Advertisement

12 ways social media affects relationships, from research & experts.

Abby Moore

Romanticizing other people's relationships is not a new concept (thanks, rom-coms). Unlike a movie script, though, social media shows real couples living real lives.

But can looking at these seemingly perfect couples online interfere with our own romantic relationships? Here, how social media can affect your relationships and more.

How social media can affect relationships

Social media, if used sparingly, is not necessarily bad for relationships.

Research has shown social media use can both positively and negatively affect relationships , depending on how it's used.

For example, social media can contribute to unhealthy comparison and unrealistic expectations for what relationships are supposed to be like, and couples may spend more time curating an "image" of who they are rather than focusing on the relationship itself. 

Social media use has also been linked to poor body image and depression, which can negatively affect relationships.

Negative effects on relationships

Social media can create unrealistic expectations.

Although there are some useful resources shared via social media, "what you will mostly see are curated and filtered posts that only highlight unrealistic images of what a relationship is," says sex and behavioral therapist Chamin Ajjan, M.S., LCSW, A-CBT .

Attempting to measure up can distract you and your partner from the relationship.

Inevitably, real life won't look like the endless highlight reels we see on social media, which can lead to disappointment in either yourself, your partner, or both.

"You may begin to feel jealous of how much someone posts about their partner and feel resentment toward your partner for not doing the same," Ajjan says. "The lifestyles you are scrolling through may change how satisfied you are in your relationship because they seem to be better than what you have."

It can lead to jealousy

Some research has linked social media use with increased jealousy 1 and relationship dissatisfaction in college students.

If you are prone to jealousy because of an insecure attachment style , research says you may be more likely to get stuck in a cycle of endless scrolling to keep an eye on your partner's activities .

People may get upset seeing their partner liking or commenting on other people's posts, stoking concerns that their partner is interested in other people (or worse, is already cheating).

The use of Facebook, in particular, has been shown to increase feelings of suspicion and jealousy in romantic relationships among college students.

"This effect may be the result of a feedback loop, whereby using Facebook exposes people to often ambiguous information about their partner that they may not otherwise have access to," one study writes.

For example, cookies and Facebook algorithms can cause a partner's "hidden" interests to pop up on their feed.

The desire to find more information about them can perpetuate further social media use and feelings of mistrust.

(Notably, many of these studies have been conducted on college students, so it’s possible that there would be differences among older couples.)

Excessive social media use is linked to couples fighting more

A 2013 study found that, among couples who had been together for less than three years, spending more time on Facebook was linked with more "Facebook-related conflict" 2 and more negative relationship outcomes.

One study found that those who are dating people who overshare on social media 3 tend to have lower relationship satisfaction (though positive posts about the relationship itself every now and then seemed to mediate that effect).

Social media might make daily life seem less interesting

The drool-worthy image of a couple on vacation can trigger feelings of envy, which can keep you from appreciating where you are in the present moment. 

"Social media tends to ignore the gritty and mundane parts of a couple's lives," says Ken Page, LCSW , psychotherapist and host of The Deeper Dating Podcast .

Struggles, chores, compromise, and intimacy in the midst of challenges—these small mini triumphs are valuable, he says.

Just remember: A vacation can make you feel happy, but it's the everyday moments that lead to ultimate satisfaction .

When relationships end, it is so often those tiny, mundane moments that evoke the deepest nostalgia, Page adds. 

It can distract you from spending quality time with your partner

Though internet addiction 4 and Facebook addiction 5 are not considered mental health disorders by the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), researchers recognize both as dependence issues, which can interfere with quality of life.

The more we become hooked on the dopamine rush of social media, Page says, the less engaged or excited we will feel for the quieter, simpler moments of life.

"But those are often the moments when our loved one reveals something personal and intimate," he explains.

Next time you and your partner are together and both focused on your phones, bring awareness to that.

"Practice valuing real-time connection over internet connection," he says. This can help increase emotional intimacy. 

It can affect our mental health

Even though social media is meant to promote connection, multiple studies have linked social media use with loneliness 6 , mood disorders, and poor self-esteem 7 .

People with preexisting mental health issues may also be more susceptible to social comparisons, due to a negative cognitive bias 8 , one study found.

On the flip side, lowering social media use has been shown to reduce loneliness and depression symptoms .

Though these issues are more individualistic than relational, they can bleed into romantic relationships.

When a partner is suffering from mental health issues , they may be closed off to intimacy or become codependent .

It can lead to body image issues

The filtered and edited images you see all over social media can cause insecurities about your own body to surface, Ajjan says.

Several studies have linked social media use and body image issues 9 .

A person's body image issues can significantly affect their relationships.

One Journal of the International Society for Sexual Medicine study shows that heterosexual women with body image issues 10 have a harder time becoming sexually aroused. 

Another study found the way wives perceive their own sexual attractiveness 11 , based on negative body image, directly affects the marital quality of both the wife and the husband.  

In other words, these insecurities triggered by social media can interfere with emotional and physical intimacy and the overall quality of a relationship. 

It can make us more narcissistic

Excessive social media use is linked to narcissistic traits 12 in some cases.

Research confirms that addictive social media use reflects a need to feed the ego and an attempt to improve self-esteem, both of which are narcissistic traits.

And different types of social media play into different aspects of narcissism.

For example, people who frequently tweet or post selfies may be displaying grandiosity, one of the common traits of narcissism .

Since you can be narcissistic without having a personality disorder , it's possible to develop these traits over time—and at least one small study has found excess social media use may be a trigger .  

And of course, being in a relationship with a narcissist is not healthy and can lead to trauma later on.

Positive effects on relationships

Social media helps single people meet each other.

In the digital age we live in, it's not uncommon for people to meet online or through dating apps—in fact, it may be more common.

A 2017 survey found 39% of heterosexual couples reported meeting their partner online, compared to just 22% in 2009.

A later study analyzing the results found that " Internet meeting is displacing the roles that family and friends once played in bringing couples together."

According to one survey , online dating can be especially helpful for the LGBTQ+ community .

Of the adults who took the survey, 28% say they met their current partner online, compared with 11% of partnered straight adults.

It can keep you connected to your partner

Whether it's sending a funny meme over Instagram or taking a quick Snapchat, social media is an easy way for couples to interact throughout the day in a fun, low-pressure manner.

This is particularly helpful for couples who don't live together and people in long-distance relationships . According to a survey published in the Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking journal, young adults in long-distance romantic relationships 13 are better able to maintain them if they're using social networking sites.

People who have their partner in their profile photo or have their relationship status public on Facebook also tend to be happier with their relationship 14 , for what that's worth.

You can learn about relationships from experts

"There are plenty of accounts that offer up good information to help develop and maintain a healthy connection," Ajjan says. "There is a lot of good information on social media from relationship bloggers, psychotherapists, and many others that highlight how to improve your relationship."

As long as it's coming from a place of growth and not comparison, this type of social media can motivate you to work on parts of the relationship that have been neglected, she explains.  

It's like a time capsule of memories

Social media platforms have practically replaced printed photograph albums as a place to store and share our memories.

In this sense, Page says social media can be used to honor the activities you do and the things you create together. 

Unlike a physical photo album, social media has the added component of followers.

"In this way, social media can be an institutionalized way to express love publicly and invite community support," he says, "both of which enhance a couple's ability to flourish." 

Tips to manage social media use

  • Turn off your notifications. One study 15 found that smartphone notifications can cause a decline in task performance and negatively influence cognitive function and concentration. Turn off your notifications to avoid any distractions and focus more on the present.
  • Set aside a time to scroll. Whether that be every hour or every few hours, designate 15-20 minutes to getting on social media, answering texts, or taking calls to avoid the constant urge to get on your phone and scroll and focus on quality time with your partner.
  • Try a social media detox. Research shows that intentionally refraining from getting on social media can prevent harmful effects and reduce the risk of compulsive social media behavior in individuals. Designate a period of days, weeks, or even months to avoid any social media use.
  • Be transparent and communicate. If you are struggling with your body-image or find yourself feeling jealous or insecure, talk with your partner and explain how you are feeling. It may be time to avoid getting on social media altogether and focus on quality time with your significant other.

The takeaway

Scrolling through social media all day is, unfortunately, not a hard habit to pick up.

While these platforms can offer helpful resources, they can also lead to jealousy, mental health issues, and unrealistic expectations in relationships.

On top of that, the act of being on your phone constantly can distract from intimacy with a partner. 

"Social media is not all bad," Ajjan says, "but if you find yourself comparing your relationship to what you are seeing online, it may be helpful to unfollow accounts that make you feel bad and focus more on accounts that make you feel empowered in your relationship."

  • https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-27972-002
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23745615/
  • https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212186
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719452/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183915/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268264/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221086/#acps12953-bib-0010
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28940179/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861923/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005305/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864925/
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27072491/
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25751046/
  • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30212249/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4912993/

Enjoy some of our favorite clips from classes

What Is Meditation?

Mindfulness/Spirituality | Light Watkins

Box Breathing

Mindfulness/Spirituality | Gwen Dittmar

What Breathwork Can Address

The 8 limbs of yoga - what is asana.

Yoga | Caley Alyssa

Two Standing Postures to Open Up Tight Hips

How plants can optimize athletic performance.

Nutrition | Rich Roll

What to Eat Before a Workout

How ayurveda helps us navigate modern life.

Nutrition | Sahara Rose

Messages About Love & Relationships

Love & Relationships | Esther Perel

Love Languages

More on this topic.

5 Ways To Actually Boost Sexual Desire In A Long-Term Relationship

5 Ways To Actually Boost Sexual Desire In A Long-Term Relationship

Sarah Regan

Expert Tips For Showing Someone You Love Them, No Matter Their Love Language

Expert Tips For Showing Someone You Love Them, No Matter Their Love Language

Francesca Bond

Read This If You're Going Through Heartbreak This Valentine's Day

Read This If You're Going Through Heartbreak This Valentine's Day

Michelle Mays, LPC, CSAT-S

How Well Do You Know Your Partner? Ask These Questions To Find Out

How Well Do You Know Your Partner? Ask These Questions To Find Out

I'm A Marriage & Family Therapist: This Is The Biggest Relationship Killer

I'm A Marriage & Family Therapist: This Is The Biggest Relationship Killer

Hannah Frye

Is My Partner Cheating On Me? Experts Share Telltale Signs of Cheating

Is My Partner Cheating On Me? Experts Share Telltale Signs of Cheating

These 4 Questions Tell You Everything About The Health Of Your Relationship

These 4 Questions Tell You Everything About The Health Of Your Relationship

Jason Wachob

Long-Distance For V-Day? 23 Gifts To Show Your Partner How Much You Care

Long-Distance For V-Day? 23 Gifts To Show Your Partner How Much You Care

Carleigh Ferrante

4 Expert-Approved Sex Toys You Can Shop For Less Ahead Of Valentine's Day

4 Expert-Approved Sex Toys You Can Shop For Less Ahead Of Valentine's Day

5 Ways To Actually Boost Sexual Desire In A Long-Term Relationship

Popular Stories

A Conscious Rethink

How Social Media Can Damage Relationships (+ How To Stop It Harming Yours)

Disclosure: this page may contain affiliate links to select partners. We receive a commission should you choose to make a purchase after clicking on them. Read our affiliate disclosure.

couple sitting in bed staring at their phone illustrating effects of social media on relationships

Have you ever stopped to consider just how widespread social media is in our lives?

It’s everywhere.

Businesses have social media managers, advertise through their pages, and handle customer feedback through the various social platforms.

Employers may look at our social media to ensure that we are not doing anything that might negatively affect their ability to conduct business.

Potential dates may look at your social media ahead of time to get an idea of what kind of person you are.

We always have our phones at our fingertips and lose so much of our time and life to scrolling aimlessly through feeds, looking for likes and comments, showing our lives to anyone that might take an interest.

Social media worms its way into our lives in so many ways…

…and it has a drastic effect on the way we interact with one another and the world.

That influence is felt in our platonic , romantic, and familial relationships.

It can keep us closer to our loved ones when distance separates us, but it can also cause a lot of damage to our relationships.

How exactly does social media harm our relationships?

Social Media Damages Our Ability To Communicate In Person

Social media facilitates quick and efficient communication.

That’s good in that quick and efficient communication help you get more things done…

…but it’s not good in that we come to expect the same in our personal, face-to-face communication.

That’s just not how people work.

It takes time to develop a rapport with a person, learn the deepest parts of them, and share the deepest parts of yourself.

This is an essential part of forming deep, meaningful relationships and it is getting lost as more people come to expect the superficial communication style used on social media.

Face-to-face communication is an important facet of building deep relationships.

The way humans communicate is much broader than a few words of text.

Facial expressions, gesturing, presence, and tone of voice all play a role in fostering a deeper connection with a person.

It’s really easy to misconstrue what a person is trying to say through text, because we often impose our own emotional state onto their words instead of being able to hear what the other person intended.

We can’t hear their intention because it’s not something that is generally present in a sentence or two of text.

Real-life couples tend to communicate less in person when their phone is always at their fingertips.

Does your partner need to know how your day was when you’ve been talking to them all day and they told you everything as it was happening?

