as a metric of self-presentational success, deriving hypotheses from social comparison theory, social penetration theory, and expectancy violations theory. Results from a survey (N = 255) reveal that social comparison and communicative reciprocity provide explanatory power regarding the threshold of Likes and Reactions to a Facebook post needed to consider a post successful.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Humans are susceptible to social feedback on digital media.
“Studies show that humans are susceptible to social feedback on digital media: Likes influence how quickly people post again (Lindström et al., 2021), whether or not they consider a post successful (Carr et al., 2018), and how happy, self-assured, and popular they feel after posting status updates (Rosenthal-von der Pütten et al., 2019; Zell & Moeller, 2018).”
From Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. (2024) · cites this paper as Carr et al., 2018
Cites
Toward a self‐evaluation maintenance model of social behavior
Tesser, A. (1988) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60227-0 · Cited by 1,878 · see citing works
How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites?: The case of Facebook
Lee, S. Y. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
One click, many meanings: interpreting paralinguistic digital affordances in social media
Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y. (2016) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1127248 · Cited by 346 · cited 4× · see citing works
“PDAs are an underexplored social media feedback cue (Hayes et al., 2016b).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mechanisms linking social media use to adolescent mental health vulnerability
Orben, A., Meier, A., Dalgleish, T., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2024) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00307-y · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Self-Presentation in Social Media: Review and Research Opportunities
Erin E., H., & Kent State University, U. (2021) · Review of Communication Research · doi:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.027 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media.
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231185057 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
“…feedback on digital media: Likes influence how quickly people post again (Lindström et al., 2021), whether or not they consider a post successful (Carr et al., 2018), and how happy, self-assured, and popular they feel after posting status updates (Rosenthal-von der Pütten et al., 2019; Zell &…”
BackgroundA computational reward learning account of social media engagement
Lindström, B., Bellander, M., Schultner, D. T., Chang, A., Tobler, P. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19607-x · Cited by 185 · see citing works
- Authors
- Carr, C. T., Hayes, R. A., & Sumner, E. M.
- Affiliations
- Illinois State University (US)
- Trinity University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carr, Caleb T.
- Venue
- Communication Research Reports
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-12-14
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 141-151
- ISSN
- 0882-4096 (ISSN-L)
- 1746-4099
- OpenAlex
- W2775343062
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 7.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Research Reports (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
- Keywords
- Facebook posts, social media self-presentation, social comparison theory, social penetration theory, expectancy violation theory, social media feedback
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
