The internet has become an integral part of our everyday life, altering the way in which it is communicated, connected, and presented to the world because of today’s Social Media dominance. But there is an exciting world under the carefully curated digital veneer, in which psychology and defence mechanisms play a role. In this article I aim to summarise the captivating interplay between our psychological defences and social media behaviour, unravelling the intriguing ways in which individuals employ defence mechanisms to navigate the complex social landscape of the digital age, shining a light on the hidden dimensions that shape our online identities, interactions, and vulnerabilities. To begin with, let’s get to know some definitions.
What is defence mechanism?
The defence mechanism is an unconscious process that prevents it from being directly visible, since its very functioning may distort the ability of individuals to report on its consequences (Cramer, 2003). It is a concept originally developed by Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, who believed that they enabled people to defend themselves from undecipherable conflicts and unpleasant feelings such as anxiety or emotional distress. In other words, these mechanisms serve as protective strategies to maintain emotional stability and reduce anxiety by denying or distorting reality, all while operating unconsciously.
| Repression | Unconsciously blocking painful or threatening thoughts, memories or emotions from awareness |
| Projection | A way of avoiding self-awareness or taking responsibility by blaming oneself for someone else’s bad thoughts, feelings and traits or to seeing one’s own traits in other people |
| Displacement | Changing the target of impulse, rerouting one’s feelings, most likely anger or frustration, from an original source into a more benign destination |
| Sublimation | Channelling undesirable impulses or desires to a wider range of socially acceptable outlets |
| Denial | Refusal to accept or acknowledge reality, which is often an effort to protect oneself from disturbing information |
| Rationalization | Creating logical or socially acceptable explanations or justifications to make behaviour or decisions appear more reasonable or acceptable |
| Regression | Reverting to a earlier stage of psychological development or adopting childlike behaviours as a way of coping with stress or anxiety |
| Reaction formation | Acting in a way which is contrary to real feelings and beliefs to suppress or conceal these genuine feelings |
| Suppression | Removing any thoughts, feelings or memories from consciousness deliberately and unconsciously which cannot deal with |
| Isolation | Creating some kind of mental separation or barrier between them some threatening cognition and other thoughts and feelings and simply pauses to leave a gap of silence |
| Undoing | Literally attempting to alter the past, undoing is impossible and hence pathological |
| Flowing | A neurotic defence mechanism based on unconscious access which temporarily relieves emotional distress, rapid transmission, and social media applications of the presented content without conscious consideration |
Some commonly recognized defence mechanisms (Herdi, 2022), (Cramer, 2003) (CRAMER, 2006)
These mechanisms, originally applied to understanding human behaviour in the context of traditional psychotherapy, offer profound insights into how we can understand modern digital behaviour. In fact, defence mechanisms can reveal individuals’ motivations and activities in a digital world, as their lives become increasingly intertwined with technology. This emerging digital age and cultural norms requires us to continually adapt to changes in behaviour and society. Therefore, to address novel stressors and cope with the difficulties of contemporary life, defence mechanisms change the way we perceive reality and think about ourselves (CRAMER, 2006).
Even though our digital experiences offer numerous advantages, we can’t ignore the challenges and difficulties coming our way. There are times users experience discomfort in themselves within the digital world, and we all constantly seek to defend ourselves to survive. Surfing through the internet, our FB and Instagram feeds allow us to meet and see different people around the world. Have you ever wondered why people act the way they do on social media? It may be tempting to group people into distinct types based on their defence mechanisms.
In the digital world, we can find Repression mechanism expressed in various ways. As users we may decide whether to ignore or suppress content which contradicts personal beliefs in an effective suppression of information that challenges how we currently view the world. It can be seen as an act of cyber repression when a person unfollows or unfriends someone who does not share their views. Users are creating echo chambers (Matteo Cinellia, 2021) to validate prior convictions and suppress any cognitive dissonances by consolidating their online environments.
Denial also plays a significant role in digital human behaviour. For example, users often engage in denial when they encounter feedback that threatens their self-esteem or self-concept. When confronted with criticism or negative feedback on social media individual may deny the validity of the comments attributing them to jealousy or misunderstanding instead acknowledge the possible personal flaws.
A Projection can occur in a variety of ways on social media platforms. It may be that some people express their insecurities through criticizing or complaining about others, in order to make themselves seem better. As a way to distract attention from their weaknesses, they might also take part in internet Trolling or Cyberbullying as an act of releasing aggression. Those manifested behaviours can be due to the Displacement mechanism. For example, individuals who are unhappy with their lives may vent their frustrations on unsuspecting online strangers. Also, there is a type of Projective defence mechanism called delusional projection where the person invents fictional relationships or events to distract from trauma or project their own ego. They may also express cyber stalking, revenge porn or direct threats of physical/sexual/emotional violence in their online behaviour (Quimby, 2017). In addition, people project their fear by endlessly seeking validation and endorsement from other persons via likes, comments, or shares on social media. It can be a reflection of their underlying insecurity and the lack of self-confidence that makes them always need validation.
Have you noticed some comments on a random persons’ post which clearly claim negative attitudes towards a person or situation represented in the post or YouTube video, stating that many of the other commentators have said the same criticism, but as you read on you instead find out that no one else has mentioned it?
As the commentators may project their fear, insecurities or personal bias towards those they interact with on the internet, these users can claim that others have certain traits and intentions which they share with themselves. They may involve in verbal denigration like criticizing others body image, beliefs via name calling and degrading languages (Quimby, 2017).