Not to mention that constantly being in your partner’s space can breed too much familiarity.

It’s good to have space, to be able to miss the people we care about from time to time.

That is not to say that you cannot have a deep friendship with someone you know online.

You certainly can.

It’s just harder to forge those relationships and keep them going over the long term.

And by focusing so much on this different set of skills that is required for social media socialization, one’s interpersonal skills can lag behind and suffer greatly.

Social Media Is Harmful To Self-Esteem And Mental Health

It’s no secret that social media is having a dramatic effect on the mental and emotional health of people of all ages.

Why is that?

Social media creates an unrealistic perspective of what real life is.

A person that doesn’t feel too great about themselves may land on an influencer’s page who is being less than honest about their life, who, and what they are.

Filters and photo editing create unrealistic standards of beauty and skew what people consider to be attractive.

And very few people are posting about the terrible time they are going through or when their plans blew up in their face.

A person’s social media is often finely curated to only demonstrate the best parts of their life…

Happy, smiling faces that broadcast to the world that, “I am a happy person living my best life!”

But a lot of times that’s simply not true.

And even if it is, good times don’t last forever.

Life has ups and downs, and social media gives people the ability to censor out the lows to create the illusion that things are better than they are.

The result is that 60% of those polled who use social media report that it has negatively impacted their self-esteem.

And 50% report that it has negatively affected their relationships.

But, there is a less obvious reason for that as well.

A person who spends their time curating their life to make it appear better than it is, more perfect and refined than it actually is, disillusions and pushes themselves into depression through a Fear Of Missing Out and not being true to themselves.

They become disconnected from who they are versus who they are portraying themselves to be.

The lack of honest representation damages their ability to be happy and grateful for what they have.

And the Fear Of Missing Out is played on in advertising and self-improvement spaces quite often.

“Are you living your best life?”

“Don’t let negativity into your space!”

“That person is toxic !”

But those advertisers and influencers don’t know you or your life.

All they’re doing is using the audience’s fears and insecurities against them to sell products or increase their audience.

These kinds of things damage meaningful relationships and friendships because they are essentially lying to everyone, including themselves .

That’s not who they are, that’s not their life, and the people that know them are going to have seeds of doubt planted about their honesty and trustworthiness.

People may find themselves not feeling good enough, questioning their partner’s motives, friendships, and social media interactions.

Something as simple as clicking a like button can perpetuate feelings of jealousy if a person doesn’t feel comfortable with themselves and it feels like their partner may just be giving this other person a bit too much of their attention.

You may also like (article continues below):

  • 11 Signs Your Relationship Is Being Ruined By Your Partner’s Phone Addiction (+ 6 Fixes)
  • 20 Relationship Deal Breakers That Shouldn’t Be Up For Negotiation
  • 10 Tips To Help Couples Communicate More Effectively In Their Relationship
  • 9 Relationship Goals Every Couple Should Set
  • What To Do About A Relationship That Lacks Intimacy And Connection
  • Why Do Relationships Have To Be So Hard?

How To Keep Social Media From Damaging Relationships

If you believe that social media is having a negative impact on the state of your relationship, what can you do about it?

Spend less time on social media.

The simplest way to curb the damage social media can do to a relationship is to reduce the time, effort, and attention we give to social media.

People spend an average of 135 minutes per day on social media.

That is a lot of time to be scrolling, liking, and having one’s feelings and perceptions influenced by what could be an untrue presentation of reality.

Reduce the amount of time that you spend on social media networks.

Reduce communication through texting and social media.

Though it is often more convenient and efficient, one should not rely on text as their primary mode of communication with their friends, family, or romantic partner.

It is far too easy to mistake the tone and the context of a message.

Set aside time to catch up face to face, through a phone call, or even through a video call if distance is a factor.

Don’t have any important or emotionally charged conversations through text if you can avoid it.

Save those things for speaking in person.

Keep your relationship off of social media.

Advertising your relationship on social media is just asking for trouble.

You make it easy for anyone and everyone – people who may not know you or what transpired within the confines of the relationship – to comment on the things that they see going on in your relationships.

That could end up in drama spilling over into your social media feed, people commenting on a relationship starting or ending, or meddling that disrupts your life.

Attend more social gatherings. Put your phone away during them.

Try to attend more social gatherings and be sure to put your phone away during them.

You can even suggest no electronics as a jointly agreed upon activity within the group.

No one uses their phones for the duration of your social event, that way the people involved are not distracted from one another.

Discuss and define what constitutes inappropriate behavior ahead of time.

Many hurt feelings and arguments could be prevented if couples were to define what constitutes inappropriate behavior on social media ahead of time.

A person may not have a problem with their partner having an ex on their social media, but does have a problem with any secret conversations that might be happening.

A person may not want their partner following sexualized profiles, liking inappropriate content, or exchanging flirtatious messages.

And of course, there are limits to how far this should go.

Some demands, like access to passwords or regularly checking their accounts, are a breach of trust and unreasonable.

Privacy is an important part of a healthy relationship and needs to be respected so long as trust is intact.

But, there’s also a good reason that the word “Facebook” appears in about 30% of divorce cases .

Quit social media altogether.

Quitting social media altogether may be the right choice as well.

Not only will you eliminate many of the problems that social media brings into your relationships, but you also get to reclaim 135 minutes of your day!

https://thriveglobal.com/stories/how-social-media-affects-our-ability-to-communicate/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275507421_Social_comparison_social_media_and_self-esteem

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/social-medias-impact-on-self-esteem_b_58ade038e4b0d818c4f0a4e4

You may also like...

a young man and woman walk down a street at night, the woman has a somewhat pensive scared expression on her face as if the man is controlling her

12 Reasons Why You Always Seem To Attract Controlling Guys

woman sitting on the couch with her boyfriend nearby, she leans her head on her hand as if to question whether she is happy in the relationship

Are You Happy In Your Relationship? 18 Questions That Will Reveal Your Answer

woman looking upset at her boyfriend who has just said something disrespectful to her

12 phrases respectful people wouldn’t dream of using (so you shouldn’t either)

two women sitting in a cafe, one appears disgruntled that the other keeps interrupting her

14 Red Flags Someone Does Not Respect You As Much As You Deserve

happy couple walking up a grassy hill path with a city in the background

12 Relationship Tips Everyone Forgets (But That Are Oh So Important)

tattooed couple laying in bed

Should You Tell Your Partner Everything About Your Past?

young woman with pink hair wearing a denim jacket with a flower meadow in the background. She has a pensive expression on her face.

12 Tips To Help You Get Over Someone Who Treated You Badly

young woman with upset angry expression holding a guitar up to threaten a man with

12 Ways To Get Over A Guy Who Played You (That Actually Work)

woman in the foreground wearing colorful hat and scarf with a pensive, slightly unhappy expression on her face as her boyfriend walks behind her in the distance

10 Things To Do If You Break A Serious Promise To Your Partner

About The Author

make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

Jack Nollan is a person who has lived with Bipolar Disorder and Bipolar-depression for almost 30 years now. Jack is a mental health writer of 10 years who pairs lived experience with evidence-based information to provide perspective from the side of the mental health consumer. With hands-on experience as the facilitator of a mental health support group, Jack has a firm grasp of the wide range of struggles people face when their mind is not in the healthiest of places. Jack is an activist who is passionate about helping disadvantaged people find a better path.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

The Gottman Institute

A research-based approach to relationships

The Impact of Social Media on Relationships

Genesis Games, LMHC

Is social media a threat to your relationship wellness?

Blog_Social Media and Dating Relationships

In 2019, the average person spent 144 minutes per day on social media (Clement, 2020). According to Media Dependency Theory, the higher dependence a person has on media the stronger the influence of media on the individual’s perceptions and behaviors (Joo & Teng, 2017, p. 36). A study conducted in 2018 by Brigham Young University found that extensive social media usage is linked with decreased emotional wellness and lower satisfaction in interpersonal relationships (Christensen, 2018). In other words, if you think your relationship is being negatively impacted by social media, you are not being “dramatic,” it actually is (you can read more here ) . 

It’s important not to downplay or dismiss the role social media plays in relationships. Acknowledging and talking about it can actually help strengthen your bond.

Benefits of Social Media

Let’s highlight the positives first. A survey conducted by the American Psychological Association found that 55% of Gen Z feel supported through social media. Social media allows people to connect to family and friends who might be on the other side of the world. You can connect with people who have similar interests who you might never meet otherwise. In romantic relationships, where couples are long-distance or have to travel often for work, it can help them feel like they are part of each other’s day-to-day life, even when apart. Social media has also become a hub for mental health professionals and relationship experts like myself —making support and education that can motivate individuals and couples to seek help.

Is Social Media a Threat to your Relationship?

Social Media can become a threat to your romantic relationship when meaning and boundaries are not clearly defined and agreed upon. As well as, when couples fall into a comparison trap.

Life is full of symbols that hold different meanings depending on lived experiences, family of origin, and culture. It’s important that you discuss with your partner what social media symbolizes and what meaning it holds for the two of you. Understanding what social media represents for each of you, might help you understand how your partner chooses to engage online.

Boundaries 

Boundaries get a bad reputation. For many, it feels like a “bad word.” The truth is that boundaries allow you to love the other person in a way they can feel.  Digital boundaries come up in my work with couples all the time because we all live in a world that is more interconnected than ever. 

Talk about expectations about the role social media will play in your relationship. Thinking that social media and real-life are two different parallel spaces will only lead you to feel frustrated and disappointed. 

Digital boundaries need to be discussed from the start of the relationship. Consider the following:

  • Do you update your relationship status?
  • How much do you share about your relationship on social media?
  • Who do you follow?
  • What pictures do you like or leave comments on?
  • How do you navigate direct messages?
  • Do you share your login information with your partner?
  • How much time is spent on social media?

This one might be the most challenging one, even for the couples who are self-aware and communicate clearly about their engagement on social media. People can go above and beyond to curate a perfect feed with the enhanced highlights of their relationship. The beautiful bouquet of lush flowers, the five-star weekly dinner dates, the romantic beachfront getaways they go on every other weekend, the vintage custom-made ring, and the heartfelt poems they write to each other just because. This is all you see. You don’t see the criticism or the defensiveness. You don’t see them crying. You don’t see the hard conversations and the vulnerability that accompanies those. You don’t see the behind-the-scenes. Yet, you compare your good enough and imperfect relationship to a perfectly curated “Instagramable” relationship. 

This is the recipe for perpetual disappointment because your reality will never measure up to the highlights of someone else’s relationship. Oftentimes, when you fall into the comparison trap, your insecurities bubble up to the surface. Maybe you feel insecure about your partner’s commitment and this is triggered when you see couples getting engaged, moving in together, or buying their first home. Maybe you feel insecure because you crave more quality time and this is triggered when you see other couples going on regular date nights and couples-only vacations. Regardless of your insecurities, don’t allow social media to fuel arguments between you and your partner. Your relationship is not less real because it’s not up to par with the social media standards of the perfect relationship.

How to Navigate Social Media as a Couple

  • Prioritize quality time without social media
  • Check-in with your partner before you post about them or your relationship
  • Don’t snoop through your partner’s social media
  • If you wouldn’t do it in- person, then don’t do it online
  • Tone and intent are harder to gauge online, so give your partner the benefit of doubt
  • Have ongoing conversations about social media and your relationship

Final Thought

Despite how digitized life is, it’s easy to feel uncomfortable talking about the impact social media has on relationships. Social media seems too trivial to argue about. Yet, it brings up real feelings, and those matter. 

Addressing social media boundaries doesn’t have to be a colossal challenge. Be willing to have open and ongoing honest conversations with your partner with the goal of better understanding each other. Also, work together to establish boundaries that lead to emotional and commitment safety within the relationship. 

Sign up for Gottman Love Notes

Gottman Love Notes is a research-based newsletter featuring the latest and greatest from The Gottman Institute. Whether you’re new to Gottman or a big fan, we believe that you’ll find something interesting, relevant, or refreshing in the content that is featured in each issue of Love Notes.

  • Email * Enter Email Confirm Email

Genesis Games is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and the owner of a virtual practice located in Sunny South Florida. She is a Level 3 Gottman Method trained couples therapist. She works with individuals and couples navigating a variety of relationship issues and life adjustments. Genesis is passionate about making relationship wellness and mental health information readily accessible and easy to digest. She has created a complementary and interactive online course on healthy relationships. Visit her website for more information on her work.  Follow her on Twitter and Instagram .

make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

Living Digital

  • Exploring Digital Culture
  • Observations

A group of teens all on their phones and emojis around their heads.

https://tametheteen.com/are-your-teens-communication-problems-due-to-social-media/

December 21, 2021 / Reading Time: ~ 12 minutes

Effects of Social Media on Interpersonal Relationships

Kyler Shakespear

Popularization of social media has been an ever-growing phenomenon since the rise of internet communication technology. With the college aged demographic at the forefront of this social frontier, they are the ones most heavily affected. This paper seeks to address the relationship between social media and connectivity and communication in relationships, both online and offline. The paper employs a mixed methods survey distributed to college-aged students that addresses aspects of social media and their impact on relationships. The results found that social media makes relationships online seem superficial, while offline relationships suffer as well because of a general trend of declining mental health and self esteem that seems to be a result of certain aspects of social media. This paper has implications for further research into the effects of social media on relationships and provides a discussion that addresses the need to understand how technology is changing social interactions. Mental health, as well as the impersonality and anonymity that come from communicating through online mediums seem to be some of the most prominent forces affecting relationships.

