The “Looping Effect” and Social Media: How Modern Concept Creep (Potentially) Happens

A further exploration into concept creep, the looping effect, and how this might be occurring through social media

Introduction

Last month, I wrote about the notion of “concept creep”, a phenomenon identified in 2016 by Australian psychologist, Nick Haslam, who suggests that “the negative aspects of human experience and behavior [sic] have expanded their meanings so that they now encompass a much broader range of phenomena than before”. In his paper, Haslam argues that six psychological concepts have undergone horizontal (i.e., to include a broader range of experiences) and vertical (i.e., to encompass less extreme forms of an experience) change and that as a consequence these psychological concepts have also undergone a semantic change (i.e., the modern meaning of a word is different to the original meaning). The previous blog post went into detail about this, so if you would like to (re)visit that you can do so here. 

In this blog, I want to think a little bit more about how concept creep occurs and what part social media might have to play in this.  

Now, before we get started, I would like to highlight that most of this post (apart from the research cited) is a hypothesis – it’s not proven in any way through research or anything like that (and if there is research out there I have not been able to find it). This is, however, a proposed idea of what might be happening with social media, the increased use of psychological and mental health terminology, and the phenomena of concept creep. That’s all. This is purely an exercise for me to try and understand what is going on with concept creep (and if you are at all interested, it might be interesting for you, too - and at this point, if you are still reading this it’s safe to say there is the slimmest chance you might be interested). Along the way, I have found some research and theories which I have applied to this hypothesis and am sharing this merely as food for thought. 

Made-Up People and the Looping Effect 

So, how does concept creep occur? In his original paper, Haslam attributes this to two ideas proposed by philosopher Ian Hacking. The first idea Hacking suggested is that within the field of human sciences, the classification of conditions, diseases, disorders, etc, brings into creation certain types of people. Now, bear with me, this is a bit abstract, but I will try and explain it as best I can.  

So, the idea is that (as far as I can tell), for example (this is one of the examples Hacking uses), before the invention of the classification of “autism” in 1908 by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, “autistic” people did not exist (or “autistics” as Hacking makes reference to; the paper I read was written in 2007 so the language is somewhat dated).  

“What? But of course, people with autism existed!” I hear you say. Well, yes. 

What Hacking goes on to clarify, and places great emphasis on, is that people with difficulties in a) communication and socialization, b) abstract thinking and theory of mind, and c) strong and particular interests (all three are necessary for an autism diagnosis) did exist; however, they were not classified as “autistic” because the concept did not exist before 1908. In fact, one of the original definitions of autism did not encompass how autism is understood today. Hacking notes a 1992 definition that defines autism to be: “abnormal introversion and egocentricity; acceptance of fantasy rather than reality.” Therefore, before 1908, those “kinds” of people could not be identified and identify as “autistic” because the classification of autism was non-existent. In this way, Hacking notes that medical and psychological classification brings certain kinds of people into existence; that they are “made up”. So, that’s the first part and hopefully, I have explained that well enough.

The second idea relates to how people identify with these identities that are created through the classification of human experiences, and in doing so start to add to the original classification. This is called the “looping effect”. In his original paper, Haslam discusses how the concept of bullying has evolved and this is a good example of the looping effect. Bullying was originally defined as “aggressive or otherwise negative actions that are directed toward a child by one or more other people, where that behavior [sic] is intentional, repetitive, and carried out in the context of a power imbalance”.

However, with the advent of things like social media and people having more of an online presence in the last 20 years or so (that time frame is a pure guess), people have identified with the experience of being bullied but through a different medium. Instead of being bullied in person, more and more people have experienced bullying through their online presence which has expanded the classification of bullying to encompass the phenomenon of online bullying, otherwise known as cyber-bullying. Similarly, the concept of being bullied has also extended from the school grounds into the workplace. Initially, the idea of bullying was only conceptualised as occurring between school children and was not considered part of the experiences of adults, particularly at work. However, as more and more people identified with the experiences of what it means to be bullied in the workplace, workplace bullying has now become included in the classification of bullying. In this way, the experiences that different people have of a particular phenomenon (in this instance bullying) get picked up on, looked into, researched, and then added to the existing classification, which thereby changes the classification. However, this is a very academic way in which concept creep occurs through the looping effect of made-up people, which is backed up by research evidence and therefore has an air of legitimacy.

