Skip to content
1981
image of The selfie of courage on Instagram: The moderating role of anonymity in the relationship between political use and courage

Abstract

Does the use of political social networks require courage? Social networks empower political participation and activism by facilitating new forms of communication, collaboration, rapid sharing and remote access to information. Previous studies have addressed the negative effects of social network anonymity, such as cyberbullying, or its positive effects, such as its contribution to moral courage, but the relationship between courage and political use has been ignored. This study examines the relationship between courage and political use on social networks and the moderating role of anonymity based on profile photo privacy on Instagram. Moreover, unlike previous studies that measured the perception of anonymity as self-report, a new method based on the real profile photo anonymity of the Instagram user was used. The time spent on Instagram was obtained via the platform data. Data collection was conducted through an online survey with 306 undergraduate students in Turkey. Our findings show that courage on Instagram is strongly positively associated with political use and that anonymity is a significant moderator of this relationship. There was a stronger relationship between Instagram courage and political Instagram use for users who used their own photo as their profile photo, while it was weaker for users who used their photos of friends as their profile photo. However, this relationship was irrelevant for users who did not use any photo on their profile. Overall, the findings suggest that courage is important in the use of social networks for political purposes, but users may still prefer anonymity to protect themselves from any kind of pressure and surveillance.

© 2025 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jammr_00114_1
2025-10-18
2026-04-22