Introduction

Modern communication technology is a ubiquitous force that seems to be influencing all aspects of people’s lives around the world, receiving both much praise and criticism. These mixed feelings make it hard to tell if the course of technology is leading us down a path to a more developed society, or stalling growth and causing a social stagnation that makes us dependent on likes and followers. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? Are the criticisms valid enough for us to consider fixing the apparent issue, or are they simply resulting from a fear of change? Apprehension towards new technologies has always been a hindering force in the acceptance of new things. After all, even Socrates had his reservations about the written word, citing that it “leads to forgetfulness, since it encourages one to rely on written characters instead of the memory” (Greene, 1951, p. 23). Perhaps the biggest way that modern media affects society today is through its impact on relationships. Arguably the strongest technological force impacting modern relationships is social media, permeating the lives of most everybody in the younger generations. Social media seems to diminish relationships by negatively impacting mental health and self esteem, and removing cues that are important in relational upkeep and maintaining the idea that the other communicant is a real person.

My main focus for the purposes of this paper is how the relationships of college-aged people are affected. I define this age range between eighteen and twenty-two, though the upper distinction may be blurred a little bit because, for example, graduate students or students who took a gap year before beginning secondary school will be a little older. Because of this, anyone in their early or mid twenties is still of interest. I chose this demographic for multiple reasons. Firstly, because the college demographic is one that is most engaged with social media use. A study from 2010 found that “72% of all college students have a social media profile with 45% of college students using a social media site at least once a day” (Sponcil & Gitimu, 2012, p. 2). This figure is slightly outdated, being eleven years old at the time of this writing, though given the further rise of social media prevalence even since then, it is safe to say that the number would be equal or higher now. One study shows that “social media usage has increased nationally by almost 1000 percent in eight years [as of 2015] for people between 18 and 29” (Griffin, 2015)

Figure 1. Social media usage among the 18-29 demographic. From Social Media Is Changing How College Students Deal With Mental Health, For Better Or Worse by R. Griffin, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/social-media-college-mental-health_n_55ae6649e4b08f57d5d28845  

Another reason that this demographic was chosen is because they are the first generation to grow up with social media being a relevant force since their early lives. Facebook began in 2004—an eighteen year old would have only been a year old at this time; certainly young enough to be impacted by it since before they could remember. (While Facebook may be neither the current biggest nor the first major social media, it is a relevant reference point due to its still quite large standing since very near the beginning of social medias) Even a thirty year old would have been thirteen at this time; old enough for it to become popular in their early adolescence, which is when most engagement with social media typically begins. Both Facebook and Instagram for example require that users be at least thirteen years old to create an account. For these reasons, I found the college-aged demographic most fitting.

To supplement this paper with my own research, I have employed a survey asking questions about various aspects of social media and how respondents felt they impacted their relationships. The survey consists of several ten point Likert-type scale questions as well as a few short answer questions. I reached out mostly to students at the University of Washington Tacoma campus and twenty-one respondents answered the survey. While I recognize the fairly small sample size that could have been prevented by posting my survey to social media, I avoided doing so to eliminate possible bias from asking people about social media on social media because people who don’t use it would be left out, and I believe that I have sufficient secondary research to supplement it. The majority of respondents fell between the ages of nineteen and twenty-four, with one thirty-six year-old and one twenty-nine year-old (one respondent did not answer the age question), therefore I contend that my survey results are relevant to the demographic of focus. 

Mental Health & Self Esteem

One of the most widely-heard criticisms of social media is its negative impact on mental health. Body image issues, low self esteem, anxiety, and addiction are but some of the most widely attributed faults. But what do these issues really prove about relationships? Well, research shows that mental health and self esteem can have quite an impact. According to Harris and Orth (2019), “the link between people’s social relationships and their level of self-esteem is truly reciprocal in all developmental stages across the life span, reflecting a positive feedback loop between the constructs” (p. 1). In other words, self esteem both determines the quality of connectivity in social relationships, and is determined by the quality and quantity of them. Low self esteem makes it much more difficult to connect with others. If one is unsure about oneself, then they are much less likely to be confident enough to open up and be able to connect on a deeper level. 

While it is important to know how mental factors dictate relationships, it is first necessary to understand how exactly social media affects mental health. With a survey of 627 participants, Christensen (2018) found that excessive social media use corresponded with a lower general sense of emotional well-being (p. 33). He mentions how people who show higher dependency on their phones also show higher levels of depression and decreased attention, both factors that can contribute to a decline in the quality of relationships (p. 33). One common effect of depression is a loss of interest in things that one would normally enjoy. In relationships, showing a lack of interest can have the effect of making the other person feel that they are not liked or are not interesting enough. This can be a blow to self esteem which, as spelled out earlier, can further harm relationships. Additionally, decreased attention can lead to distractibility and can again make the other person feel there is a lack of interest. In some ways therefore, social media can affect the emotional health of both parties, regardless of whether or not they are both heavy users. 

Christensen (2018) also mentions a study which found that “interaction with online peers contributed to compromising the function of offline relationships and increased the potential for Internet addictions” (p. 32). As I will explore more deeply later in this paper, interacting with people online that are not known offline reduces subtle cues that would make in-person communication much more difficult if not present. Getting used to communicating only through a limited-cues medium makes normal face-to-face communication harder and therefore increases the likelihood that online interactions are sought more and more until they displace in-person interactions. In my survey, only 50% of respondents answered that they use social media more to keep up with people they already know than to meet new people they don’t know in person. This means that a lot of the communication that happens in online relationships stays strictly online and is not supplemented with face-to-face communication.  Griffin (2015) quotes Columbia University Clinic for Anxiety and Related Disorders director Dr. Anne Marie Albano, saying, “Social media and other technologies can give an individual a false sense of having true relationships, which can get in the way of developing peer support and mentor relationships. In actuality, they never cross over to make an engaging relationship with such people in the real world.” As a result of this, college students are less likely to have tangible relationships and are beginning college with less social experience as teenagers than was true of the past (Griffin, 2015). This all can make it harder to form new real world relationships. Meeting new people and making new connections isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but when done online it is important not to replace in-person interactions to avoid running the risk of developing the addictive tendencies that social media seems to draw out of many. Watson (2016) claims that “social media is appealing to its users because it is easy to use, provides users with instant gratification and allows the user to be in total control.” These factors all make addictive personalities have even more trouble with putting their phones down.

Understanding how social media affects mental health is not just important for the sake of understanding relationships, but also for the sake of mental health itself. For many college students, this age is a time of heavy transition and sometimes uncertainty. This type of stress can make them much more susceptible to mental health problems. But additionally, understanding how this trend affects relationships is important because, as we saw earlier, successful relationships do play a role in mental health and self esteem. 

Reduction of Cues

Baym (2015) defines social cues as the nuances of communication that “provide further information regarding context, the meanings of messages, and the identities of the people interacting” (p. 9). As she explains, it is the missing cue of a shared location that makes texting the question “where are you?” much more common than asking it in face-to-face interactions. Cues are very important to social interaction. In romantic relationships, physical touch is a cue that is important to many couples. Even simpler than this, slightly changing one’s tone of voice can dramatically alter the meaning of a sentence. To demonstrate this, consider the sentence “I didn’t say he took the money.” Placing the emphasis on each word in the sentence completely changes its meaning. Online mediums have ways of mimicking in-person cues. Italicizing words can take the place of intonation (“I didn’t say he took the money” vs “I didn’t say he took the money”), or emojis to simulate facial expressions or reactions. Sometimes, online mediums can create their own cues in place of ones that are not present. 

Reducing cues in an interaction reduces the personality and expressiveness of each participant. When there aren’t enough cues, interaction can feel impersonal and anonymous. This is a problem that can really hinder the connectivity of communicants over an online medium. While the anonymity that many online platforms grant can help people to feel more comfortable opening up honestly and sharing valuable information, the other side of the coin is that many people do not feel that their actions online have any real-world consequences. This can lead them to be ruder, more disrespectful, and less tolerant of others’ views. Even if people don’t act like blatant jerks when they feel they are anonymous, the reduction of cues can make the quality of the relationship feel like it is not as real. A general trend I found from my survey is that the more friends or followers a person has, the smaller percentage of them they perceive to be ‘real’ friends. This is because interacting with such a mass of followers reduces the cues available to be sent to and from each one. Another question asked of the participants was how close they feel in their online relationships compared to offline. They were asked to rate their degree of connectivity on a scale from one to ten, one being that they feel no connection, five being the same as in-person, and ten being significantly more connected. Not surprisingly, the numbers were not very high. The average response was a 3.71, with nobody rating higher than a seven. This confirms that a reduction of cues results in a feeling of lower connectivity. 

Figure 2. Connectivity in online relationships

Reduced connectivity is not the only negative side effect of limited social cues in social media however. Another result is the disconnect between communication and the idea that the other communicant is a real person. Without sufficient cues, it is hard to see how somebody else is reacting to one’s messages, and that can lead many people to ignore or forget about others’ emotions. It makes communication feel much more impersonal and inconsequential. One phenomenon that can be attributed to this is ghosting. Ghosting is a phenomenon most present in romantic relationships where one party decides to cut all ties with the other and does not respond to any attempts at contact. Ghosting is so common in fact that the term applied to it is easily recognisable to mostly anyone on the internet. Isaf (2020) mentions a survey which found that only 36% of men and 23% of women had never experienced ghosting before (p. 62). She goes on to explain that “a Huffington Post article attributed the motivation for ghosting to a desire to avoid confrontation, difficult conversations, and hurting someone’s feelings. However, relationship research has shown that in the long run, ghosting often leads to worse confrontations than would have otherwise occurred with an alternative breakup strategy” (Isaf, 2020, p. 61). Many people who turn to ghosting feel that since they are not saying anything to hurt the other person’s feelings, they are mitigating the emotional harm. After all, by blocking them, they do not receive any cues from the other end, so there’s no way to see what harm they have done. In fact, all this does is make the other person feel that they aren’t worth the confrontation. This ends up harming the person on the receiving end all the more while the ghoster escapes unscathed. This is one of the many reasons why trust is very sceptically placed in online situations, especially on dating apps, where romantic relationships are supposed to involve honest communication and trust. When asked how trustworthy online dating profiles are, survey respondents again, not surprisingly, did not tend to rate very high. The average rating for this question was 3.78. Obviously, problems of impersonality severely limit trust in online relationships.

Figure 3. Trust in online dating profiles

Lack of trust is a big issue that can stunt and altogether stop the growth of a relationship. Reduction of social cues in online mediums like social media and dating apps lead to a feeling that either there is no reason to care about the person on the other end, there is no reason for the person on the other end to care, or both. Due to the ever-expanding presence of social media in modern life, it is important to know how to deal with online communication, and that starts with understanding its strengths and its limitations.

From the evidence gathered, it seems that social media is a socially poisonous force. In reality however, it isn’t all negative. While not ideal communication, it presents the opportunity to still be able to connect with people who might otherwise not be seen. After all, being able to talk to family members who live in another country, or a friend from high school who now lives in another state is better than no communication at all. The important point is that it is necessary to understand the limits and drawbacks of the forces that are so ever-present in our lives. Understanding the lack of cues will help to recognize and avoid tendencies that hurt trust and impersonality. Knowing how social media impacts mental health can help make it easier to mitigate harm by taking a different approach, like for example restricting people you follow to only those whom you deem close enough friends or people you would actually like to keep in touch with. When left unchecked, social media can result in some truly ugly effects for mental health, trust, and communication. It is still a very recent development in the course of human history and thus is still being perfected. While at the moment it is far from perfect, tailoring social media platforms to fit specific, healthy communication purposes can drastically increase the quality of connectivity in relationships. Instead of centering apps around how many followers and likes one can get, it might be more beneficial for everybody to focus it around forming deeper connections rather than more numerous shallow ones. Filling one’s world with empty communication and shallow relationships can make it feel both overwhelmingly crowded and desperately lonely at the same time. This may be at least in part the reason why mental health and anxiety are such common problems now. “In the last year, anxiety has superseded depression as the most prevalent mental health disorder across college campuses, according to a study by the American College Health Association” (Griffin, 2015). College students are currently the most affected demographic, and thus it is extremely important to address such an issue. 

Perhaps the next step is a study focused around how to turn social media into a positive force, employing a psychological approach to address the issues of mental health and addiction as well as a communications-oriented approach aiming to add cues necessary to making interactions online more genuine. Fixing these issues with social media and in turn helping improve the quality of relationships produced can be a great benefit that is worth striving for.

Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal Connections in the Digital Age (Digital Media and Society) (2nd ed.). Polity.

