Pamela Rutledge, Social Media Use and Positive Psychology

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/16

Dr. Pamela Rutledge is a renowned media psychologist combining 20+ years of experience as a media producer with deep expertise in human behavior. She serves as the Director of the Media Psychology Research Center and is Professor Emerita of Fielding Graduate University’s Media Psychology program, where she develops courses on social technologies, audience engagement, and brand psychology. Her work spans design, development, and audience impact, helping clients like 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and the US Department of Defense build actionable consumer strategies and consumers create healthy relationships with media. Recognized by the American Psychological Association for her contributions, Dr. Rutledge has co-authored Exploring Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Well-Being and contributed to notable works on media psychology. An expert source for outlets like The NY Times and Good Morning America, she also authors “Positively Media” for Psychology Today and is Editor-in-Chief of Media Psychology Review. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Social media is the name of the game for so many people now. What is the positive psychology orientation on social media use compared to the general use by, apparently, most people–so healthier and unhealthier uses of it?

Pamela Rutledge: Social media is getting a lot of attention right now, with people worrying about the negative effects. Social media, however, is any technology that enables us to connect socially across the internet. It has a lot of different platforms and uses, from connecting with friends and entertainment to finding useful information, building skills, and increasing productivity. How we use social media determines whether the impact is positive or negative. In spite of the current moral panic, social media effects vary widely from positive to negative based on individual differences.

Positive psychology focuses on the cultivation of skills and values that increase our sense of well-being, not just momentarily feeling good—what psychologists call hedonic happiness–but also longer-term satisfactions or eudaimonic happiness. Eudaimonic comes from the Greek concept of flourishing or living well, which emphasizes a meaningful life rather than simply seeking pleasure. We tend to stereotype social media use as short-term emotional fixes, but many interactions and content can foster a sense of meaning, purpose, and growth, contributing to a deeper sense of well-being and satisfaction with life.  Well-being and satisfaction, however, are a combination of both types of happiness: positive emotions and well-being or life satisfaction.

Positive emotions are pretty straightforward. They include things like happiness, joy, optimism, and hope.  However, well-being is more complicated and is a result of our ability to meet our basic needs.  These needs can be summarized by three things: 1) social connection and belonging, 2) agency—or our ability to take action and not feel helpless in our environment, and 3) competence, or our ability to act effectively when we take action. It’s easy to see how interacting on social media is motivated by these intrinsic drivers of human behavior: social media allows us to connect, take action, and see evidence of our actions. 

However, positive psychology also focuses on values as well as intrinsic motivations. Values are deeply held beliefs about what is important and meaningful in life, guiding our choices and actions toward a fulfilling and meaningful existence. They are a compass, influencing our decisions, behaviors, and interactions with the world around us. Culture and cultural norms play a significant role in shaping our values—our family, friends, and community influence what we believe is good, right, and important. The definitions of happiness, the prioritized values, and how life should be lived can vary significantly across cultures and social groups. 

People learn values through socialization. Family is one of the main sources of values, as children learn values directly from parents and other family members through observation, modeling, and explicit instruction. Similarly, friends, colleagues, and groups implicitly communicate values by reinforcing accepted behavioral norms required for group membership.

Media, including books, movies, music, and social media, also expose people to values and beliefs, shaping their understanding of the world.

Jacobsen: If people are using social media from super young ages and seeing them used from a young age, what is the impact on the development of personality?

Rutledge: Personality development is influenced by many factors: biological, intellectual, social, cultural, and situational. Social media is just one source of influence, and research in this area is correlational, not causal.  In other words, things may be related, but that doesn’t answer the chicken-and-egg question of whether one causes the other or if there are other factors involved. 

Social media, however, exposes users to images and lifestyles that can lead to negative social comparison. Social comparison, by the way, is a normal response to social situations and part of our survival instinct. Assessing our roles in a social environment was a critical factor in our survival and, in many senses, still is. Our ability to read what others want, empathize with their situations, and understand group dynamics is central to our ability to navigate our social world. 

Much of the concern about social media comes from assuming that it triggers negative social comparison in all users, thus damaging self-esteem and body image. These types of generalizations are vastly overstated.

Jacobsen: Does excessive social media use make people more self-involved digitally impair or improve empathy and narcissistic tendencies, lead to a idealized sense of self rather than a genuine one, impact the perception of everyone on individuals’ lives other than their own and potentially, lead to something like a constant validation loop? 

