Selfies,
Teenagers, Social Media and Privacy: A challenge from
a Gender Perspective for Digital Competence
Selfies,
adolescencia, redes sociales y privacidad: un reto desde la perspectiva de
género para la Competencia Digital
Universidad
de Santiago de Compostela. España.
Esther
Martínez Piñeiro
Universidad
de Santiago de Compostela. España.
Elena
Fernández Rey
Universidad
de Santiago de Compostela. España.
José
Pablo Franco López
Universidad
de Santiago de Compostela. España.
Received: 2025/12/04 Reviewed 2025/12/05 Accepted: 2026/01/28 Published: 2026/09/01
How to cite:
Fraga Varela, F., Martínez Piñeiro, E., Fernández Rey,
E., & Franco López, J.P. (2026). Selfies, Teenagers,
Social Media and Privacy: A Challenge
from a Gender Perspective for
Digital Competence [Selfis, adolescencia, redes
sociales y privacidad: un reto desde la perspectiva de género para la
Competencia Digital]. Pixel-Bit, Revista de
Medios y Educación, 77, Art. 1. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.119178
ABSTRACT
In the current context of
social media use, this study analyzes, from a gender perspective, the
phenomenon of adolescents who avoid taking selfies, identifying usage profiles
and interpreting the results within the framework of Digital Competence. Selfies
account for 30% of images generated in digital environments; however, one-third
of adolescents do not participate in this practice. An online survey was
conducted with 1,020 secondary and high school students in Galicia, analyzing their
social media practices. The results reveal a distinct profile among students
who do not take selfies, with a predominance of cisgender males at 70% compared
to 25.7% cisgender females. Both males and females tend to start using mobile
devices later, are more cautious about their privacy, and are therefore less
exposed to risks. Within the sample, and specifically among cisgender females,
there is greater risk related primarily to body image and social comparison.
The study concludes that training is needed to address concepts of privacy and
conscious use of digital platforms in the realm of social media.
RESUMEN
En
el contexto actual de uso de las redes sociales, el presente estudio analiza,
desde una perspectiva de género, el fenómeno de los adolescentes que evitan la
producción de selfis, identificando los perfiles de uso e interpretando los
resultados tomando como marco la Competencia Digital. Los selfis suponen el 30%
de las imágenes generadas en entornos digitales y, sin embargo, un tercio de
los adolescentes no participa en esta práctica. Se realizó una encuesta online
a 1020 estudiantes de secundaria y bachillerato de Galicia, analizando sus
prácticas en redes sociales. Los resultados revelan un perfil diferenciado
entre los estudiantes que no se hacen selfis, predominando el perfil de hombres
cisgénero con un 70% frente al 25,7% de mujeres cisgénero. Tanto hombres como mujeres
tienden a empezar a utilizar los dispositivos móviles más tarde, son más
cautelosos con su privacidad y por ello están menos expuestos a los riesgos.
Dentro de la muestra y en concreto en mujeres cisgénero se muestra un mayor
riesgo relacionado principalmente con la imagen corporal y la comparación
social. El estudio concluye la necesidad de una formación que aborde los
conceptos de privacidad y uso consciente de las plataformas digitales en el
ámbito de las redes sociales.
KEYWORDS· PALABRAS CLAVES
Educational innovation; Technology intermediation;
Educational engagement; Educational achievement; Active learning; Active
learning
Innovación educativa;
Intermediación tecnológica; Compromiso educativo; Rendimiento escolar;
Aprendizaje activo
1. Introduction
Currently,
the use of mobile devices by adolescents is largely associated with the
generation and visualization of contents in social media in a wide variety of formats.
Among these formats, selfies stand out. Selfies account for 30% of all images
generated in these domains (Dhir et al., 2016). Selfies are artifacts that
grant access to a symbolic universe of codes and dynamics which are essential
for the communication process beyond a superficial approach of merely depicting
physical presence (Calvo-González & San Fabián, 2018). The study of this
phenomenon provides an opportunity to approach a type of production that may
prove relevant for the field of education. We are before an instance of
contemporary teenage culture that sheds light on how adolescents communicate
and interact in the processes that shape them in today’s world. By
understanding this, we will be able to assess the knowledge they have on the
responsible use of technology for critical digital participation (Buckingham,
2015).
The
educational debate on this type of practices is
particularly relevant at this point in time.