Christensen, S. P. (2018). Social Media Use and Its Impact on Relationships and Emotions. All Theses and Dissertations, 6927. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6927

Greene, W. C. (1951). The Spoken and the Written Word. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 60 , 23–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/310884

Griffin, R. (2015, July 22). Social Media Is Changing How College Students Deal With Mental Health, For Better Or Worse . HuffPost. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/social-media-college-mental-health_n_5 5ae6649e4b08f57d5d28845

Harris, M. A., & Orth, U. (2020). The link between self-esteem and social relationships: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119 (6), 1459–1477. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000265

Isaf, M. (2020). The Role of Social Media in Dating Trends Among Gen Z College Students. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 11 (2), 59–68. https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/communications/journal/wp-content/u ploads/sites/153/2020/12/06-Isaf_EJfinal.pdf

Sponcil, M., & Gitimu, P. (2012). Use of social media by college students: Relationship to communication and self-concept. Journal of Technology Research . Published. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266344276_Use_of_social_media_by_college_students_Relationship_to_communication_and_self-concept

Watson, K. (2016, November 28). How Social Media Addictions Strain Relationships with College Students . Progressions. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://progressions.prsa.org/index.php/2016/11/28/how-social-media-addictions-strain-relationships-with-college-students/

And So It Was Written

make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

Author: Kyler Shakespear

Published: December 21, 2021

Word Count: 3305

Reading time: ~ 12 minutes

Edit Link: (emailed to author) Request Now

Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

ORGANIZED BY

More to read.

A TRU Writer powered SPLOT : Living Digital

Blame @cogdog — Up ↑

Read our research on: Immigration & Migration | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Connection, creativity and drama: teen life on social media in 2022, majorities of teens credit social media with strengthening their friendships and providing support while also noting the emotionally charged side of these platforms.

(FatCamera/Getty Images)

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand the experiences American teens are having with social media. For this analysis, we surveyed 1,316 U.S. teens. The survey was conducted online by Ipsos from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

This research was reviewed and approved by an external institutional review board (IRB), Advarra, which is an independent committee of experts that specializes in helping to protect the rights of research participants.

Ipsos recruited the teens via their parents who were a part of its  KnowledgePanel , a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. The survey is weighted to be representative of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 who live with parents by age, gender, race, ethnicity, household income and other categories.

This report also includes quotes from teen focus groups. Pew Research Center worked with PSB Insights to conduct four live, online focus groups with a total of 16 U.S. 13- to 17-year-olds. The focus groups were conducted Jan. 12-13, 2022. 

Here are the questions used for this report , along with responses. Here is the survey methodology and the focus groups methodology .

Society has long fretted about technology’s impact on youth. But unlike radio and television, the hyperconnected nature of social media has led to new anxieties , including worries that these platforms may be negatively impacting teenagers’ mental health . Just this year, the White House announced plans to combat potential harms teens may face when using social media.

Majorities of teens say social media provides them with a space for connection, creativity and support …

Despite these concerns, teens themselves paint a more nuanced picture of adolescent life on social media. It is one in which majorities credit these platforms with deepening connections and providing a support network when they need it, while smaller – though notable – shares acknowledge the drama and pressures that can come along with using social media, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 conducted April 14 to May 4, 2022. 1

Eight-in-ten teens say that what they see on social media makes them feel more connected to what’s going on in their friends’ lives, while 71% say it makes them feel like they have a place where they can show their creative side. And 67% say these platforms make them feel as if they have people who can support them through tough times. A smaller share – though still a majority – say the same for feeling more accepted. These positive sentiments are expressed by teens across demographic groups.

When asked about the overall impact of social media on them personally, more teens say its effect has been mostly positive (32%) than say it has been mostly negative (9%). The largest share describes its impact in neutral terms: 59% believe social media has had neither a positive nor a negative effect on them. For teens who view social media’s effect on them as mostly positive, many describe maintaining friendships, building connections, or accessing information as main reasons they feel this way, with one teen saying:

“It connects me with the world, provides an outlet to learn things I otherwise wouldn’t have access to, and allows me to discover and explore interests.” – Teen girl

While these youth describe the benefits they get from social media, this positivity is not unanimous. Indeed, 38% of teens say they feel overwhelmed by all the drama they see on social media, while about three-in-ten say these platforms have made them feel like their friends are leaving them out of things (31%) or have felt pressure to post content that will get lots of likes or comments (29%). Another 23% say these platforms make them feel worse about their own life.

Teen girls more likely than teen boys to say social media has made them feel overwhelmed by drama, excluded by friends or worse about their life

Teen girls report encountering some of these pressures at higher rates. Some 45% of girls say they feel overwhelmed because of all the drama on social media, compared with 32% of boys. Girls are also more likely than boys to say social media has made them feel like their friends are leaving them out of things (37% vs. 24%) or worse about their own lives (28% vs. 18%).

When asked how often they decide not to post on social media out of fear of it being using against them, older teen girls stand out. For example, half of 15- to 17-year-old girls say they often or sometimes decide not to post something on social media because they worry others might use it to embarrass them, compared with smaller shares of younger girls or boys.

These are some of the key findings from a Pew Research Center online survey of 1,316 U.S. teens conducted from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

Teens are more likely to view social media as having a negative effect on others than themselves

The strong presence of social media in many teenagers’ lives begs the question: What impact, if any, are these sites having on today’s youth?

More teens say social media has had a negative effect on people their age than on them, personally

Even as teens tend to view the impact of social media on their own lives in more positive than negative terms, they are more critical of its influence on their peers. While 9% of teens think social media has had a mostly negative effect on them personally, that share rises to 32% when the same question is framed about people their age .

There are also gaps when looking at the positive side of these platforms. Some 32% of teens say social media has had a positive effect on them personally, compared with a smaller share (24%) who say the same about these platforms’ impact on teens more broadly.

Still, regardless of whether teens are assessing social media’s impact on themselves or others, the most common way they describe its effect is as neither positive nor negative.

Teens reflect on parents’ concerns and assessments of teen life on social media

Only a minority of teens say their parents are extremely or very worried about their social media use

Parents are often on the front lines in navigating challenges their children may face when using social media. While previous Center surveys reflect parents’ anxieties about social media, only a minority of teens in this survey describe their parents as being highly concerned about their use of these sites.

Some 22% believe their parents are extremely or very worried about them using social media, while another 27% say their parents are somewhat worried. However, many teens – 41% – say their parents are worried only a little or not at all. And 9% say they aren’t sure about the level of concern their parents have over their social media use. These youth also weighed in on whether parents overall – not just their own – have an accurate picture of what it’s like to be a teenager on social media. Some 39% say teens’ experiences are better than parents think, while 27% say things on social media are worse for teens than parents think. Still, one-third believe parents’ assessments are about right.

Teens who have a more positive outlook about social media are more likely to say these platforms benefit them

Teens who see social media as a positive for all teens more likely to report positive personal experiences

Teens who see social media as having a mostly positive effect on people their age are more likely than teens who see mostly negative effects to say teens’ experiences on social media are better than parents think. They are also more likely to say they have had positive experiences while personally using these platforms.

Whether teens see social media’s effects as positive or negative relates to their perspective on whether parents’ views stack up to reality. About six-in-ten teens who say that social media has had a mostly positive effect on people their age say teens’ experiences on social media are better than parents think, while a plurality of teens who say social media has been mostly negative for people their age say teens’ experiences on social media are worse than parents think.

Teens who have a more positive view of social media’s effect on their peers report more positive personal experiences with these platforms. More than half (54%) of teens who see social media as having a mostly positive effect on people their age say that what they see on social media makes them feel a lot more connected to what’s going on in their friends’ lives. About four-in-ten say they feel a lot like they have a place where they can show their creative side. Some 35% of teens who see the effect as mostly positive say social media makes them feel a lot like they have people who can support them through tough times, and 28% say it makes them feel a lot more accepted. By comparison, much smaller shares – about or quarter or fewer – of teens who see social media as having a negative effect say what they see on social media makes them feel each of these positive experiences a lot.

While teens who have a positive outlook on the impact of social media are more likely to report personally benefiting from these sites, they tend to say they’ve experienced the more negative side in similar proportions as those who rate these sites’ effect on teens negatively. There is one exception: 12% of teens who believe social media has a mostly negative effect on teens say they feel overwhelmed by all of the drama on these platforms a lot, compared with 6% of those who see its impact as mostly positive.

Online activism is not common on social media among teens; only a minority of teens are highly concerned about digital privacy

Beyond broad measurement of social media, this survey also tackled two popular topics in the debates around social media: online activism and digital privacy .

Only small shares of teens are engaging in online activism on social media, but experiences and views vary by political affiliation

On topics from MAGA to Black Lives Matter , social media platforms have become an important way for people of all ages to share information, mobilize and discuss issues that are important to them.

Few teens engaged in online activism in past year; Democratic teens are more likely to have done so than Republicans

But this survey reveals that only a minority of teens say they have been civically active on social media in the past year via one of the three means asked about at the time of the survey. One-in-ten teens say they have encouraged others to take action on political or social issues that are important to them or have posted a picture to show their support for a political or social issue in the past 12 months. Some 7% say the same about using hashtags related to a political or social cause on social media during this period. Taken together, 15% of teens have engaged in at least one of these activities on social media in the past 12 months.

While majorities of both Democrats and Republicans have not used social media in this way, there are some notable partisan differences among those who engage in activism. For example, 14% of teens who identify as Democrats or who lean toward the Democratic Party say they have used social media to encourage others to take action on political or social issues that are important to them in the past 12 months, compared with 6% of teens who are Republicans or GOP leaners. And larger shares of Democrats than Republicans say they have posted pictures or used hashtags to show support for a political or social issue in the past year. In total, Democratic teens are twice as likely as Republican teens to have engaged in any of these activities during this time (20% vs. 10%).

Among teens, Democrats more likely than Republicans to see social media as extremely or very important for finding new viewpoints

Not only do small shares of teens participate in these types of activities on social media, relatively few say these platforms play a critical role in how they interact with political and social issues.

About one-in-ten or fewer teens say social media is extremely or very important to them personally when it comes to exposing them to new viewpoints, getting involved with issues that are important to them, finding other people who share their views, helping them figure out their own views on an issue or giving them a venue to express their political opinions.

Just as Democratic teens are more likely than Republican teens to engage in these forms of online activism, they also see social media as a more integral tool for civic engagement. For example, 18% of Democratic teens say social media is extremely or very important to them when it comes to exposing them to new points of view, compared with 8% of Republican teens. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to say these platforms are at least very important to them for getting involved with issues that are important to them, finding others who share their views or helping them figure out their own way of thinking.

And when asked about what people should do more broadly, Democratic teens (22%) are more likely than Republican teens (12%) to say that regardless of whether they engage in online activism themselves, it is very or extremely important for people to speak out about political or social issues on social media.

Teens feel a lack of control over their personal data but aren’t too concerned about social media companies having this information

A majority of teens feel as if they have little to no control over their data being collected by social media companies … but only one-in-five are extremely or very concerned about the amount of information these sites have about them

Amid the continued privacy discussions in the media and among policymakers , teens have nuanced views on the topic. Just 14% of teens report feeling a lot of control over the personal information that social media companies collect about them. Meanwhile, 60% of teens feel like they have little to no control. A further 26% say they are not sure how much control they have over companies’ collection of this information.

Despite feeling a lack of control over their data being collected by social media companies, teens are largely unconcerned. A fifth of teens (20%) say they feel very or extremely concerned about the amount of their personal information social media companies might have. Still, a notable segment of teens – 44% – say they have little or no concern about how much these companies might know about them.

In their own words, teens share their thoughts about social media and the challenges and benefits of using it

“TikTok is more of a place to watch videos … then Instagram [is] more to see what my friends are up to and then Snapchat [is] a way of more direct communication.” – Teen girl

To inform and supplement this survey, the Center conducted a series of teen focus groups to better understand how teens were using social media and thinking about topics related to it. These focus groups highlight how nuanced teens’ views on social media truly are.

Teens share how different platforms serve different purposes as they navigate online life and that using these platforms can lead to a variety of emotions and experiences, from anxiety to excitement and from improved social connections to bullying: 2

“I’ve liked, especially during the pandemic, being able to communicate with my friends more, since I couldn’t see them in person. And then also, having something to watch to entertain me, which was good, because we were just stuck at home.” – Teen girl

“Okay, for me, it is like bullies or like negative comments or stuff like that, you just see a lot of people hating under the comments, under your posts and stuff like that.” – Teen boy

“During the pandemic, I feel like less people were using social media in certain ways, because there wasn’t much to post, like going out. You’re just staying at home. But TikTok, everyone was on it, because it was their source of entertainment.” – Teen girl

As teens walk us through their perspectives, they also share how the pandemic changed (and didn’t change) their social media habits and what they think their lives would be like if social media disappeared overnight:

“I think it would be a little bit [messed up if social media disappeared]. I spend 99% of my time indoors in front of my computer, if I’m not playing games, I’m watching pirated videos. If I’m not watching videos, maybe I’m reading an article. I’m always online. And I hardly step out of my room. I have had issues with my dad. He said my room is too creepy. I should come outside and play with people but I’m not really good at making friends. So, it’s a bit hard on me.” – Teen boy

“[When] we were younger, [social media] didn’t have an effect on us and social media wasn’t as big as it is now. I feel like we were more free and more happy, and no stress or overthinking or insecure.” – Teen girl

For more quotes and themes from the focus groups, see Chapter 3 .