Rutledge: Before I answer each of those questions, I want to emphasize that social media use does not have a binary influence: this or that, all or nothing. No social media effects impact ALL users, and not all effects are the same. In fact, there are many different forms of social media with different participation and consumption behaviors (e.g., Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, video games, WhatsApp, forums, blogs, etc.).

Almost all social media research is self-reported and correlational. A correlation is a relationship, but it is not causal or directional.  All research is based on probabilities of something happening, not a certain outcome (e.g., “is likely to,” not “is”). So, a study that says excessive social media use is more likely to make people more self-involved would also say that more self-involved people are more likely to use social media excessively. This is true of concerns over mental health, narcissism, idealized self and identity development, inauthentic sense of self, and reliance on social validation of others. Research findings vary a lot based on how the researcher asks the questions and defines the variables.  For example, what is “excessive” social media use? 

But let’s focus on some fundamentals. Social media is relatively new, so people don’t innately have the skills to manage an always-on digital world with limitless information and access to a wider public than we can even conceive.  Our brains were not designed for this, which makes all of us, not just young people, vulnerable and reactive unless we learn the skills to anticipate our innate, primal tendencies and step into self-manage. Our brains are wired to notice change, to focus our attention on things that are out of the ordinary, to attend to interruptions (warnings), especially if they have a social component, to seek an understanding of our social and physical environment, and to adapt our behaviors to be fit in with our desired social groups.  All these innate tendencies were essential to our survival back in the Savannah.

When talking about kids, combine these innate factors with normal biological and neurological changes over their lifespan, and it helps understand the development tasks that shift motivations as people mature. For example, the normal developmental tasks of adolescents are identity development and the building of a social life outside the nuclear family. Recognizing this, it makes sense that teens would be focused on social media, connecting with friends, and keeping up with pop cultural trends to maintain social capital. Teens also do not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex, so they are less able to value longer-term goals and outcomes in favor of near-term rewards. 

The best approaches for keeping kids healthy and safe online are to give them training and the tools to understand and navigate the digital space and establish an open and trusting line of communication between parents and kids. Suppression and bans only make technology more desirable while making it less likely kids will come to you when there’s a problem. 

When young people can reflect on their technology use and its effect on their lives through the lens of digital literacy, they gain valuable skills essential to success on and offline.  For example, digital literacy teaches how persuasive technology manipulates attention, the psychology of positive and negative social comparisons, how to identify information sources and validity, how to search for information effectively, how to manage privacy settings, strategies for dealing with conflict, bullies, and trolls, and how to translate personal values, like respect, compassion, and empathy, to online behavior. Armed with digital literacy skills, young people are much less likely to have problematic social media use and much more likely to be able to avoid or at least handle trouble, misinformation, scams, and bullies.

Jacobsen: Does excessive social media use make people more self-involved or more other-involved? 

Rutledge: Social media can do both, depending on the context, how people use it, and their self-awareness. People who are vulnerable to the opinions of others may become preoccupied with fitting in, whether that’s looks, clothes, or gaming skills. On the other hand, social media can make people aware of social issues around the world, expanding someone’s view of self and others.

Jacobsen: Does media consumption digitally impair or improve factors like empathy and narcissistic tendencies? 

Rutledge: Social media consumption has been related to both.  Social media has been associated with an increased ability to understand and share others’ feelings and increase compassion, encouraging perspective-taking. However, empathy has been shown to decrease when social media is linked with polarization by reinforcing preexisting beliefs and reducing cognitive flexibility. It has also been linked to diminished empathy through desensitization to tragedy through constant exposure.

Jacobsen: How does online presentation, typically, lead to a idealized, curated form of the Self rather than a genuine, realistic one?

Rutledge: Online presentation typically leads to an idealized, curated demonstration of the self rather than a genuine, realistic one. People are motivated to show a positive and desirable public image, often leading them to select and edit the content they share carefully. This phenomenon is not unique to social media. People also curate their looks when they go to many offline activities, e.g., job interviews and parties, to present a desirable version of themselves that aligns with social norms and expectations. 

The pressure to conform can lead to idealized standards of appearance, lifestyle, and achievement that, if internalized, can lead to increased social anxiety and can negatively impact self-esteem and self-worth.  However, online platforms can also provide opportunities for self-expression and aspiration that have a positive impact.

Jacobsen: How does this impact the perception of everyone on individuals’ lives other than their own?