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allcott, Hunt, Braghieri, Luca, Eichmeyer, Sarah and Gentzkow, Matthew (2020), ‘The welfare effects of social media’, American Economic Review, 110:3, pp. 629–76, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrejevic, Mark (2009), ‘Critical media Studies 2.0: An interactive upgrade’, Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 1:1, pp. 35–51, https://doi.org/10.1386/iscc.1.1.35_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakshy, Eytan, Messing, Solomon and Adamic, Lada A. (2015), ‘Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook’, Science, 348:6239, pp. 1130–32, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barlett, Christopher P., Gentile, Douglas A. and Chew, Chelsea (2016), ‘Predicting cyberbullying from anonymity’, Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5:2, pp. 171–80, https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000055.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Beam, Michael A., Hutchens, Myiah J. and Hmielowski, Jay D. (2018), ‘Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election’, Information, Communication & Society, 21:7, pp. 940–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bessone, Pedro, Campante, Filipe, Ferraz, Claudio and Souza, Pedro C. (2019), ‘Internet access, social media, and the behavior of politicians: Evidence from Brazil’, working paper, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cagé, Julia (2020), ‘Media competition, information provision and political participation: Evidence from French local newspapers and elections, 1944–2014’, Journal of Public Economics, 185, May, pp. 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104077.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cho, Jaeho, Ahmed, Saifuddin, Keum, Heejo, Choi, Yun Jung and Lee, Jong Hyuk (2018), ‘Influencing myself: Self-reinforcement through online political expression’, Communication Research, 45:1, pp. 83–111, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644020.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Christopherson, Kimberly M. (2007), ‘The positive and negative implications of anonymity in internet social interactions: “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog”’, Computers in Human Behavior, 23:6, pp. 3038–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Druckman, James N., Klar, Samara, Krupnikov, Yanna, Levendusky, Matthew and Ryan, John Barry (2021), ‘Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America’, Nature Human Behaviour, 5:1, pp. 28–38, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Edmond, Chris (2013), ‘Information manipulation, coordination, and regime change’, Review of Economic Studies, 80:4, pp. 1422–58, https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt020.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Forte, Andrea, Andalibi, Nazanin and Greenstadt, Rachel (2017), ‘Privacy, anonymity, and perceived risk in open collaboration: A study of Tor users and Wikipedians’, in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’17), ACM, Portland, OR, USA, 25 February, pp. 1800–11, https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998273.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Guriev, Sergei, Melnikov, Nikita and Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina (2021), ‘3G internet and confidence in government’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136:4, pp. 2533–613, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa040.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hooghe, Marc and Kern, Anna (2017), ‘The tipping point between stability and decline: Trends in voter turnout, 1950–1980–2012’, European Political Science, 16:4, pp. 535–52, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0021-7.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Howard, Matt C. and Alipour, Kent K. (2014), ‘Does the courage measure really measure courage? A theoretical and empirical evaluation’, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9:5, pp. 449–59, https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.910828.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Howard, Matt C., Farr, James L., Grandey, Alicia A. and Gutworth, Melissa B. (2017), ‘The creation of the workplace social courage scale (WSCS): An investigation of internal consistency, psychometric properties, validity, and utility’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 32:6, pp. 673–90, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9463-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil and Westwood, Sean J. (2019), ‘The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States’, Annual Review of Political Science, 22:1, pp. 129–46, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jardine, Eric (2018), ‘Tor, what is it good for? Political repression and the use of online anonymity-granting technologies’, New Media & Society, 20:2, pp. 435–52, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816639976.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, Bumsoo and Hoewe, Jennifer (2023), ‘Developing contemporary factors of political participation’, The Social Science Journal, 60:4, pp. 862–76, https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1782641.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kinnunen, Suna P., Lindeman, Marjaana and Verkasalo, Markku (2016), ‘Help-giving and moral courage on the internet’, Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10:4, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-4-6.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Koerner, Melissa M. (2014), ‘Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage’, The Academy of Management Journal, 57:1, pp. 63–93, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0641.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lu, Hsi‐Peng, Hsu, Chin‐Lung and Hsu, Hsiu‐Ying (2005), ‘An empirical study of the effect of perceived risk upon intention to use online applications’, Information Management & Computer Security, 13:2, pp. 106–20, https://doi.org/10.1108/09685220510589299.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Marx, Gary T. (1999), ‘What’s in a name? Some reflections on the sociology of anonymity’, The Information Society, 15:2, pp. 99–112, https://doi.org/10.1080/019722499128565.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Matthes, Jörg, Nanz, Andreas, Kaskeleviciute, Ruta, Reiter, Franz, Freiling, Isabelle, Neureiter, Ariadne, Stubenvoll, Marlis, Sherrah, Sebastian E, Juricek, Sarah, Munzir, Atika Aisyarahmi and Noronha, Iara (2023), ‘The way we use social media matters: A panel study on passive versus active political social media use and affective polarization’, International Journal of Communication, 17, pp. 5223–45, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/19015/4294. Accessed 1 October 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Matuszewski, Paweł and Szabó, Gabriella (2019), ‘Are echo chambers based on partisanship? Twitter and political polarity in Poland and Hungary’, Social Media + Society, 5:2, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119837671.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. McAndrew, Francis T. and Jeong, Hye Sun (2012), ‘Who does what on Facebook? Age, sex, and relationship status as predictors of Facebook use’, Computers in Human Behavior, 28:6, pp. 2359–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.007.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Muller, Edward N. (1985), ‘Income inequality, regime repressiveness, and political violence’, American Sociological Review, 50:1, p. 47, https://doi.org/10.2307/2095339.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Norton, Peter J. and Weiss, Brandon J. (2009), ‘The role of courage on behavioral approach in a fear-eliciting situation: A proof-of-concept pilot study’, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23:2, pp. 212–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.07.002.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ouwerkerk, Jaap W. and Johnson, Benjamin K. (2016), ‘Motives for online friending and following: The dark side of social network site connections’, Social Media + Society, 2:3, pp. 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664219.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pan, Xinyu, Hou, Yubo and Wang, Qi (2023), ‘Are we braver in cyberspace? Social media anonymity enhances moral courage’, Computers in Human Behavior, 148, November, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107880.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Penney, Joel and Dadas, Caroline (2014), ‘(Re)Tweeting in the service of protest: Digital composition and circulation in the Occupy Wall Street movement’, New Media & Society, 16:1, pp. 74–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813479593.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Prodnik, Jernej Amon (2014), ‘The brave new social media: Contradictory information and communication technologies and the state-capitalist surveillance complex’, Teorija in Praksa, 51:6, pp. 1222–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Qin, Bei, Strömberg, David and Wu, Yanhui (2017), ‘Why does China allow freer social media? Protests versus surveillance and propaganda’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31:1, pp. 117–40, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.117.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Rate, Christopher R., Clarke, Jennifer A., Lindsay, Douglas R. and Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), ‘Implicit theories of courage’, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2:2, pp. 80–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228755.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ruess, Christina, Hoffmann, Christian Pieter, Boulianne, Shelley and Heger, Katharina (2023), ‘Online political participation: The evolution of a concept’, Information, Communication & Society, 26:8, pp. 1495–512, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.2013919.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Schilpzand, Pauline, Hekman, David R. and Mitchell, Terence R. (2015), ‘An inductively generated typology and process model of workplace courage’, Organization Science, 26:1, pp. 52–77, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0928.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Schoenebeck, Sarita (2021), ‘The secret life of online moms: Anonymity and disinhibition on YouBeMom.com’, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 7:1, pp. 555–62, https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14379.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Schroeder, Ralph (2014), ‘Big data and the brave new world of social media research’, Big Data Society, 1, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714563194.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Sheldon, Pavica and Bryant, Katherine (2016), ‘Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age’, Computers in Human Behavior, 58, pp. 89–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Shim, KyuJin and Oh, Soo-Kwang (Klive) (2018), ‘Who creates the bandwagon? The dynamics of fear of isolation, opinion congruency and anonymity-preference on social media in the 2017 South Korean presidential election’, Computers in Human Behavior, 86, pp. 181–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.012.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Subrahmanyam, Kaveri and Greenfield, Patricia (2008), ‘Online communication and adolescent relationships’, The Future of Children, 18:1, pp. 119–46, https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0006.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Sunstein, Cass (2018), # Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Valkenburg, Patti M. and Peter, Jochen (2011), ‘Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks’, The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 48:2, pp. 121–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Vitak, Jessica, Zube, Paul, Smock, Andrew, Carr, Caleb T., Ellison, Nicole and Lampe, Cliff (2011), ‘It’s complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14:3, pp. 107–14, https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0226.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. We Are Social Türkiye (2024), ‘We are social USA’, 31 January, https://wearesocial.com/us/blog/2024/01/digital-2024/. Accessed 16 December 2024.
  46. Zhang, Kaiping and Kizilcec, René (2014), ‘Anonymity in social media: Effects of content controversiality and social endorsement on sharing behavior’, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8:1, pp. 643–46, https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14573.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, Petrova, Maria and Enikolopov, Ruben (2020), ‘Political effects of the internet and social media’, Annual Review of Economics, 12:1, pp. 415–38, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics081919-050239.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/jammr_00114_1
Loading
The selfie of courage on Instagram: The moderating role of anonymity in the relationship between political use and courage
Intellect ; https://doi.org/10.1386/jammr_00114_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jammr_00114_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jammr_00114_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keywords: online privacy ; communication ; social media ; social networks ; Turkey ; empowerment ; political participation ; online activism

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test