Adolescents participate in digital spaces known by their platformization
(Prenger & Duze, 2020). This means that these
spaces are part of complex processes, usually outside the regulatory scope of
public administrations (VanDick, 2021), that exploit
every economic possibility provided by the management of personal data, what
has been termed surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2018). The methods of
persuasion adolescents are exposed to in these digital platforms make them
particularly vulnerable to potential risks (Garitaonandia
et al., 2020). This lack of protection is a challenge that should be addressed
by mandatory education. It has been shown, however, that training programs fail
to improve the ability to manage these types of situations (Author, 2024).
Analyzing
the practices in these digital spaces may offer insight on the degree to which
these educational processes adjust to reality. Selfies are practices that
coordinate discourses, meanings and mentalities (Schatzki et al., 2005) that
establish what to show, how and with whom. Subjects develop practices of
subjectivity as true technologies of the self, ranging from mere adoption to
the possibility of transforming themselves (Foucault, 2010). From this
perspective, education processes in mandatory education prove fundamental as
they may entail questioning this situation beyond mere acceptance. Schools may offer
students the possibility of reassessing themselves by reviewing and unlearning
what they have learned to uncover the mechanisms by which a particular order
becomes the norm (Vignal, 2012). It is necessary to
ascertain what knowledge is required for responsible and critical use of these
digital spaces, a basic objective of Digital Competence (DC) according to the
European Commission (2018).
1.1.
Selfies: some implications for the life of adolescents
When trying
to better understand the practical implications of such practices as selfie
taking, it becomes apparent that they display persistence and adherence in
adolescents. And this is no coincidence: the technology available and the very
configuration of social media not only determine the generation of this type of
contents, but they also promote it (Cava, 2020). Underneath, there lies a
business model based on datafication. In other words, the ability to turn a number of different elements, including payments,
publications, locations and time frames into data (Mayer-Schönberger
& Cukier, 2014), develop techniques of predictive analysis and offer
digital services (Van Dijck et al., 2018). Or, to put it differently, to
propose, mediate and promote practices of the self that can be commodified in
the order of discourse (Foucault, 1988). To a great extent,
this may be understood by observing the digital architectures that
enable transmedia production in the processes of identity construction through
creation, validation in the form of ‘likes’ and
followers, but also through the operation of algorithms (Márquez et al., 2022).
As the use
of technological devices and software also affects the form of production, the
content generated, in its different forms, is not neutral either. This is very
much the case of the social media most often used by adolescents such as
Instagram or TikTok. Their use promotes a type of user-generated content that
is clearly more visual than textual (Laestadius,
2017). It is a place where visibility and attention generation provide value,
in what is a clear case of commodification of the self (Han, 2017).
This
reality comes with major risks. Adolescents use digital platforms that are
considered dysfunctional for body image in contrast to more textual languages.
Consequently, selfies may contribute to a negative effect (Vandenbosch
et al., 2022). These products entail participating in idealized forms of self-representation,
which poses a potential threat to self-esteem (Steinsbekk
et al., 2021) by encouraging constant comparison (Romero Saletti et al., 2022).
This situation negatively impacts on wellbeing, albeit
not equally across all adolescent population. Indeed, differences do emerge on the basis of socio-economic level (Korkmazer
et al., 2022).
Recent
studies suggest that selfie practices among adolescents have undergone changes.
Anderson & Jiang (2018) point to a decrease with respect to previous generations,
as 25% never post a selfie. Use varies by gender and ethnicity: 60% of girls
take selfies as opposed to 30% of boys, the least interested being white
adolescents. Veldhuis et al. (2020) link the greater use by girls with greater
objectivation and concern for their body image. Platforms prioritize bodies,
particularly female bodies, increasing their visibility and consumption. This
dynamic promotes associations to self-representation and extroversion (Hjetland et al., 2022), solidifying the findings on its
negative impact on women (Sorokowski et al., 2015).
Both genders, however, experience dissatisfaction before unattainable ideals
(Fioravanti et al., 2022). Although heteronormative white men predominate,
diversity is slowly increasing (Korkmazer et al.,
2022).
1.2.
Selfies and educational processes: an opportunity to reformulate school
learning
For a
long time now, there has been a demand for training adolescents in participation in digital environments. Several studies,
however, have questioned the efficacy of the school response in both Spain
(Fraga-Varela et al., 2024) and internationally (Scheerder
et al., 2020). In Spain, despite doubts on the suitability of Digital
Competence (Hernández-Serrano et al., 2021), educating students in the
responsible and critical use of technologies remains an indispensable
curricular element. This perspective has been reflected in the successive
Spanish educational acts, including the LOMLOE (Organic Law 3/2020) currently
in force. Schools provide a restrictive mediation in respect of these digital
environments and devices, resulting in adolescents learning autonomously,
unaccompanied, resorting to trial and error and peer imitation, within a
context marked by platform capitalism, (Srnicek, 2018) and threats like sexting,
grooming or sexist or homophobic attacks (Livingstone, 2014).
