Examining the Relationship between Selfies, Adolescents and Archetypes: The Psychology of Taking Selfies and their Consequences on the Adolescent Self-Conscious
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the attitudes of adolescents in South Africa towards selfie-taking as well as the effects that the selfie has on the consciousness of their shadow. The aim is to contribute to understanding the current impact of this phenomenon on adolescents. Social media, through the use of selfies, can encourage self-promotion and create an obsession with one’s physical appearance. Adolescents mostly shape their self-concepts based on their understanding of how others view them. The informants comprised 58 learners from three secondary schools in Tshwane (Gauteng). The data collection methods used were semistructured interviews and observation methods. This research study resonates with the looking-glass-self perspective, which highlights the importance of the evaluation of others to the development of the self-conscious. Technology constantly evolves and grows, a theoretical implication of which is the need to continue exploring selfies as a means for the search of identity. Regardless, in raising the question of what selfies, adolescents, and archetypes have in common, this article succeeds in bringing together this rather recent concept, the area of scientific enquiry related to selfies, and a psychological construct coined by the founder of analytical psychology, Jung, that is so well established in the sciences and steeped in thoughts of wisdom that it has stood the test of time. In doing so, the article taps into not only developmental psychology but also social psychology and sociology, the study of human social relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".