  • A 2018 Center survey also asked U.S teens some of the same questions about experiences and views related to social media (e.g., whether social media makes them feel more connected to what’s going on in their friend’s lives). Direct comparisons cannot be made across the two surveys due to mode, sampling and recruitment differences. Please read the Methodology section to learn more about how the current survey was conducted. ↩
  • Quotations in this report may have been lightly edited for grammar, spelling and clarity. ↩

Sign up for our Internet, Science and Tech newsletter

New findings, delivered monthly

Report Materials

Table of contents, more so than adults, u.s. teens value people feeling safe online over being able to speak freely, teens, social media and technology 2022, u.s. teens are more likely than adults to support the black lives matter movement, how teens navigate school during covid-19, most u.s. teens who use cellphones do it to pass time, connect with others, learn new things, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Marisa T. Cohen PhD, LMFT

Social Media and Relationships

A few important rules..

Posted December 4, 2018 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

Courtesy of Pixabay

Research has shown that social media can affect the quality of our relationships. In fact, one survey study with 205 Facebook users demonstrated that a higher level of Facebook usage was associated with negative relationship outcomes (Clayton, Nagurney, & Smith, 2013). In addition, those relationships experienced Facebook-related conflict (Clayton, et al., 2013). Facebook usage has also been linked to increased feelings of jealousy (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009).

Another study showed that exposure, after a breakup, to an ex’s Facebook profile may hinder the process of healing and moving on (Marshall, 2012). In fact, checking up on an ex’s profile led to more distress over the breakup, more negative feelings, and less personal growth (Marshall, 2012).

Research has demonstrated the toll that social media can take, not only on our current relationships but also on our ability to form new relationships. However, getting off social media is a challenge for many people, as a great deal of our communication happens online. If we want to remain online, but safeguard our relationships and ability to cope after a breakup, what steps can we take to make our online environment a bit safer?

1. Unfollow and/or remove your exes from social media.

It is nearly impossible to get over a person if your social media feed is constantly bombarded by pictures of him/her. If your goal is to remain friends with your ex, an honest conversation with him/her noting that you need your distance while the breakup is still fresh may be worthwhile. You may choose to unfollow him/her (if an option on the platform), rather than completely removing your former flame.

Muise et al. (2009) found in their study of 308 undergraduates that “Facebook may expose an individual to potentially jealousy-provoking information about their partner, which creates a feedback loop whereby heightened jealousy leads to increased surveillance of a partner’s Facebook page. Persistent surveillance results in further exposure to jealousy-provoking information” (p. 443). In order to break this cycle, try to remove yourself from social media to whatever extent possible.

2. Be aware of your online presence.

Yes, breakups can be hard, and yes, they can be very painful. However, it is important not to air any dirty laundry over the internet. What you put out there has a way of getting around and remaining public (even if swiftly deleted). If you are having a tough time, it is important to seek support from family, friends, and/or a professional. Do not solicit advice or vent about past problems to your social media communities. This may come back to haunt you. In addition, oversharing may actually alienate your other online friends.

Sharing too much has been shown to decrease the quality of real-life relationships. A study with 508 Facebook users found that sharing too many selfies can actually lead to a decrease in intimacy in relationships (Houghton, Joinson, Caldwell, & Marder, 2013). The authors suggest that a certain level of censorship is necessary so as not to alienate your companions by your online behavior.

3. Carry out your new relationship(s) IRL and not through social media.

Focus less on creating the perfect social media story and enjoy the time you spend with your partner and friends in real time in the real world. If everything is distilled through a website, you aren’t making the most of the time you spend together.

A Danish study by the Happiness Research Institute focusing on 1,095 participants found that those who went a week without Facebook reported greater life satisfaction (Happiness Research Institute, 2015). Therefore, it is important to cut back on your social media usage.

While social media can be a great way to connect with those we haven’t seen in a while and keep in contact with family, co-workers, and friends, it can have some negative side effects, especially when it comes to our romantic lives. Be conscious of how you engage with social media and use it sparingly. Avoid focusing too much on the past and live your life with your current partner in a meaningful way, and not for the purpose of a “perfect” post.

Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16 (10), 717-720. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0424

Happiness Research Institute (2015). The Facebook experiment: Does social media affect the quality of our lives? Retrieved from https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/928487_680fc12644c8428e b728cde7d61b13e7.pdf

Houghton, D., Joinson, A., Caldwell, N., & Marder, B. (2013). Tagger's delight? Disclosure and liking in Facebook: The effects of sharing photographs amongst multiple known social circles. Retrieved from http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1723/1/2013-03_D_Houghton.pdf

Marshall, T. C. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with post breakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (10), 521-526.

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12 , 441-444.

Marisa T. Cohen PhD, LMFT

Marisa T. Cohen, Ph.D. , is a psychology professor, relationship researcher, and author of From First Kiss to Forever: A Scientific Approach to Love .

  • Find a Therapist
  • Find a Treatment Center
  • Find a Psychiatrist
  • Find a Support Group
  • Find Teletherapy
  • United States
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Chicago, IL
  • Houston, TX
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • New York, NY
  • Portland, OR
  • San Diego, CA
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Seattle, WA
  • Washington, DC
  • Asperger's
  • Bipolar Disorder
  • Chronic Pain
  • Eating Disorders
  • Passive Aggression
  • Personality
  • Goal Setting
  • Positive Psychology
  • Stopping Smoking
  • Low Sexual Desire
  • Relationships
  • Child Development
  • Therapy Center NEW
  • Diagnosis Dictionary
  • Types of Therapy

January 2024 magazine cover

Overcome burnout, your burdens, and that endless to-do list.

  • Coronavirus Disease 2019
  • Affective Forecasting
  • Neuroscience

90 years of expert advice and inspiration, for every couple.

  • Engagement Rings
  • Wedding Bands
  • Celebrity Weddings & News
  • Wedding Planning
  • Destination Wedding
  • Invitations & Stationery
  • Wedding Décor
  • Flowers & Bouquets
  • Food & Drink
  • Wedding Cakes
  • Photography
  • Wedding Dresses
  • Bridesmaid Dresses
  • Makeup & Hair
  • Accessories
  • Groom Style
  • Wedding Party Attire
  • Wedding Guest Attire
  • Bridal Fashion Week
  • Skincare & Wellness
  • Engagement Party
  • Bridal Shower
  • Bachelorette Party
  • Rehearsal Dinner
  • Registry Tips
  • Anniversary Gifts
  • Wedding Favors
  • Friends & Family
  • Marriage Proposal Ideas
  • Married Life
  • Love & Dating
  • The Brides Team
  • Editorial Guidelines
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Use and Policies
  • Privacy Policy
  • Relationships

A Relationship Expert Explains How Social Media Affects Your Love Life

 Unsplash | Design by Michela Buttignol

How would our lives be different without social media? When our phones are often the first and last thing we see every day, it's common to wonder how social media affects every part of our lives, including our relationships. While social media has its benefits—staying in touch with those we love, getting fresh wedding inspiration , networking, or meeting new friends—our lives online can affect our realities offline. It can even become concerning when one partner's time on the internet starts to change the dynamic of a relationship.

Romantic bonds can begin through social media, but they can also be damaged by it. Whether it's a "like" on a photo or one person is talking to other people , it's easy to become jealous of our partner's experiences online. But what happens when the problem isn't caused by who we talk to, but the fact that we're using social media at all? If you've ever felt like you're competing with your partner's phone for their attention, you're not alone. The time we dedicate to our screens can change how we approach our partners in real life. We asked expert and author Leslie Shore to explain how to know when the internet is becoming a problem.

Meet the Expert

Leslie Shore is an interpersonal communications expert with over 20 years of experience. She is the founder of Listen to Succeed as well as a speaker, author, and professor on listening and communication.

Below, read on to learn how social media affects relationships.

Consider the Time You Spend Online

Shore explains that the time we spend on social media can affect our ability to communicate with those we care about. "Research shows that, on average, we spend two or more hours a day on social media," Shore says. She warns that fostering relationships online can hurt our relationships offline . "Those who have limited experience in reading people do not have the same level of social intelligence [that] previous generations possess. If this becomes the new normal, building strong, deep relationships will take more time and will be more difficult to maintain."

When we're constantly tied to our phones scrolling through Instagram, reading the news, or checking emails, we have to learn to balance this time with being offline. It's especially important to ensure we don't neglect our loved ones in favor of screen time.

"The holds our devices have on us is invisible until someone actively calls [it] to our attention," says Shore, noting that we often pay more mind to our phones than those we're spending time with. "It is almost impossible to create or enhance relationships when social media is, in the first place, taking our time and attention away from who is in front of us."

So how do we keep our relationships strong in the age of the internet? Shore has some advice on how to keep social media from becoming a barrier.

Be Extra Careful in Early Relationship Stages

While the overuse of social media at any stage of a relationship can have negative effects, Shore explains that it's worse in the early stages.

"At the beginning of a relationship, we attend to the other person because we want to get to know them," she says. "We listen to their likes and dislikes, history, family dynamics, dreams, and fears. We spend hours in conversation discovering each other; no fact too small, no story too long. The building of the relationship has newness and surprises. During this time, it is critical that cellphones are out of sight while in conversation to ensure total concentration on [each] other."

Shore also warns about the dangers of messages getting misconstrued via text, especially when you're still getting to know each other : "Texting between each other should be positive and factual," she says. "Do not allow jokes or sarcasm to creep in, as they don’t translate well and create a rift instantaneously."

If you're feeling a disconnect when you talk to your partner online or through texts , it might be best to focus on interacting in person (or try phone calls when you can't get together).

Think Twice Before Commenting and Posting

While bonding over internet jokes or posts can strengthen your connection, your partner's social media content might also become a concern. Have they posted something you disagree with, or do they share a different side of their personality online? Before confronting them, think about how the conversation would go in person—it might be best to wait until you see them again to bring up anything you're uncomfortable with. Shore advocates for the need to be mindful of our partners when interacting on social media.

"Don't respond to a post or comment out of emotion," she says. "Take time to process what you have read or seen, and allow yourself time to reflect on your thoughts before commenting out of anger or frustration. Remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions."

In the same vein, while you may be tempted to share all aspects of your life on Instagram or Facebook, remember that your partner may not feel the same way. If it's something you wouldn't overshare with your neighbors, colleagues, and extended acquaintances in real life, it probably shouldn't be on social media either. "Keep your personal conversations personal," Shore says. "There is no need to take your private life public. Posting about your partner’s choice of a birthday present for you or gossiping about your S.O. are communications best left out of the public eye."

Don't respond to a post or comment out of emotion. Remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Always Keep Your Loved Ones First in Mind

While there are always risks involved when navigating social media and relationships, there are also ways to ensure that your communication stays strong. Shore explains that focusing on your real lives together—rather than interacting mostly online—is important to create a solid foundation to build your relationship on.

"Stay truly connected to those who matter," she says. "Don't wish your family a happy birthday on Facebook—pick up the phone or make the trip to see them. Instead of sending invites, thank you cards, and holiday cards online, send your loved ones something they can keep forever."

As your social media network grows, Shore also recommends being mindful of other people's beliefs and values. "Remember who your friends are," she says. "Before sharing your thoughts on politics or religion or posting something provocative or controversial, keep in mind who your audience is. Is it worth creating tension with your family, friends, or co-workers?"

However you approach your life on the internet, be mindful to think about your relationships in person before online. That's not to say you need to put your phone down entirely, so there's no need to delete your favorite apps. Social media can be exciting, fun, and a great way to relax (or keep up with friends from afar).

Find your healthy balance between both sides of the screen. When having fun online blends seamlessly with your relationships in real life, you'll discover that great new experiences can come from enjoying them both together.

Related Stories

Can Social Media Ruin Relationships?

Should You Stay in a Sexless Relationship?

Should Couples Have a TV In the Bedroom?

How to Write Your Own Wedding Vows, Including 17 Vow Examples

7 Simple Habits for Marital Happiness

13 Best Relationship Books of 2023 to Learn Effective Communication

Wedding Planning Stress? Here's How to Enjoy the Experience

20 of the Most Common Mistakes Married Couples Make When Arguing

The Best Valentine's Day Vacation Ideas, According to Relationship Experts

How to Have a Healthy Sex Life in Your Marriage

The Ultimate Wedding-Planning Checklist and Timeline

The Love Advice Everyone in a New Relationship Absolutely Needs to Hear

25 Couples Celebrate Marriage and Hispanic Heritage

30 LGBTQIA+ Wedding Vendors on Pride, Progress, and Plans

How Many Dates Before Your Relationship Is Official?

What Is Breadcrumbing? A Relationship Expert Explains

How Social Media Affects Relationships (According to 7 Experts)

In this modern digital age, technology can positively and negatively affect our lives.

So, how does it affect our relationship with other people?

Ashleigh Diserio

Ashleigh Diserio

Behavioral Consultant at Ashleigh Diserio Consulting

Social media can have positive effects on relationships.