Schools should
address realities that are close to the students by incorporating their needs
and practices in digital contexts (Livingstone, 2014) into a framework of
connected learning (Mizuko et al., 2013). Many youths, however, lack the
competence to critically understand digital environments (Alemany et al.,
2020), which limits their ability to question the technologies and their
influence on gender norms. Digital alphabetization is essential for socio-educational
transformation (Sefton-Green, 2019), thus allowing a critical compromise with
platforms, algorithms and data, including an understanding of both the
implications of publishing selfies and how their data are commodified
(Pangrazio et al., 2022).
Within
this framework, this study focuses, from a gender perspective, on those
students who shun away from posting selfies on social media, a digital space in
which these practices have a strong presence. Specifically, it is our intent to
look into the rejection of this practice and the
characteristics of this process; identify potential use profiles and establish
differences with other students, looking for emerging risks in both groups.
This analysis should shed light on how today’s adolescents negotiate their
subjectivity and experience gender. It should also suggest educational
implications in the context of digital alphabetization and the development of
competences in mandatory education. Its results may be the basis for providing
resources and orienting the educational, social and family environment.
2.
Methodology
2.1.
Instrument
An ad hoc
questionnaire was designed and administered online with six sections
corresponding to the objectives of the wider project it is part of: a general
section on the use of social media; one section on the profile of the subject
on the social network; three sections on specific practices, selfies, memes and
videos, selected on the basis of several studies on the use of social media;
and a final section on demographics. Information on gender was collected using
the following categories: cisgender woman, cisgender man, transgender woman,
transgender man, no binary and others. The instrument was subjected to the
criteria of six experts in educational technology, gender identity and
construction of tools for social research to ensure its validity. Once the changes
suggested were made, a pilot test was conducted with 25 adolescents that shared the
characteristics of the target population by administering the instrument online
using the Survio platform. These two processes
provided an opportunity to add new answer options to some questions, improve
the writing of the items, adapt language expressions to the age of the subjects
and clarify data protection issues. A set of attitude items was also added.
2.2. Sample
The survey was targeted at students over 14 years
of age in state-run schools in Galicia, enrolled in the third and fourth year
of ESO, first year of Bachillerato (High School Juniors) and Formación Profesional
Básica (Career and Technical Education) during
the 2021-22 academic year. A proportional stratified sample was made to select
a representative sample on the basis of the province
and the density of population of the municipality where the school was located,
following the classification of the Instituto Galego de estatística
(Galician’s Statistical Institute) (urban, semi-urban and rural
municipalities). Consequently, Secondary Education Schools, Integrated public
schools and Vocational Training integrated schools in all four provinces of
Galicia were selected where the above levels were taught, thus representing a
variety of environments in accordance with the density of population of the
municipalities.
A total of 1,020 students
participated, which made up the final sample. They were mainly between 14 and 16
years of age, although 9.2% were older. 37% of them were students of the 3rd
year of Educación secundaria
obligatoria, 35% were in the 4th year,
20% in Bachillerato, and 8% in Formación Profesional. 44.3% identified as cis male, 51.4% as cis
female CIS, 2.7% as non-binary, and the remaining 1.6% consisted of people who
identified as trans or belonging to the Others
category.
The questionnaire was
administered online using the Survio platform following
contacts with the administration of the previously selected schools. Students
were previously informed and those who volunteered filled out the questionnaire
during school hours at the computer rooms of the schools and with the
collaboration of the teaching staff. Each respondent filled out the general
section, the one corresponding to the profile and the sociodemographic data, as
well as those sections dealing with the activities they engaged in (selfies, memes
and video clips). The data collection process ended in February 2022.
2.3. Data analysis
For data analysis, once data
was downloaded from the Survio platform, SPSS version 29 was used. Univariate
descriptive analyses were conducted with measures of central tendency and
percentages to describe the profile of the students that were selfie-takers and
of those who were non-selfie takers. As it failed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for
normality, the U-Mann-Whitney test was used to determine the existence of
significant differences (p≤.05) and the associated effect to this
test was calculated in accordance with r-value r=|z|/√N
(Fritz et al., 2012). The ꭓ2 test (level of
significance of .05) was also used and the Cramer's V coefficient was applied to measure the size of the effect
according to Rea & Parker (2014).