Rutledge: Without critical thinking, people may see social media like Instagram as an accurate representation of life rather than an artificial (and often filtered) construct. This can activate negative emotions, such as jealousy or feeling inferior, or it can be inspirational, depending on the user’s focus. The key here is critical thinking, knowledge of technology, like filters, and recognizing the human tendency for social comparison to provide context for content interpretation.

Jacobsen: Do these, potentially lead to something like a constant validation loop? They have to keep up with the next hot or popular trend.

Rutledge: The “constant validation loop” describes a cycle where people seek constant external validation through likes, comments, and shares on their posts, leading to an unhealthy reliance on social media for self-worth. When we receive positive feedback online, our brains release dopamine, creating a sense of pleasure and reward, reinforcing the behavior, and motivating us to seek more validation. Instant feedback offers a quick boost to our self-esteem, but the feeling is not sustained. Similarly, when we constantly measure our lives against the often idealized lives of others, it can increase feelings of inadequacy, also leading to a greater need for validation to fill the void.

Social validation is not restricted to online experiences. We see it every day in schools, the office, and community organizations—who has the most money, the best clothes, the fastest car, the smartest children, etc. The potential negatives of an unhealthy reliance on external validation include low self-esteem, addiction, anxiety, depression, and dissatisfaction with self or life. 

There are, however, strategies to recognize and manage this tendency.  These include building awareness of how your social media use and need for validation impact your well-being, setting boundaries (like blocking negative triggers) and limiting the time spent on social media platforms, focusing on internal validation by cultivating self-compassion, appreciating your strengths and accomplishments, finding activities that make you feel happy and fulfilled, such as spending time with loved ones, pursuing hobbies, or engaging in physical activity. 

Jacobsen: How does anonymity in some areas of the internet impact treatment of self and others, so social interactions?

Rutledge: Anonymity plays a significant role in crowd behavior, often leading to people acting differently than they would alone or in smaller, more identifiable groups. This is deindividuation, where people lose their sense of self-awareness and personal identity within a crowd, reducing their sense of responsibility and increasing conformity to group norms. The more people want to belong to a group, the more likely they are to suppress their individual sense of self and conform to the group norms.

Motivations for seeking anonymity online vary. Individuals with negative or developing self-perceptions may be drawn to anonymity because it gives them the freedom to explore different personas to fulfill self-related or identity needs. Individuals struggling with self-consciousness, social anxiety, and low self-esteem also tend to prefer anonymity online. In contrast, people with darker personality traits use anonymity online to satisfy more antisocial goals, like deceiving or bullying others. 

Jacobsen: How can social media be used to encourage prosocial behaviours?

Rutledge: Digital literacy is the first step in promoting prosocial online behaviors. It emphasizes the responsible use of technology and online safety and encourages critical thinking. When it comes to young people, parents can model the kind of behavior they’d like to see their kids emulate, from device use to treating others with respect.

Prosocial behavior involves actions that are intended to help or benefit others. There is no line between online and offline in today’s world. Digital citizenship is just an extension of the behavior we want to see and teach in person. Prosocial actions can be encouraged at home, at school, and at work by emphasizing the importance of a range of actions, from simple acts of kindness, such as sharing or comforting a friend, to more complex behaviors like volunteering or standing up against injustice. 

Publicly valuing prosocial behavior can shift social norms and culture and has numerous benefits. It not only promotes positive relationships and a sense of belonging but also fosters emotional well-being and resilience. People who engage in prosocial behavior tend to have higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction.

Jacobsen: What have been the largest cultural impacts of social media technology to date, and will likely be those large cultural changes stemming from them in the near future?

Rutledge: Social media has significantly influenced culture by shaping social interactions, communication, expectations, and societal values. 

Global connectivity has allowed people from different cultures and backgrounds to connect, share ideas, and collaborate. The rapid dissemination of information on social media has transformed how news is shared and consumed. This immediacy can lead to greater awareness of global and social events, but the volume of information also leads to information bubbles and the spread of misinformation.

Changes in how people communicate have driven expectations toward shorter, visual forms of communication like memes, gifs, and videos and rapid response.

Exposure to curated representations of others’ lives can lead to feelings of inadequacy and negative social comparison, impacting self-esteem and mental health for some users but providing opportunities for connecting with people that were previously beyond our reach.

Social media platforms allow anyone to create and share content, leading to a diversification of voices and perspectives that challenge traditional media narratives and also to the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation with the potential for influencing political landscapes and bad actors.

Digital literacy and accountability are necessary for us to benefit from the positives and limit the negatives.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Pamela.

Rutledge: My pleasure.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.