The Looping Effect and Social Media 

“But what does this all have to do with social media?” you might be wondering. 

Now, this is the part where I can’t quite articulate my thoughts as well as I would like, but hopefully with the overview of what the looping effect is you might get the general gist of what I’m trying to convey.

I guess it has to do with the exposure that people now have to concepts in psychology and the field of mental health through social media. The nature of social media promotes the dissemination of information in short-from, bite-size, easily digestible snapshots. To produce something that “the algorithm” approves of, creators are forced to make their content short and snappy, which is then picked up by their followers and further spread through social media; but at a grand scale and at a speed that is quite impressive, and in some instances (like this one) could be concerning. Not only that but also in a very disconnected and disjointed way. If there is one way to describe social media, it would be that: disjointed. Images and videos pop up on our feeds, juxtaposed incongruently against each other: mental health advice can be sandwiched between images of our friend’s holiday snaps, food porn, decor inspiration, and pet memes. It is not the ideal way in which to deliver often complex and nuanced psychological information. And yet there is it. 

What then possibly starts to happen, is that because of this disjointed way of seeing psychological and mental health information, consumers may start to identify with that information in a way that is unique to them, and then talk about (or in some instances make their own content about) their unique way of understanding and identifying with those psychological concepts. And through a series of multiple interpretations and varied representations, which again occur so rapidly because of how the social media machine works, these concepts seem to start taking on new meanings and seem to get used in ways that are somewhat (and in some cases can be very) removed from the original concepts meaning. This might be the looping effect in action, but in a very non-academic and very subjective way, that is then compounded by the disjointed and high-speed medium of social media.

Some concrete examples of this include the misrepresentation and misuse of concepts such as “narcissist,” “gaslighting,” and “trigger.” “Narcissist” refers to a person who highly admires themselves and exhibits traits of narcissism, but it has now become associated with individuals who perpetrate domestic abuse and/or have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. “Gaslighting,” which involves coercively and manipulatively making someone doubt their own reality, has been associated with simply being lied to. Similarly, “trigger,” a clinical term used to describe the activation of trauma symptoms or the circumstances that precipitate the onset of mental illness, has become synonymous with being offended, upset, or insulted, or generally when experiencing any form of unpleasant emotional response. In this way, there seems to be a kind of appropriation of psychological and mental health language occurring. And in my opinion (a thoughtful reflection on society rather than a solid argument supported by evidence), this appropriation has been facilitated by the pervasive nature of information sharing, consumption, and integration through social media platforms.

And…?

Why do I care enough to write about this? Well, I guess I’m curious about the impact of concept creep. At the same time, I am keen for people who use social media and follow psychology and mental health-related creators to be discerning about the information they consume and to be mindful of how they identify with that information. I am keen for people to do their own research and not take things at face value. And I am also keen to promote the use of language that fits a situation rather than language that sounds more clinical and therefore perhaps has more significant or impactful.

The association with concept creep and social media was just me putting some thoughts out there to see how they land, so I would be interested to hear any thoughts you, Good Reader, might have. I have some further papers to read that might highlight some of the benefits and drawbacks of concept creep, which I will try to get through as soon as I can. Those resources will likely shape the third and final part of this blog series. So, if you are interested, I suggest keeping an eye out for it on my social media page. Or, if you have not yet subscribed to this blog you can do so using the below button.

As always, please do get in touch and let me know your thoughts. Like I have said many times throughout this post, this is not something concrete, just something I have been wondering about and so thought I would put it into some words. If you have a view, let me know.

All the best,

Nice-ish.