3.
Results
The general results obtained
in the whole of the sample with regard to the following variables are presented:
age at which students had their first mobile phone, age when they first
accessed social media (at what age they had their first account on social
media), social media they first accessed (on which social media you had your
first account), the most used social media (which social network you use the
most) and number of accounts. These variables were then analyzed in detail on the basis of whether or not
respondents posted selfies.
The mean age at which minors had
their first mobile was 11.48 years. Only 1.9% reported that they had never had
such device. Year distribution showed a qualitative leap at 12 years of age.
Access to their first accounts on social media seemed to occur a little later,
the mean age was 11.9 years. However, the leap in percentages remained at 12.
Virtually the whole of the
sample (99.6%) had an account on some social media. Most of the students
(71.7%) had their first account on Instagram or on YouTube, with percentages well
ahead of the other options. Only TikTok (9.9%) and Facebook (6.8%) were above
5% in the final count. The most popular social media among Galician students
was WhatsApp, as only 1.6% did not have account on this app.
Most remarkable was the case
of Instagram, where over half of the sample (56.1%) had at least two accounts
and one in ten (9.5%) had 3. Three out of four respondents (73.9%) kept their
profile private in some way or another, with or without their best friend list and
only 14.3% kept a completely public profile.
Almost a third of Galician adolescents between
14 and 17 years of age were non-selfie takers. Specifically, 31% of respondents
reported that they did not engage in this practice. Faced with this reality, it
seems interesting to look into these subjects’ profile and the role the digital environments play.
Therefore, a practice which is supposed to be
widespread in this age bracket, precisely because of its absence, becomes the
focus of interest in line with the least popular practices or even the
so-called rejection practices.
If we analyze the data seeking to define a
profile of the adolescents who are non-selfie takers, we see that it was much
more common among cisgender males, 70%, than among cisgender females with
25.7%. To these percentages we should add 3.3% who identified themselves as
non-binary and 1.1% who placed themselves in the remaining categories. Data
shows that the percentage of women was twice that of men in this type of
content. This shows a greater female exposure in social environments, and it
could have implications for their body language, self-awareness and visibility
in places of public exposure. Results confirm a clear association between
engaging in this practice and the gender of the subjects, with a moderate size
of the effect (ꭓ2=107.5; p<.001; V=.345).
If we break down these data by age, the percentage
of non-selfie takers progressively and uninterruptedly decreased with age, from
37% at 14 years of age to 21% at 17. A process that shows significant
differences in age but with a low size of effect (U=94375; p=.003;
r=.094). Also significant is the fact that we are before a trend
sustained in time. The results disaggregated by age show that non-selfie takers
decreased progressively so that at the highest age in the study, 17 years, selfie
taking was a very widespread practice: approximately 80% of adolescents at this
age reported that they took them.
This
being an emerging trend, it is surprising, however, that part of the students
did not engage in it. This decision may be motivated by several factors,
including the influence of their socio-cultural environment, their exposure to
social media or the personality of the subject.
One of the main elements when establishing a use
profile is the age at which they started to access a social network. No
differences were found between selfie-takers and non-selfie takers, though. In
both cases, mean age was 11.89 years. As to age of first using their own mobile
phone with Internet access, data shows significant differences between groups,
as shown in Figure 1.
The adolescents that posted selfies began at the age of 11.41 years as opposed
to 11.66 years with significant differences, (p=.013), but with a low
size of effect (U=85509; p=.016; r=.078). No significant differences were
found between male and female selfie-takers (U=36795; p=.986) and
non-selfie takers (U=5052; p=.804).
Figure 1
Age at which they used their first mobile
phone with Internet connection and selfie taking
Source: own elaboration.
Working on the profiles of teenage
selfie-takers and non-selfie-takers led us to look into
how they use the different available platforms and software and how this
reality may account for a differentiated approach to their appropriation. If
our focus is on the first social media they activate (in response to the
question in the questionnaire: in which social media
did you have your first account?) evident contrasts become apparent, thus
establishing clearly differentiated profiles as seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Percentage of teenage selfie-takers and
non-selfie-takers and their first social media
Source: own elaboration.
Selfie-takers had Instagram as their first social
media followed by Tiktok, Youtube
and Facebook. Among adolescents who tended to reject this practice, however,
their preferences as their first social media pointed to Youtube,
Instagram, Facebook and Tiktok. A more exhaustive
analysis showed that there was a moderate relation between taking selfies and
starting to use one of these four social media (ꭓ2=48.27; p<.001; V=.225). If we
look for a relation between the first social media and gender, we see, as shown
in Figure 3, that the biggest differences were found in cisgender men.