It allows relationships to be established and continued from a distance. Countless people create real friendships or start romantic relationships through social media.

Whether people meet via online groups where individuals share commonalities, dating apps, group learning sites, or somewhere else, people can create a sense of connection and belonging through these outlets. This social support has plenty of mental health benefits.

Social media can also negatively affect all types of relationships

On the other hand, social media can also negatively affect all types of relationships, whether it be intimate relationships, friendships, work connections, or even the relationship we have with ourselves.

People spend a lot of time online. This affects how they view their own life and personal self-worth or value. The more time an individual spends online, the more susceptible they are to anxiety, depression, loneliness, the feeling of missing out on life, and diminished self-esteem.

Related: The 30 Best Books on Confidence and Self-Esteem

People often only share joyful, positive highlights online, creating a facade of having the “perfect life” while things are actually falling apart in their life.

It can appear to someone that others are always having a great time, cultivating positive relationships, going on fabulous adventures, buying the best/most popular items, and living a dream life. When a person compares their “ real ” life to this false reality portrayed by others online, it can have negative effects when their life doesn’t match up.

The truth is if more people would show the not so pleasant aspects of life – the weaknesses, insecurities, trials, and tribulations – the more helpful this would be at improving lives.

When people witness others sharing adversities or how they triumphed over them, people start to feel more normal and possibly learn how to get past their own hardships or where to turn for help.

We could turn a negative effect social media is having into a positive one.

When it comes to dating, relationships can start and end almost entirely over the internet. With so many ways to meet new people, the options for potential new partners are unlimited via the web. People are having more “ superficial ” relationships, but calling those “ real ” relationships.

These superficial relationships lack a quality, deep connection where two individuals truly learn about the other through shared activities, talks about life/goals/dream, or discovering each other’s flaws and how to come to love that person because these flaws make them unique and special.

People jump ship at the first obstacle or speedbump in a relationship to move onto the next instead of working on the current relationship to see what potential it has.

There are so many distractions that relationships often become more about, “Who messaged you? Why didn’t you post a picture with me? Why are these thirsty people liking, loving, and commenting on your posts?”

Relationships are becoming so watered down, cookie cutter, and shallow. This is making it easy for people to be replaced in one another’s lives.

Arlene B.Englander , LCSW, MBA

Arlene B. Englander

Licensed Psychotherapist | Author, “ Let Go of Emotional Overeating and Love Your Food: A Five Point Plan for Success “

Social media can complicate relationships

It was over 15 years ago when I sensed how social media would complicate relationships. A sensitive young housewife came into a session feeling miserable because she had seen on Facebook that two other friends had gotten together for lunch and excluded her.

This heightened visibility of who’s “ in ” and “ out ” is one aspect of today’s technology that can cause pain. Not long afterward, a client came to a session complaining that it was painful to see that her ex-husband‘s new wife looked so beautiful in a bathing suit, as she had seen online, and disparaged her own appearance by comparison.

Clients report that dates are cut short – dates that wouldn’t have happened at all if the two hadn’t met online because they suspect that the other has accessed a social opportunity elsewhere via their phone, and sees no need to further explore an evening that isn’t progressing perfectly.

Texting can also be highly problematic, in that it robs the communication of all the non-verbal elements, so intended humor can come off as cruelty, and many messages can be misinterpreted in unintended ways.

I always suggest that clients phone in anything important, so that misunderstandings happen less and the emotional aspect of what’s being said isn’t lost. Ending a relationship via email or text is awful. No matter how painful it feels to face our soon-to-be-former lover or friend, finding the courage to do it in person is imperative.

If we’re the recipient of that behavior we need to remind ourselves that we deserve someone more mature in our lives, and move on to find someone more worthy of our respect.

Yes, social media exposes us and the lives and motivations of others in a way that was previously unheard of, so it’s doubly important that we care for ourselves and support ourselves even more than ever before.

Remind yourself of the personal qualities about yourself that you cherish, whether your date is fully attentive, or you don’t receive as many “ likes ” as you’d hoped on a post.

Remember that what’s important isn’t the number of people who show you approval, but how you feel about yourself, and your realization that you’re always trying to be the best – most genuine, true to yourself, loving, caring – person you can be.

Sierra Marling

Sierra Marling

Certified Social Media Marketer & Strategist, Public Relations Consultant

It expanded our ability to communicate

Social media has greatly expanded humanity’s ability to communicate and added many different layers to the relationship-building process. It’s actually really interesting. While our worldview is greatly shaped by our geography, income, etc., now we have to really consider how social media really affects our relationships, both on and offline.

People with difficulty communicating in-person may flourish in online communities, and their circle may consist of people living all over the globe.

That is not to say that people who communicate well in-person should be discounted as active social media users; they may use social media to create a brand or to market themselves to potential friends or partners with the same interests that they have.

It’s kind of like peacocking, except it’s all on a screen. In that same vein, it also causes tension in relationships, because social media allows people to discreetly converse and interact in ways that were typically unavailable before, even in plain sight.

For example, likes on an Instagram post can translate to “I like you a lot” or “I would like to get to know you better.” Now everyone in your offline life can see those interactions, and depending on what they are, you could face real-world consequences for it.

Kirstin West

Kirstin West

Social Media Manager | Owner of We Can Do Marketing

There’s a downside to social media

Social media was just a hobby until I did the Digital Mums course. Then I went from being on my phone to take family pictures and uploading my disastrous attempts at cooking to being surgically attached to it trying to find all the trending hashtags and latest ways to repost on Instagram.

Suddenly it wasn’t me telling my children to get off their phones, it was them telling me. “Must you look at your phone at the dinner table?” Both funny and upsetting in equal measure when it’s your 8yr old asking you the question whilst looking disapprovingly between the device in your hand and your pathetic face as you realize that once again, social media has got in the way of quality, family time.

Don’t get me wrong, I love social media. I love working with clients and helping them grow their businesses. I love the fact I’m able to provide for my family because of it.

But there’s a downside. It takes over my life. It interrupts dinner time and steals my weekends. It turns me from a responsible adult into a ticked-off teenager.

It also, and this I’m very ashamed to admit has happened on more than one occasion, has kept my attention whilst sitting through many a music recital or drama performance. In my defense, I think you would turn to it too if you had to sit through 19 children all playing the same tune on the recorder!

I now have a pact with my children. When we go out bowling or to the cinema or even just walking the dog, the phone stays in my pocket. Not to be touched unless it’s an emergency. Time is too short and too precious to be ticked off all the time, especially when you’re 44!

Austin Iuliano

Austin Iuliano

Social Media Consultant | Corporate Trainer | Keynote Speaker

There is both a net positive and a negative impact

The truth about social media when it comes to relationships is that there is both a net positive and a negative impact on us depending on how we use the platforms.

The pro’s to social media is that it is extremely easy to find like-minded individuals who express interest in similar subjects. For example, growing up I was labeled a geek and a nerd. I played dorky games like Dungeons and Dragons .

My small group of other dorky friends where all I knew and we didn’t think there was many of us out there.

Fast forward to today, Dungeons and Dragons is extremely popular. There is a whole community of people who watch a group of nerdy ass voice actors play Dungeons and Dragons live on Twitch.tv/criticalrole , it’s become the most subscribed Twitch channel. There you can find thousands of other like-minded individuals and join a community.

The con’s of social media comes from the macro level. Social media gives everyone a voice and enhances that voice with a megaphone. What ends up becoming apparent is that only the most extreme are showcased on the platform as it generates the most engagement.

For those same people who are seeking a community that supports them, they can also find the haters and trolls of the internet.

The other con of social media is its addictive nature. Instagram consultant Emelina Spinelli says “ People become addicted to ‘chasing the likes’ and our self worth is tied up in external metrics. How many likes we get on a photo doesn’t determine if we are a good person or not, it only determines how well we are playing the Instagram game. “

Overall, social media is a tool and nothing more. How we use that tool determines it affects our relationships. I’ve made some of my best friends in the world through social media, I’ve been able to achieve great success and meet amazing people.

I’ve also personally had to deal with the worst people on the internet because of it. It’s your choice how you let it affect you.

Kristin Hinman

Kristin Hinman

CEO of Peare Media

Social media can affect not only existing relationships but new ones

Too many people and influencers put out content online that is unrealistic and often what I see is that it’s simply for self-validation. Yes, it attracts likes and attention but it’s a one-sided conversation. It starts off new relationships on the wrong foot Social media should be exactly that, social.

Your posts should educate, entertain, encourage, provide solutions and be the door to opening actual social relationships.

Liz Jeneault

Liz Jeneault

VP of Marketing for Faveable

It can make your partner feel insecure

As a fitness influencer with a following of 11K+ between my Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, I’ve personally experienced how social media can affect your relationship.

I’ve found that when you have a large following, it can make your partner feel insecure.

On Instagram, anyone can send me a message and strike up a conversation. While I’ve always been completely faithful and loyal in my relationships and have never given a partner a reason to question me, social media can make people falsely believe you are talking to someone else.

It’s the ease of access to people interested in you and your content that can make your partner feel insecure. That can also contribute to your partner feeling angry or annoyed when they see you on your phone. They may make comments about it, which could lead to a larger fight between the two of you.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can couples use social media to strengthen their relationship.

Social media can be a powerful tool for strengthening relationships when used consciously and intentionally. Couples can use it to celebrate their love, share memories and communicate their feelings by creating a digital scrapbook of their journey together. They can also follow accounts or join online communities that promote healthy relationships and offer valuable advice.

Couples need to find a balance between their online and offline interactions. By setting boundaries and discussing their expectations around social media use, they can avoid potential misunderstandings and ensure that their digital presence supports and enhances their relationship rather than detracting from it.

How can social media affect long-distance relationships?

Social media can play an important role in maintaining long-distance relationships by facilitating regular communication and helping couples stay connected despite physical distance.

Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and video calling apps allow couples to share their daily lives, experiences, and feelings, bridging the geographical gap.

However, over-reliance on social media can lead to miscommunications or isolation if partners try to avoid having more personal and meaningful conversations.

For couples in long-distance relationships, it’s important to find a balance between using social media to stay connected and prioritizing deep, emotional communication.

How can couples set healthy boundaries for social media use?

Setting healthy boundaries around social media use is critical to a strong and satisfying relationship. Couples can start by having open and honest conversations about their habits, expectations, and potential concerns about social media.

This may include discussing what kind of content they want to share, how much time they want to spend on social media, and what privacy they want.

Some practical strategies for setting healthy boundaries include establishing “phone-free” times or spaces, not using devices during meals or before bed, and being mindful of how social media use affects the quality of time spent together.

By setting and respecting these boundaries, couples can ensure that their relationship remains a priority and that social media doesn’t interfere with their relationship.

Can social media help couples overcome challenges and grow together?

Social media can be a resource for couples who want to overcome challenges and grow together. By following accounts or joining online communities that focus on relationship advice, personal growth, and effective communication, couples can access valuable insights and strategies to improve their relationship.

Sharing and discussing content related to personal growth and relationship enhancement can also serve as a catalyst for meaningful conversations between partners.

However, it’s important to remember that while social media can provide helpful advice and resources, it should not replace open, honest communication and active participation by both partners in addressing challenges.

How can social media impact the process of moving on after a breakup?

Social media can complicate the process of moving on after a breakup because it can prolong contact with the ex-partner’s life and activities. Seeing photos, updates, or comments from the ex-partner can trigger feelings of sadness, anger, or jealousy, making it more difficult to heal and move on.

To facilitate the process of moving on, one may choose to unfollow or mute the ex-partner’s social media accounts or take a temporary break from social media. This can help create emotional distance and provide the space needed to focus on personal growth and healing.

How can couples ensure their social media use doesn’t negatively affect their mental health?

Couples can adopt a few strategies to ensure that social media use doesn’t negatively impact their mental health. First, they should pay attention to their social media consumption and recognize when it triggers feelings of anxiety, jealousy, or inadequacy. Taking breaks from social media or reducing screen time can help alleviate these negative feelings.

Second, couples should maintain their social media feeds and follow accounts that promote positivity, self-care, and healthy relationships.

Finally, open communication about the impact of social media on mental health can help partners support each other as they navigate the digital landscape while maintaining a strong, healthy relationship.

How can couples deal with different opinions about using social media in their relationship?

Dealing with differing opinions about social media use in a relationship requires open communication, empathy, and compromise.

Couples should have an honest conversation about their expectations, preferences, and concerns about social media use. By understanding each other’s perspectives, they can work together to set boundaries and guidelines that respect the needs and well-being of both partners.

It’s important to have these conversations with a willingness to compromise and find a balance that works for both parties. Regular check-ins can help ensure that the agreed-upon boundaries continue to meet the relationship’s needs and that new concerns are addressed.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this post useful...