Sometimes the projection can result in fake news on digital platforms, which is cause of great concern for every member of society, misleading the digital users to accept false beliefs (Shalini Talwar a, 2020). One of the main facilitating factors in digital platforms is Anonymity or fake identities that can be created in order to share one’s personal opinions. Anonymity increases self-disclosure (Xiao Ma, 2016), for example in the ‘stranger on a train’ phenomenon which explains how we willingly disclose ourselves to fellow passengers easily.
In the digital realm, Sublimation can be seen in the rise of online communities and forums that cater to various niche interests. They use the platform for their interests to be acknowledged and supported, individuals with unconventional or socially stigmatised passions will find solace in a social environment that permits them to deify their desires into mainstream outlets. This mechanism will encourage the creation of uncommon and supportive web subcultures with the mechanism of channelling our socially unacceptable impulses or desires into more acceptable outlets. For example, an individual suffering from feelings of rage and frustration due to a personal or occupational problem may choose to channel these feelings into positive activities online instead of expressing their anger in an unhealthy or destructive way. They might create a blog or YouTube channel where they talk about topics like self-improvement, coping with stress and growth in their lives.
In the context of digital age, Isolation can also manifest in various ways. For example, one may actively disconnect from social interactions online, limiting their online presence to reduce engagement with others. They may distance themselves in an attempt to protect themselves from potential judgement, criticism or vulnerability that could result from engaging in deeper emotional connections. It can be a pseudo-rational mechanism to avoid damaging their self-concept (Quimby, 2017).
Last but not least, Humour (anything that makes a person laugh or smile composed by intellectual, emotional and physiological experiences). Do you think Humour as a defence mechanism helped holocaust survivors to defend their psychological distress in the horror experienced during the time in the prisons? (Ostrower, 2015). In the digital age Humour plays a significant role in how individuals interact, express themselves and handle challenging situations. Humour has become one of the eminent elements in online communication in the 21st century, as it seems to satisfy most, especially within social media where users engage in humorous contents such as memes (Nueangjamnong). Users can use humour to diffuse tension, relieve stress and express themselves in a humorous way by making light of certain situations or adding an amusing twist. On one hand, in order to cope with disagreements and facilitate interactions among people, they use sarcasm, irony or humour. Users try to reduce conflict, possibly defuse tense conversations and regain their sense of community in the online environment by using humour. On the other hand, self-deprecating humour is often observed in digital behaviour, where individuals are making jokes at their own expense so that they can cope with feelings of insecurity or increase their self-esteem. By poking fun at themselves, individuals may reduce the impact of negative thoughts or criticism they may encounter online. However, the excessive or inappropriate use of humour, while it may be useful for coping with one’s situation, can also undermine genuine feelings and diminish the seriousness of certain issues. Paying attention to the possible effects of humour and ensuring that humour respects others’ boundaries and feelings is essential. Otherwise it might result in problematic internet use (Cecilia Cheng, 2015).
To conclude, in digital behaviour defence mechanisms provide a strong foundation upon which to understand motivations and activities of individuals in cyberspace. In recognizing these mechanisms, we can gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics of online behaviour, creation of digital echo chambers and an increase in cyberbullying and cyberstalking. If we understand how people use such defence mechanisms when interacting in cyberspace, we could promote more sympathetic and compassionate communities in the digital world. Freud’s insight on the topic continues to be of great importance, especially at a time when our lives have become increasingly dependent on electronic media, so that we can comprehend the complexity of Digital Human Behaviour.
Nishara C. Perera
nishara.chathurangi@gmail.com
Bibliografia
Cecilia Cheng, P. P.-K. (2015). Internet Addiction and Psychosocial Maladjustment: Avoidant coping and coping inflexibility as psychological mechanisms. CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING, 18, 539-546. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0121
Cramer, P. (2003). Defense Mechanisms and Physiological Reactivity to Stress. Journal of personality, 71(2), 221-244.
CRAMER, P. (2006). Protecting the Self – defence mechanisms in action. THE GUILFORD PRESS.
Hanin, M. L. (2021). Theorizing Digital Distraction. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 395-406. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00394-8
Herdi, O. (2022). A new defence mechanism in the modern world:. Psychodynamic Practice, 29(2), 154-158. doi:10.1080/14753634.2022.2127553
Horzum, B. G. (2023). Digital distraction levels of university students in emerging remote teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 9149-9170. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11570-y
Matteo Cinellia, G. D. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Nueangjamnong, V. T. (n.d.). The Effect of Humour on Virality: The Study of Internet Memes on Social Media.
Ostrower, C. (2015). Humor as a Defense Mechanism. Interpretation: A Journal of bble and theology, 69(2), 183-195. doi:10.1177/0020964314564830
Quimby, H. M. (2017). Aggression and Adaptation: An Online Psychodynamic Discourse Analysis Of Ego Defense in the Body Positive Community. Thesis, p. 24.
Shalini Talwar a, A. D. (2020). Sharing of fake news on social media: Application of the honeycomb framework and the third-person effect hypothesis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102197
Xiao Ma, J. H. (2016). Anonymity, Intimacy and Self-Disclosure in Social Media. Online Communities – Identities and Behaviors, 3857-3869.
A.P.E. 
Lascia un commento