Non-selfie takers clearly prioritized the platform YouTube as the first media
they activated. Selfie-takers preferentially opted for Instagram. In cisgender
women differences existed, but they were much less marked.
Figure 3
First social media by gender and whether or not selfies are taken
Source: own elaboration.
The manner in which
they appropriated social media showed differences between both groups. Thus,
access to Instagram was higher in selfie-takers. Most respondents in this group
had more than one account (45.7% reported they had 2, and 19% had three or
more) as opposed to non-selfie takers who, although they took into account this
network, the percentage that had no Instagram was much higher (14.5%) and most
of them had just a single account. Significant differences were therefore found
between these two groups as to the number of Instagram accounts they have, with
a moderate size of effect (U=66907; p<.001; r=.24). This suggests different
modes of use: one that is much more profound and explores all options in the
case of adolescents who are selfie-takers. In contrast, non-selfie takers have
a much more basic approach to it, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Number of accounts and use of selfies
Source: own elaboration.
If we analyse these data
from a gender perspective, we see that cisgender women who posted selfies
mostly had Instagram accounts and used more sophisticated profiles in this
platform, with several accounts at the same time. Non-selfie takers, on the
other hand, had mostly one single account. This was also true of cisgener men, as shown in Figure 5. Differences can be seen
between cisgender men who were selfie-takers and non-selfie takers, (U=13798;
p<.001; r=.21) and also in the case
of women (U = 90445; p<.001; r=.17).
Figure 5
Number of accounts and use of selfies by gender
Source: own elaboration.
Teenage
non-selfie takers also showed a different way of making themselves known in
their media, as shown in the analysis of the answers to the question: “State
whether you share the following data in your profile”. Although they shared
most of the data in their profile, they did so to a lesser extent, especially
as regards private data: likes and interests, whether
they have a partner and the events they attend. In all these cases,
moderate-size effects were found, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Association between taking selfies and
accessibility to personal data in social media
|
Profile data |
|
Yes % |
No % |
ꭓ2 |
P |
V |
|
Name |
|
78.2% |
67% |
13.33 |
.000* |
.12 |
|
Surnames |
|
51.1% |
37.5% |
14.62 |
.000* |
.12 |
|
Likes and interests |
|
41.6% |
25.6% |
21.89 |
.000* |
.15 |
|
Hobbies |
|
42.6% |
30.9% |
11.6 |
.001* |
.11 |
|
Relationship
status |
|
28.4% |
10.5% |
35.8 |
.000* |
.19 |
|
Events and
plans |
|
41% |
14.4% |
63.89 |
.000* |
.26 |
|
Sexual
orientation |
|
17.4% |
8.4% |
12.87 |
.000* |
.12 |
|
References to my gender |
|
21.8% |
9.5% |
20.38 |
.000* |
.15 |
*p<.05
Some of the elements that are considered
relevant for their own visibility begin with their name. 78.23% of students who
take selfies showed their name whereas non-selfie takers did so in a percentage of 67%. This is a significant difference with a
moderate-size effect (ꭓ2=13,3; p<.001; V=.12. We can also see that 41% of teenage selfie-takers shared
the events they attended as opposed to 14.4% of non-selfie takers. They were
also more reluctant to post information related to their sexual identity as
only 8.4% of them shared references to their sexual orientation, a percentage
that doubled for selfie- takers. Something similar happened with references to
gender, which were shared by only 9.5% in the first group as opposed to 21.8%
in the second group. Table 2 shows the percentage of cases for each of the
groups which indicates that the data in their profile were real and the effect
size for each.
Table 2
Differences between real data and whether
selfies were taken or not
|
Profile data |
Yes % |
No % |
ꭓ2 |
P |
V |
|
Musical tastes |
72.7% |
51.9% |
42.19 |
.000* |
0.21 |
|
Feelings |
19.1% |
8.1% |
18.18 |
.000* |
0.14 |
|
Hobbies |
41.4% |
29.8% |
11.44 |
.001* |
0.11 |
|
Events |
41% |
14.4% |
63.88 |
.000* |
0.26 |
|
Partner
|
29.3% |
8.4% |
48.99 |
.000* |
0.23 |
|
Sexual orientation |
20.3% |
7% |
25.70 |
.000* |
0.16 |
|
Gender |
21.5% |
7.7% |
26.32 |
.000* |
0.17 |
*p<.05
4. Discussion
This
study inquired, from a gender perspective, into adolescent students who do not
post selfies on social media, seeking to identify potential user profiles,
emerging risks and taking as the interpretation framework for these results
digital alphabetization and Digital Competence within the realm of the school.