Share it on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Photo of author

The Editors

slide1

Social Media’s Affect on Relationships

Jul 17, 2014

231 likes | 448 Views

Social Media’s Affect on Relationships. Kim Chung & Paige Hanley. Did you know? Significant other VS. Friend. Dirty. Laundry

Share Presentation

  • relationships kim chung
  • social media
  • paige hanley
  • significant

kira

Presentation Transcript

Social Media’s Affect on Relationships Kim Chung & Paige Hanley

Did you know? Significant other VS. Friend

Dirty Laundry😷

BE PROACTIVE RELATIONSHIPS MATTER

  • More by User

EBU TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

EBU TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

EBU TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION. FUTURE ASPIRATIONS EBU Technology and Innovation Simon Fell Hans HoffmanN Director Production Technology. Agenda. Key themes of EBU Technology and Innovation Impact of new consumer devices and cost pressure on broadcasters

635 views • 35 slides

social media marketing and management

social media marketing and management

SocialNetGate - One stop solution for managing social media Social Media Management Services/n * Social Media Presence - 300+ social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace), * Social Media Activities - Publish contents, * Social Media Monitoring - Monitor networking activities, * Social Media Advertising - like Facebook Ads Management

779 views • 13 slides

Social Media and Marketing

Social Media and Marketing

Social Media and Marketing . Presented By: Veronica Noone RoniNoone.com @RonisWeigh. Define Social Media? Popular Social Media Channels 6 Questions to ask when building a Social Media Marketing Strategy. More on the popular channels Companies using Social Media Things to ponder. Agenda.

437 views • 22 slides

Social Media and Marketing

Social Media and Marketing. Contemporary Issues in Marketing 420 MKT. Social Media. Social media is the use of technology to co-create, know, like, and trust. Social Media. 18 reasons to use them . Social Media. Facebook Twitter Blog YouTube Linkedh. Benefits of Social Media.

890 views • 0 slides

Social Media!

Social Media!

Social Media!. by : Merari Hernandez. Outline …. What is Social Media How does it affect teenagers C ont… Facebook Twitter Instagram Kik Snapchat Video Work Cited . What is social media?.

319 views • 12 slides

Social Media Simplified:

Social Media Simplified:

Social Media Simplified:. Building Your Social Media Presence. Social Media & Social Media Marketing. Social media : Online media published or shared by individuals and organizations, in an environment that encourages participation and that promotes discussion and re-use.

860 views • 11 slides

SOCIAL MEDIA 4 PR

SOCIAL MEDIA 4 PR

SOCIAL MEDIA 4 PR. EVERYONE’S DOING IT... SO SHOULD YOU! . WHAT IS SOCIAL MEDIA? . Simple Definition: Social media are primarily Internet- and mobile-based tools for sharing and discussing information among human beings. WHAT IS SOCIAL MEDIA? . Social Media Networking is :

1.88k views • 62 slides

Social Media

Social Media

Social Media. Dominic Garofalo Tammy R. Freund Web Design/Developer Instructors. What is Social Media?. Social Networks Social Bookmarks Blogs and Micro-blogs Video Sharing Image Sharing Podcasts. What are Social media channels  . MPTC Uses Social Media. MPTC - Facebook.

450 views • 19 slides

Social Media And Film

Social Media And Film

Social Media And Film. How Social Media is affecting Hollywood: What’s got them sweating?. Too many people are utilizing file sharing applications to get free movies and hollywood worries that it will affect sales too greatly. Hollywood Hopes for Regulation of File Sharing.

229 views • 6 slides

Media Relationships

Media Relationships

EPR-Public Communications L-012. Media Relationships. Objective. An overview of how various media work and how to identify key media; Establishing and maintaining working relationships with the media. Outline. Overview; Key media for radiation emergencies; Establishing relationships.

317 views • 17 slides

Why Social Media Matters

Why Social Media Matters

Why Social Media Matters. What is Social Media?. Social Media is a Two-way Street. Social Media is Taking Over. Nearly 1 in Every 5 Minutes Online is spent on a Social Media Network. Building Relationships. Interact with Regular Visitors to Your Social Media Pages. Google & Social Media.

1.2k views • 20 slides

Social Media in Education

Social Media in Education

Social Media in Education. By Dr.Kumuda Gururao www.advisor2u.com. Learning Objectives. By the end of this program, you will learn What is meant by social media Tools of social media for education Benefits of social media How to implement it for your institution

2.16k views • 30 slides

The Power of Social Media

The Power of Social Media

The Power of Social Media. September 20, 2011 Maple Hill Farm. Today’s Presentation. …. What is social media Facebook EdgeRank Facebook advertising Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Management of Social Media Questions. What is Social Media?.

1.31k views • 34 slides

Understanding and Using Social Media

Understanding and Using Social Media

Understanding and Using Social Media. So many people So many opinions Is any of it for me?. Sigmund Fidyke III www.octechexec.com October 2009. What I Will Cover. What is Social Media? New way(s) to communicate Types of Social Media How do I use Social Media?

478 views • 26 slides

Social Media: Under Construction

Social Media: Under Construction

Social Media: Under Construction. Building relationships starts with a foundation. According to the PRSA, the definition of public relations is:

326 views • 21 slides

Social Media Success

Social Media Success

Social Media Success. For Small and Medium Businesses. You’ve heard the buzz. But you don’t have any idea where to start. It starts with a strategy, rooted in a desire to forge better relationships with your customers.

290 views • 15 slides

Social Media 101

Social Media 101

Julie Gomoll, MCA-I, September 2007. Social Media 101. Agenda. What is it? Why should I use it? Getting Started. What is Social Media?. Social Media. What is Social Media?. It’s a conversation. Powered by. Should you join in?. Guess What?. It’s already happening. Who’s Talking?.

751 views • 49 slides

Social Media

Social Media. Building bridges between parents and kids with social media. August 29, 2013 By David S. Peck. What is Social Media?. Social Media Revolution 2013. Please pause the video at this point and follow this link to watch the YouTube video that was shown during the seminar:

465 views • 30 slides

Lesson 9

Lesson 9. Social Psychology and Mass Media / Popular Culture. Chapter Outline. What is the mass media? How does it affect individuals? Symbolic interactionism How it is used: social class reproduction Mass Media and Identity construction/maintenance

392 views • 28 slides

Internet, Social Relationships, and Social Media

Internet, Social Relationships, and Social Media

SHZ 393. Internet, Social Relationships, and Social Media. LLC Home and Family Workshop October 19-21, 2012. Outline. Internet in everyday life We need each other Friendship The time we live Benefits of Internet, Social Media Dangers of Internet, Social Media Coping with rapid change

2.31k views • 16 slides

Logo for M Libraries Publishing

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

16.3 New Media, the Self, and Relationships

Learning objectives.

  • Discuss the relationship between new media and the self.
  • Identify positive and negative impacts of new media on our interpersonal relationships.

Think about some ways that new media have changed the way you think about yourself and the way you think about and interact in your relationships. Have you ever given your Facebook page a “once-over” before you send or accept a friend request just to make sure that the content displayed is giving off the desired impression? The technological changes of the past twenty years have affected you and your relationships whether you are a heavy user or not. Even people who don’t engage with technology as much as others are still affected by it, since the people they interact with use and are affected by new media to varying degrees.

New Media and the Self

The explicit way we become conscious of self-presentation when using new media, social networking sites (SNSs) in particular, may lead to an increase in self-consciousness. You’ll recall that in Chapter 1 “Introduction to Communication Studies” we talked about the role that communication plays in helping us meet our identity needs and, in Chapter 2 “Communication and Perception” , the role that self-discrepancy theory plays in self-perception. The things that we “like” on Facebook, the pictures we are tagged in, and the news stories or jokes that we share on our timeline all come together to create a database of information that new and old friends can access to form and reform impressions of us. Because we know that others are making impressions based on this database of information and because we have control over most of what appears in this database, people may become overfocused on crafting their online presence to the point that they neglect their offline relationships. This extra level of self-consciousness has also manifested in an increase in self-image and self-esteem issues for some users. For example, some cosmetic surgeons have noted an uptick in patients coming in to have facial surgeries or procedures specifically because they don’t like the way their chin looks on the webcam while chatting on Skype or because they feel self-conscious about the way they look in the numerous digital pictures that are now passed around and stored on new media. Since new media are being increasingly used in professional capacities, some people are also seeking cosmetic surgery or procedures as a way of investing in their personal brand or as a way of giving them an edge in a tight job market (Roy, 2012).

The personal and social nature of new media also creates an openness that isn’t necessarily part of our offline social reality. Although some people try to address this problem by creating more than one Facebook account, according to the terms of use we all agreed to, we are not allowed to create more than one personal profile. People may also have difficulty managing their different commitments, especially if they develop a dependence on or even addiction to new media devices and/or platforms. New media blur the lines between personal and professional in many ways, which can be positive and negative. For example, the constant connection offered by laptops and smartphones increases the expectation that people will continue working from home or while on vacation. At the same time, however, people may use new media for non-work-related purposes while at work, which may help even out the work/life balance. Cyberslacking , which is the non-work-related use of new media while on the job, is seen as a problem in many organizations and workplaces. However, some research shows that occasional use of new media for personal reasons while at work can have positive effects, as it may relieve boredom, help reduce stress, or lead to greater job satisfaction (Vitak, Crouse, & LaRose, 2011).

16-3-0n

The constant availability of the Internet allows people to engage in a wide variety of cyberslacking at work, such as online gaming, shopping, and chatting.

Pexel.com – CC0 public domain.

Personal media devices bring with them a sense of constant connectivity that makes us “reachable” nearly all the time and can be comforting or anxiety inducing. Devices such as smartphones and computers, and platforms such as e-mail, Facebook, and the web, are within an arm’s reach of many people. While this can be convenient and make things more efficient in some cases, it can also create a dependence that we might not be aware of until those connections are broken or become unreliable. You don’t have to look too far to see people buried in their smartphones, tablets, or laptops all around. While some people have learned to rely on peripheral vision in order to text and walk at the same time, others aren’t so graceful. In fact, London saw the creation of a “text safe” street with padding on street signs and lamp poles to help prevent injuries when people inevitably bump into them while engrossed in their gadgets’ screens. Follow this link to read a story in Time magazine and see a picture of the street: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1724522,00.html . Additionally, a survey conducted in the United Kingdom found that being away from social networks causes more anxiety than being a user of them. Another study found that 73 percent of people would panic if they lost their smartphone (Fitzgerald, 2012).

Of course, social media can also increase self-esteem or have other social benefits. A recent survey of fifteen thousand women found that 48 percent of the respondents felt that social media helped them stay in touch with others while also adding a little stress in terms of overstimulation. Forty-two percent didn’t mention the stress of overstimulation and focused more on the positive effects of being in touch with others and the world in general. When asked about how social media affects their social lives, 30 percent of the women felt that increased use of social media helped them be more social offline as well (Kintzer, 2012). Other research supports this finding for both genders, finding that Facebook can help people with social anxiety feel more confident and socially connected (Ryan & Xenos, 2011).

New Media and Interpersonal Relationships

How do new media affect our interpersonal relationships, if at all? This is a question that has been addressed by scholars, commentators, and people in general. To provide some perspective, similar questions and concerns have been raised along with each major change in communication technology. New media, however, have been the primary communication change of the past few generations, which likely accounts for the attention they receive. Some scholars in sociology have decried the negative effects of new technology on society and relationships in particular, saying that the quality of relationships is deteriorating and the strength of connections is weakening (Richardson & Hessey, 2009).

Facebook greatly influenced our use of the word friend , although people’s conceptions of the word may not have changed as much. When someone “friends you” on Facebook, it doesn’t automatically mean that you now have the closeness and intimacy that you have with some offline friends. And research shows that people don’t regularly accept friend requests from or send them to people they haven’t met, preferring instead to have met a person at least once (Richardson & Hessey, 2009). Some users, though, especially adolescents, engage in what is called “friend-collecting behavior,” which entails users friending people they don’t know personally or that they wouldn’t talk to in person in order to increase the size of their online network (Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2012). As we will discuss later, this could be an impression management strategy, as the user may assume that a large number of Facebook friends will make him or her appear more popular to others.

Although many have critiqued the watering down of the term friend when applied to SNSs, specifically Facebook, some scholars have explored how the creation of these networks affects our interpersonal relationships and may even restructure how we think about our relationships. Even though a person may have hundreds of Facebook friends that he or she doesn’t regularly interact with on- or offline, just knowing that the network exists in a somewhat tangible form (catalogued on Facebook) can be comforting. Even the people who are distant acquaintances but are “friends” on Facebook can serve important functions. Rather than Facebook users seeing these connections as pointless, frivolous, or stressful, they are often comforting background presences. A dormant network is a network of people with whom users may not feel obligated to explicitly interact but may find comfort in knowing the connections exist. Such networks can be beneficial, because when needed, a person may be able to more easily tap into that dormant network than they would an offline extended network. It’s almost like being friends on Facebook keeps the communication line open, because both people can view the other’s profile and keep up with their lives even without directly communicating. This can help sustain tenuous friendships or past friendships and prevent them from fading away, which as we learned in Chapter 7 “Communication in Relationships” is a common occurrence as we go through various life changes.

