Some socially poor but also some socially rich adolescents feel closer to their friends after using social media.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 10 2021
27 10 2021
Historique:
received:
31
05
2021
accepted:
13
09
2021
entrez:
28
10
2021
pubmed:
29
10
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Who benefits most from using social media is an important societal question that is centered around two opposing hypotheses: the rich-get-richer versus the poor-get-richer hypothesis. This study investigated the assumption that both hypotheses may be true, but only for some socially rich and some socially poor adolescents and across different time intervals. We employed a state-of-the-art measurement burst design, consisting of a three-week experience sampling study and seven biweekly follow-up surveys. Person-specific analyses of more than 70,000 observations from 383 adolescents revealed that 12% of the socially rich adolescents (high in friendship support or low in loneliness) felt closer to their friends after using social media, as opposed to about 25% of the socially poor adolescents (low in friendship support or high in loneliness). However, only 1 to 6% of all adolescents (socially rich and poor) felt closer both in the short- and longer-term. These results indicate that the rich-get-richer and the poor-get-richer hypotheses can hold both, but for different adolescents.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34707197
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99034-0
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-99034-0
pmc: PMC8551228
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21176Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011 May;123(5):402-3
pubmed: 21320080
Psychol Methods. 2020 Oct;25(5):610-635
pubmed: 31855015
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Aug;7(8):343-348
pubmed: 12907229
Dev Psychol. 2007 Mar;43(2):267-77
pubmed: 17352538
JMIR Res Protoc. 2015 Aug 07;4(3):e100
pubmed: 26254160
J Pers Assess. 1996 Feb;66(1):20-40
pubmed: 8576833
Psychol Methods. 2016 Jun;21(2):206-21
pubmed: 27045851
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 3;115(27):E6106-E6115
pubmed: 29915059
Qual Life Res. 2021 Nov;30(11):3179-3188
pubmed: 33222049
Dev Psychol. 2021 Feb;57(2):309-323
pubmed: 33539132
Dev Psychol. 2016 Dec;52(12):2057-2070
pubmed: 27893247
Am Psychol. 1998 Sep;53(9):1017-31
pubmed: 9841579
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 1;10(1):10763
pubmed: 32612108
Front Psychol. 2013 Aug 12;4:513
pubmed: 23964259
Psychol Bull. 2019 Jul;145(7):734-764
pubmed: 31094537
Annu Rev Psychol. 2016;67:315-38
pubmed: 26331344
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Jan;13(1):70-87
pubmed: 28937910