Empirical evidence is provided of a clearly defined profile. Non-selfie takers began to use
their first mobile device later. Besides, these students began using digital
platforms differently. They started with YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and
TikTok. Selfie-takers started with Instagram, TikTok, YouTube y Facebook. This
issue is by no means unimportant as the forms of representation and the
communication languages are clearly different (Laestadius,
2017).
Students
who were non-selfie takers were more careful with their privacy, limiting the public
disclosure of their real names, the events they attend or their sexual and
gender identities, and restricted their profiles to a single account. This
contrasted with selfie-takers, specifically cisgender females, who used two or
three accounts in the same social network with greater exposure of their
personal and private domains. As a consequence of this
greater exposure, cisgender females may experience greater distress in relation
to their bodies, appearance and feeling publicly judged (Veldhuis et al.,
2020). Because of their greater visibility, they are more likely to face social
comparison (Romero Saletti et al., 2022), thus being exposed to an increased
risk of negative effects (Korkmazer et al., 2022).
This visibility instigates externalization, which entails a risk because of
high exposure to idealized and commodified forms of self-representation (Steinsbekk et al., 2021). All this shows that refraining
from posting selfies could be linked to a certain level of precaution in the
use of social media and mobile phones.
Data
shows a clear divide in selfie taking from a gender perspective that goes
beyond differences in percentages and suggests profound processes of
differentiation. The increased adherence of cisgender women to this practice is
the result of gender norms, which as Han (2017) points out, exploit the
commodification of the self, where female bodies become visual products within an
attention economy. The digital architectures and the work of algorithms
(Márquez et al., 2022) amplify this dynamic as they prioritize visual contents
that replicate the order of discourse as described by Foucault (1988), where
certain practices are naturalized and commodified on the
basis of gender.
The small
percentage of cisgender females that were non-selfie takers deserves more
attention as this may be the consequence of a resistance to normative pressures
on digital femineity as processes of unlearning (Vignal,
2012). From a Digital Competence perspective, it is indispensable to address
how platformization (Deuze
& Prenger, 2020; Van Dijck, 2021) replicates gender inequalities. Critical
alphabetization must include reflection on the technologies of the self
(Foucault, 2010) in practices that co-ordinate discourses and materialities
(Schatzki et al., 2005). A connected learning (Mizuko et al., 2013) would make
it possible to question datafication (Mayer-Schönberger
& Cukier, 2014) and surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2018), which exploit
data on the basis of gender, providing tools to
reformulate digital self-representation and its implications for students’
well-being and autonomy.
On the
other hand, data show that 62 % of females and 33 % of males posted selfies,
which is clearly in line with previous studies (Anderson & Jiang, 2018)
that show a general tendency to reduce this practice during adolescence with
the passing of years. But this statistical average hides a reality: it is a
practice learnt through the recursive process of negotiation of collective
practices shaped and transformed in the community. This situation becomes
apparent in the gradual increase in
the number of selfies as adolescents grow older, as the percentage of
non-selfie takers went from 37 % at 14 years of age to 21 % at 17. Teenage
students face a practice that includes a variety of discourses, knowledge and meanings
(Schatzki et al., 2005) in which certain ways of being, doing and existing are
incorporated. These students end up adhering to a representation of norms and
codes that modulate their subjectivity and condition their gender experience.
From an
education perspective, the situation shown clearly demonstrates the high
exposure of adolescents to risk situations (Scheerder
et al., 2020). It should be highlighted, beyond the visibility of these practices,
that they engage in these practices at younger ages than the current laws in force establish:
approximately at 11 years of age as opposed to the statutory minimum age which
is currently 14. We are witnessing the naturalization, from very early ages, of
the disclosure of high value personal information which, in many cases, poses
potential problems as real names or frequented places are publicly
communicated, thus exponentially increasing threats (Livingstone, 2014). The
difficulties for understanding and managing competences, which are necessary
for responsible use in these environments become apparent, as shown in previous
studies (Alemany et al., 2020). The opportunity to develop a critical view of
these platforms is missed (Sefton-Green, 2019) as well as the implications for
the commodification of their data (Pangrazio et al., 2022), in a context of
platform capitalism they cannot oppose (Srnicek, 2018). This situation calls
into question their critical participation in these environments (Buckingham,
2015) and raises doubts about their current preparation to manage the strategic
value of their privacy (Véliz, 2020).
