TIKTOK AND THE “ALGORITHMIZED SELF”: A NEW MODEL OF ONLINE INTERACTION
Open accessAbstract
Since its release in 2017, the video sharing app TikTok has been downloaded 1.5 billion times. While its popularity has been attributed to the abundance of celebrity users, its interactive features, and its short, palatable video length, it has been the subject of relatively few academic studies. This project employs the walkthrough method to examine TikTok within the context of identity negotiation and self-representation on social media. More specifically, it seeks to understand whether TikTok follows a precedent set by other Social Networking Sites which support users self-representing via sociability “to the network, via the network”; i.e. by interacting within the affordances of the platform, which may include sharing, liking, commenting, etc (Papacharissi, 2013). This model ostensibly offers users a stage where they may display their individuality and curate content that reflects their personal interests. By regularly using the app for a period of a month and collecting extensive field notes, screenshots, and video recordings, we found that TikTok’s version of sociality differs from that offered by other SNSs. While other sites purport to be a tool with which users may represent their identities, TikTok does away with this conceit by engendering a mode of sociality (through its design features and affordances) in which the crux of interaction is not between users and their social network, but between a user and what we call an “algorithmized” version of self. This finding has the potential to enrich and complicate the discourse surrounding online identity formation and sociality.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
New videos are constantly presented by default on TikTok's 'For you' page and often experienced as an endless, hard-to-anticipate flow of auto-looped videos to swipe through, prompting high engagement and commitment (the "flow experience").
“New videos are constantly presented by default on the user’s ‘For you’ page and often experienced as an endless [32], hard-to-anticipate [34] flow of auto-looped videos to swipe through [35], prompting high levels of engagement and commitment, a phenomenon termed as the “flow experience” [36, 37].”
From Scrolling through adolescence: a systematic review of the impact of TikTok on adolescent mental health (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
The Findings and Discussion section describes the default ‘for you’ section as an endless, algorithmically curated feed of videos, and the Introduction mentions looping videos. The paper does not specify that videos auto-loop or are swiped through. The separate claims about unpredictability, engagement, and ‘flow experience’ have other citations in the citing sentence and are not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTikTok was among the first social media platforms to create a customized feed sending audiovisual contents tailored to users based on preferences, interests, and current state of mind through its recommendation algorithm.
“Further, TikTok was among the first SM to create by itself a customized feed sending audiovisual contents tailored for users, based on their preferences, interests, and current state of mind [31], through the app’s recommendation algorithm [32].”
From Scrolling through adolescence: a systematic review of the impact of TikTok on adolescent mental health (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
The Findings and Discussion section describes TikTok’s “For You” feed as algorithmically curated for each user, with videos catered to personal tastes and interests. It does not say the feed accounts for a user’s current state of mind or establish that TikTok was among the first platforms to offer one. The Introduction also notes that algorithmically directed feeds were already growing in prevalence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps
Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2016) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444816675438 · Cited by 1,165 · see citing works
‘You have one identity’: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn
van Dijck, J. (2013) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0163443712468605 · Cited by 925 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics. In A networked self (pp. 47- 66). Routledge.
- Papacharissi, Z. (2011). Conclusion: A Networked Self. In A networked self (pp. 304- 318). Routledge.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
On the psychology of TikTok use: a first glimpse from empirical findings
Montag, C., Yang, H., & Elhai, J. D. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.641673 · Cited by 559 · see citing works
Haltigan, J. D., Pringsheim, T. M., & Rajkumar, G. (2023) · Comprehensive Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2022.152362 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Conte, G., Iorio, G. D., Esposito, D., Romano, S., Panvino, F., Maggi, S., Altomonte, B., Casini, M. P., Ferrara, M., & Terrinoni, A. (2025) · European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s00787-024-02581-w · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Sadler, O. (2022) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051221094769 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“This algorithmic feature the FYP has been argued o be set up to incentivize scrolling rather than liking or commenting, blurring the lines between users and platforms.”
BackgroundInfluentialDoes TikTok addiction exist? A qualitative study
Caponnetto, P., Lanzafame, I., Chiara Prezzavento, G., Fakhrou, A., Lenzo, V., Sardella, A., Ali Moussa, M., & C. Quattropani, M. (2025) · Health Psychology Research · doi:10.52965/001c.127796 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Wang, Y., & Wang, S. (2024) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104469 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bhandari, A., & Bimo, S.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- York University (CA)
- Venue
- AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research
- Publisher
- University of Illinois Libraries
- Published
- 2020-10-05
- ISSN
- 2162-3317 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3092140851
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 4.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Keywords
- TikTok, online identity, self-representation, social networking sites, sociality, platform affordances, identity negotiation, online interaction
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
