Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/13/myspace_blogging_low_self_esteem/
Bloggers are rantier, more self-loathing than thou
Oz study digs up psychological dirt
Posted in Music and Media, 13th March 2008 06:02 GMT
Free whitepaper – Dell solid state disk (SSD) drives
And if you ever need self validation / Just meet me in the alley by the railway station
- Morrissey
MySpace users who blog are more prone to distress, self-loathing and ranting than MySpace users who don't blog, a study has found.
Who would have guessed?
"Intending bloggers were more psychologically distressed and more likely to use venting and self-blame to cope with this stress than were non-bloggers," report Professors Baker and Moore, at the Swunburne University of Technology in Victoria, Australia.
"Since intending bloggers were more psychologically distressed than non-bloggers, it is unsurprising that they more frequently used the unhelpful coping strategy of self-blame."
The academics canvassed 124 users, and the results are published in an article entitled "Distress, Coping, and Blogging: Comparing New MySpace Users by Their Intention to Blog" in Cyber Psychology and Behaviour.
The theraputic aspects of blogging have been noted before (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/22/blogging_is_therapy/).
"Intending bloggers were significantly more discontented with their number of online and face-to-face friends," add Baker and Moore.
From this conclusion, the authors leap to this puzzling recommendation: "This finding suggests that blogging might be used to increase social networking and improve existing social-support structures."
Er, what? Surely the social-support structures work if you can get the patients to leave the house - and once they're blogging, they have less time for real interaction. And if no one reads the blogs, isn't the self-loathing likely to increase?
Also, since the internet is symmetrical - blogging could be a way for non-bloggers to avoid people with low self-esteem - again, increasing the cycle of misery. Sadly, this isn't explored.
You can see the findings here (http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9930) [pdf, 72kb]. ®