5.
Conclusions
This
study provides empirical evidence on the adolescents who refrain from posting
selfies to social media. The results show a differentiated profile consisting
of mainly cisgender men with significant differences in digital appropriation: cisgender
females that post selfies display a more intensive use of social media with
higher personal exposure, placing them at a higher risk before issues of body
image and social comparison. It is noted that this is a progressively learned
practice, which evidences a process of norms that modulate subjectivity and
gender. The situation suggests it should be necessary to provide adolescents
with a critical education on platformatization,
datafication, privacy and gender inequality in digital environments.
This
study has a number of limitations that open the door
to future studies. This line of research needs complementarity through
qualitative strategies that make it possible to gain a profound understanding
of the findings as the survey work may yield certain superficiality in its
results. It would be also interesting to identify good practices in the use of
selfies that may become a reference to female adolescents.
Authors contribution
Conceptualization, F.F.-V.;
data curation, E.M.-P. Formal analysis, E.M.-P. and E.F.-R.; securing funding,
F.F.-V., E.M.-P., E.F.-R. and J.-P.F.-L.; research, F.F.-V., E.M.-P., E.F.-R.
and J.-P.F.-L ; methodology, F.F.-V., E.M.-P., E.F.-R. and J.-P.F.-L; Project
management, F.F.-V; resources, F.F.-V.; software, E.M.-P; monitoring, F.F.-V.;
validation, F.F.-V., E.M.-P., E.F.-R. and J.-P.F.-L; visualization, F.F.-V. and
E.M.-P.; writing —original drafting, F.F.-V.; writing -proofreading and
editing, F.F.-V.
Funding
Project PID2024-157903OB-I00
funded by MICIU/AEI /10.13039/501100011033 and ERFD, UE
Supplementary material
The dataset used in
this article are available at Zenodo repository https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14185779
Ethical approval
It was approved by the Bioethical Committee of the Universidade
de Santiago de Compostela with code USC-24/2021.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict
of interest.
References
Alemany, J., Del Val, E., & Garcia-Fornes, A. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of a gamified social
network for applying privacy concepts: An empirical study with teens. IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(4), 777–789. https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2020.3026584
Anderson, M.,
& Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/05/PI_2018.05.31_TeensTech_FINAL.pdf
Buckingham, D.
(2015). Defining digital literacy: What do young people need to know about
digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10 (Jubileumsnummer 2006–2016), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2015-Jubileumsnummer-03
Calvo-González, S., & San Fabián, J. L.
(2018). Selfies, jóvenes y sexualidad en Instagram:
Representaciones del yo en formato imagen. Pixel-Bit.
Revista de Medios y Educación, 52, 167-181. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2018.i52.12
Cava, X. (2020). La lógica del postureo:
forma-mercancía y auto-representación en las redes
sociales. Astrolabio. Revista Internacional de Filosofia,
24, 89–101. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Astrolabio/article/view/384606
Council of the
European Union (2018). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences
for lifelong learning (text with EEA relevance) (2018/C189/01). Official
Journal of the European Union, 4.6.2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)
Deuze, M., &
Prenger, M. (Eds.) (2020). Making Media: Production, Practices, and
Professions. Amsterdam University Press.
Dhir, A.,
Pallesen, S., Torsheim, T., & Andreassen, C. S. (2016). Do age and gender
differences exist in selfie-related behaviours? Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.053
Fioravanti, G., Bocci
Benucci, S., Ceragioli, G., & Casale, S. (2022). How the exposure to beauty ideals on social
networking sites influences body image: A systematic review of experimental
studies. Adolescent Research Review, 7(3), 419–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-022-00179-4
Foucault, M.
(1988). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Edited
by L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton. University of Massachusetts
Press.
Foucault, M. (2010).
The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the Collège de France
(1982–1983). Edited by F. Gros. Palgrave MacMillan.
Fraga-Varela, F., Vila-Couñago,
E., & Rodríguez-Groba, A. (2024). Uso inadecuado de tecnología por alumnado
de Enseñanza Obligatoria: Entre la creencia y la realidad. Revista
Complutense de Educación, 35(1), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.82835
Garitaonandia, C., Karrera-Xuarros,
I., Jiménez-Iglesias, E., & Larrañaga, N. (2020). Menores conectados y
riesgos online: contenidos inadecuados, uso inapropiado de la información y uso
excesivo de internet. Profesional de la Información, 29(4),
e290436. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.jul.36
Han, B.-C.
(2017). The Agony of Eros: 1. MIT
Press.
Hernández-Serrano, M. J., Renés-Arellano, P.,
Ortuño, R. A. C., & González-Larrea, B. (2021). Privacidad en redes
sociales: análisis de los riesgos de auto-representación
digital de adolescentes españoles = Privacy in social networks: analysis of the
Spanish teenagers’ digital selfrepresentation
risks. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 79,
133–154. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2021-1528
Hjetland, G. J., Finserås, T.
R., Sivertsen, B., Colman, I., Hella, R. T., & Skogen, J. C. (2022). Focus on self-presentation on social media across
sociodemographic variables, lifestyles, and personalities: A cross-sectional
study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
19(17), 11133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711133
Korkmazer, B., De
Ridder, S., & Van Bauwel, S. (2022). Gender, culture and morality: A case study of young people’s negotiations
of sexual intimacy online. Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural
Studies, 14(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs_00057_1
Laestadius, L. (2017).
Instagram. In A. Quan-Haase and L. Sloan (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social
Media Research Methods (pp. 573–592). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la
que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación. Boletín
Oficial del Estado, 340, 30.12.2020 (pp. 122868–122953). https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2020/12/29/3
Livingstone, S.
(2014). Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky
opportunities on social network sites. Communications, 39(3),
283–303. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0113
Márquez, I., Lanzeni, D, & Masanet, M.-J.
(2022). Teenagers as curators:
Digitally mediated curation of the self on Instagram. Journal of Youth
Studies, 26(7), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2022.2053670
Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2014). Big Data: A
Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt.
Mizuko, I.,
Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J.,
Sefton-Green, J., & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected Learning: An Agenda
for Research and Design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. https://dmlhub.net/publications/connected-learning-agenda-for-research-and-design/index.html
Pangrazio, L.,
Stornaiuolo, A., Nichols, T. P., Garcia, A., & Philip, T. M. (2022). Datafication meets plataformization:
Materializing data processes in teaching and learning. Harvard Educational
Review, 92(2), 257–283. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.2.257
Romero
Saletti, S. M., Van den Broucke, S., & Van Beggelaer,
W. (2022). Understanding motives, usage patterns and effects of Instagram use
in youths: A qualitative study. Emerging Adulthood, 10(6),
1376–1394. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968221114251
Schatzki, T.,
Knorr Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.) (2005). The Practice Turn in
Contemporary Theory. Routledge.
Scheerder, A. J.,
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). Taking advantage of the Internet: A qualitative analysis
to explain why educational background is decisive in gaining positive outcomes.
Poetics, 80, 101426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2019.101426
Sefton-Green,
J. (2019). From the personal to the societal – the challenge of moving from
everyday ‘interpersonal’ digital literacies to deeper social understandings. The
Journal of Education, 2(2), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.25020/joe.2019.2.2.17
Sorokowski,
P., Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T.,
Huk, A., & Pisanski, K. (2015). Selfie posting
behaviors are associated with narcissism among men. Personality and
Individual Differences, 85, 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.004
Srnicek, N.
(2018). Platform Capitalism. Polity Press.
Steinsbekk, S., Wichstrøm, L., Stenseng, F., Nesi, J., Hygen,
B. W., & Skalická, V. (2021). The impact of social media use on appearance
self-esteem from childhood to adolescence – A 3-wave community study. Computers
in Human Behavior, 114, 106528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106528
Vandenbosch, L., Fardouly, J., & Tiggemann, M. (2022). Social media and
body image: Recent trends and future directions. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 45, 101289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.12.002
Van Dijck, J.,
Poell, T., & Waal, M. de. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in
a Connective World. Oxford University Press.
Van Dijck, J.
(2021). Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization
and its governance. New Media &
Society, 23(9), 2801–2819. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820940293
Veldhuis, J.,
Alleva, J. M., Bij de Vaate, A. J. D. (N.), Keijer, M., & Konijn, E. A.
(2020). Me, my selfie, and I: The
relations between selfie behaviors, body image, self-objectification, and
self-esteem in young women. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(1),
3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000206
Véliz, C. (2020). Privacy
is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data. Bantam Press.
Vignal, S. P. (2012). Cuidado de sí y cuidado del otro.
Aportes desde M. Foucault para pensarrelaciones entre
subjetividad y educación. Contrastes. Revista Internacional de Filosofía,
17, 307–324. https://doi.org/10.24310/Contrastescontrastes.v17i0.1152
Zuboff, S.
(2018). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at
the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.