A key part of interpersonal communication is impression management, and some forms of new media allow us more tools for presenting ourselves than others. Social networking sites (SNSs) in many ways are platforms for self-presentation. Even more than blogs, web pages, and smartphones, the environment on an SNS like Facebook or Twitter facilitates self-disclosure in a directed way and allows others who have access to our profile to see our other “friends.” This convergence of different groups of people (close friends, family, acquaintances, friends of friends, colleagues, and strangers) can present challenges for self-presentation. Although Facebook is often thought of as a social media outlet for teens and young adults, research shows half of all US adults have a profile on Facebook or another SNS (Vitak & Ellison). The fact that Facebook is expanding to different generations of users has coined a new phrase—“the graying of Facebook.” This is due to a large increase in users over the age of fifty-five. In fact, it has been stated the fastest-growing Facebook user group is women fifty-five and older, which is up more than 175 percent since fall 2008 (Gates, 2009). So now we likely have people from personal, professional, and academic contexts in our Facebook network, and those people are now more likely than ever to be from multiple generations. The growing diversity of our social media networks creates new challenges as we try to engage in impression management.

16-3-1n

People fifty-five and older are using new media in increasing numbers.

Marg O’Connell – Grandma kicks it with the iPad 🙂 – CC BY-NC 2.0.

We should be aware that people form impressions of us based not just on what we post on our profiles but also on our friends and the content that they post on our profiles. In short, as in our offline lives, we are judged online by the company we keep (Walther et al., 2008). The difference is, though, that via Facebook a person (unless blocked or limited by privacy settings) can see our entire online social network and friends, which doesn’t happen offline. The information on our Facebook profiles is also archived, meaning there is a record the likes of which doesn’t exist in offline interactions. Recent research found that a person’s perception of a profile owner’s attractiveness is influenced by the attractiveness of the friends shown on the profile. In short, a profile owner is judged more physically attractive when his or her friends are judged as physically attractive, and vice versa. The profile owner is also judged as more socially attractive (likable, friendly) when his or her friends are judged as physically attractive. The study also found that complimentary and friendly statements made about profile owners on their wall or on profile comments increased perceptions of the profile owner’s social attractiveness and credibility. An interesting, but not surprising, gender double standard also emerged. When statements containing sexual remarks or references to the profile owner’s excessive drinking were posted on the profile, perceptions of attractiveness increased if the profile owner was male and decreased if female (Walther et al., 2008).

Self-disclosure is a fundamental building block of interpersonal relationships, and new media make self-disclosures easier for many people because of the lack of immediacy, meaning the fact that a message is sent through electronic means arouses less anxiety or inhibition than would a face-to-face exchange. SNSs provide opportunities for social support. Research has found that Facebook communication behaviors such as “friending” someone or responding to a request posted on someone’s wall lead people to feel a sense of attachment and perceive that others are reliable and helpful (Vitak & Ellison). Much of the research on Facebook, though, has focused on the less intimate alliances that we maintain through social media. Since most people maintain offline contact with their close friends and family, Facebook is more of a supplement to interpersonal communication. Since most people’s Facebook “friend” networks are composed primarily of people with whom they have less face-to-face contact in their daily lives, Facebook provides an alternative space for interaction that can more easily fit into a person’s busy schedule or interest area. For example, to stay connected, both people don’t have to look at each other’s profiles simultaneously. I often catch up on a friend by scrolling through a couple weeks of timeline posts rather than checking in daily.

The space provided by SNSs can also help reduce some of the stress we feel in regards to relational maintenance or staying in touch by allowing for more convenient contact. The expectations for regular contact with our Facebook friends who are in our extended network are minimal. An occasional comment on a photo or status update or an even easier click on the “like” button can help maintain those relationships. However, when we post something asking for information, help, social support, or advice, those in the extended network may play a more important role and allow us to access resources and viewpoints beyond those in our closer circles. And research shows that many people ask for informational help through their status updates (Vitak & Ellison).

These extended networks serve important purposes, one of which is to provide access to new information and different perspectives than those we may get from close friends and family. For example, since we tend to have significant others that are more similar to than different from us, the people that we are closest to are likely to share many or most of our beliefs, attitudes, and values. Extended contacts, however, may expose us to different political views or new sources of information, which can help broaden our perspectives. The content in this section hopefully captures what I’m sure you have already experienced in your own engagement with new media—that new media have important implications for our interpersonal relationships. Given that, we will end this chapter with a “Getting Competent” feature box that discusses some tips on how to competently use social media.

“Getting Competent”

Using Social Media Competently

We all have a growing log of personal information stored on the Internet, and some of it is under our control and some of it isn’t. We also have increasingly diverse social networks that require us to be cognizant of the information we make available and how we present ourselves. While we can’t control all the information about ourselves online or the impressions people form, we can more competently engage with social media so that we are getting the most out of it in both personal and professional contexts.

A quick search on Google for “social media dos and don’ts” will yield around 100,000 results, which shows that there’s no shortage of advice about how to competently use social media. I’ll offer some of the most important dos and don’ts that I found that relate to communication (Doyle, 2012). Feel free to do your own research on specific areas of concern.

Be consistent. Given that most people have multiple social media accounts, it’s important to have some degree of consistency. At least at the top level of your profile (the part that isn’t limited by privacy settings), include information that you don’t mind anyone seeing.

Know what’s out there. Since the top level of many social media sites are visible in Google search results, you should monitor how these appear to others by regularly (about once a month) doing a Google search using various iterations of your name. Putting your name in quotation marks will help target your results. Make sure you’re logged out of all your accounts and then click on the various results to see what others can see.

Think before you post. Software that enable people to take “screen shots” or download videos and tools that archive web pages can be used without our knowledge to create records of what you post. While it is still a good idea to go through your online content and “clean up” materials that may form unfavorable impressions, it is even a better idea to not put that information out there in the first place. Posting something about how you hate school or your job or a specific person may be done in the heat of the moment and forgotten, but a potential employer might find that information and form a negative impression even if it’s months or years old.

Be familiar with privacy settings. If you are trying to expand your social network, it may be counterproductive to put your Facebook or Twitter account on “lockdown,” but it is beneficial to know what levels of control you have and to take advantage of them. For example, I have a “Limited Profile” list on Facebook to which I assign new contacts or people with whom I am not very close. You can also create groups of contacts on various social media sites so that only certain people see certain information.

Be a gatekeeper for your network. Do not accept friend requests or followers that you do not know. Not only could these requests be sent from “bots” that might skim your personal info or monitor your activity; they could be from people that might make you look bad. Remember, we learned earlier that people form impressions based on those with whom we are connected. You can always send a private message to someone asking how he or she knows you or do some research by Googling his or her name or username.

  • Identify information that you might want to limit for each of the following audiences: friends, family, and employers.
  • Google your name (remember to use multiple forms and to put them in quotation marks). Do the same with any usernames that are associated with your name (e.g., you can Google your Twitter handle or an e-mail address). What information came up? Were you surprised by anything?
  • What strategies can you use to help manage the impressions you form on social media?

Key Takeaways

  • New media affect the self as we develop a higher degree of self-consciousness due to the increased visibility of our lives (including pictures, life events, and communication). The constant connectivity that comes with new media can also help us feel more connected to others and create anxiety due to overstimulation or a fear of being cut off.
  • New media affect interpersonal relationships, as conceptions of relationships are influenced by new points of connection such as “being Facebook friends.” While some people have critiqued social media for lessening the importance of face-to-face interaction, some communication scholars have found that online networks provide important opportunities to stay connected, receive emotional support, and broaden our perspectives in ways that traditional offline networks do not.
  • Getting integrated: Social networking sites (SNSs) can present interpersonal challenges related to self-disclosure and self-presentation since we use them in academic, professional, personal, and civic contexts. Given that people from all those contexts may have access to our profile, we have to be competent in regards to what we disclose and how we present ourselves to people from different contexts (or be really good at managing privacy settings so that only certain information is available to certain people).
  • Discuss the notion that social media has increased our degree of self-consciousness. Do you agree? Why or why not?
  • Do you find the constant connectivity that comes with personal media overstimulating or comforting?
  • Have you noticed a “graying” of social media like Facebook and Twitter in your own networks? What opportunities and challenges are presented by intergenerational interactions on social media?

Christofides, E., Amy Muise, and Serge Desmarais, “Hey Mom, What’s on Your Facebook? Comparing Facebook Disclosure and Privacy in Adolescents and Adults,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 3, no. 1 (2012): 51.

Doyle, A., “Top 10 Social Media Dos and Don’ts,” About.com , accessed November 8, 2012, http://jobsearch.about.com/od/onlinecareernetworking/tp/socialmediajobsearch.htm .

Fitzgerald, B., “Social Media Is Causing Anxiety, Study Finds,” Huffington Post , July 11, 2012, accessed November 8, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/social-media-anxiety_n_1662224.html .

Gates, A., “For Baby Boomers, the Joys of Facebook,” New York Times , March 19, 2009, accessed November 8, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/nyregion/new-jersey/22Rgen.html .

Kintzer, B., “Women Find Social Media Make Them More Social Offline, Too,” Advertising Age , July 9, 2012, accessed November 8, 2012, http://adage.com/article/guest-columnists/women-find-social-media-makes-social-offline/235712 .

Richardson, K., and Sue Hessey, “Archiving the Self?: Facebook as Biography of Social and Relational Memory,” Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society 7, no. 1 (2009): 29.

Roy, J., “Facebook, Skype Give Cosmetic Surgery Industry a Lift,” BetaBeat.com , July 11, 2012, accessed November 8, 2012, http://betabeat.com/2012/07/facebook-skype-plastic-surgery-cosmetic-increase-07112012 .

Ryan, T. and Sophia Xenos, “Who Uses Facebook? An Investigation into the Relationship between the Big Five, Shyness, Narcissism, Loneliness, and Facebook Usage,” Computers in Human Behavior 27, no. 5 (2011): 1659.

Vitak, J., Julia Crouse, and Robert LaRose, “Personal Internet Use at Work: Understanding Cyberslacking,” Computers in Human Behavior 27, no. 5 (2011): 1752.

Vitak, J. and Nicole B. Ellison, “‘There’s a Network Out There You Might as Well Tap’: Exploring the Benefits of and Barriers to Exchanging Informational and Support-Based Resources on Facebook,” New Media and Society (in press).

Walther, J. B., Brandon Van Der Heide, Sang-Yeon Kim, David Westerman, and Stephanie Tom Tong, “The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep?” Human Communication Research 34 (2008): 29.

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

Transformation of Adolescent Peer Relations in the Social Media Context: Part 2—Application to Peer Group Processes and Future Directions for Research

Jacqueline nesi.

1 Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 1011 Veterans Memorial Parkway, Providence, RI 02915, USA

2 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #3270, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

Sophia Choukas-Bradley

3 Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, 210 S. Bouquet St., Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA

Mitchell J. Prinstein

As social media use becomes increasingly widespread among adolescents, research in this area has accumulated rapidly. Researchers have shown a growing interest in the impact of social media on adolescents’ peer experiences, including the ways that the social media context shapes a variety of peer relations constructs. This paper represents Part 2 of a two-part theoretical review. In this review, we offer a new model for understanding the transformative role of social media in adolescents’ peer experiences, with the goal of stimulating future empirical work that is grounded in theory. The transformation framework suggests that the features of the social media context transform adolescents’ peer experiences by changing their frequency or immediacy, amplifying demands, altering their qualitative nature, and/or offering new opportunities for compensatory or novel behaviors. In the current paper, we consider the ways that social media may transform peer relations constructs that often occur at the group level. Our review focuses on three key constructs: peer victimization, peer status, and peer influence. We selectively review and highlight existing evidence for the transformation of these domains through social media. In addition, we discuss methodological considerations and key conceptual principles for future work. The current framework offers a new theoretical perspective through which peer relations researchers may consider adolescent social media use.

Introduction

Recent years have seen a significant rise in research examining adolescent social media use. As these digital tools become nearly ubiquitous among adolescents ( Lenhart 2015a ), individuals—from investigators to the general public—have shown increasing interest in the impact of social media on adolescent peer relationships. For over 50 years, studies of peer relationships have identified the far-reaching influence of adolescents’ offline peer experiences on a variety of critical psychological, educational, behavioral, and physical outcomes ( Almquist 2009 ; Almquist and Östberg 2013 ; Menting et al. 2016 ; Modin et al. 2011 ). Peer relations researchers have examined numerous peer processes, relationship types, behaviors, and reputations with implications for adolescents’ development and wellbeing ( Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein 2014 ; Furman and Rose 2015 ; Prinstein and Giletta 2016 ; Rubin et al. 2015 ). However, as social media becomes a central feature of adolescents’ lives, it is essential to better understand the ways that these peer experiences are shaped by the social media environment. Despite tremendous growth in studies of social media during the past few years, research on adolescent peer relations has lacked an integrative, theoretical framework to organize and stimulate future research.

In the first installment of this two-part theoretical review (Part 1), we outlined a transformation framework for understanding the mechanisms by which social media may impact adolescent peer experiences, and we examined these potential mechanisms within the domain of adolescents’ dyadic friendship processes. However, it is likely that, beyond dyadic interactions, social media has unique implications for adolescent’s experiences of group-based peer processes. Thus, in the current paper (Part 2), we expand on our prior work by applying the transformation framework to three broad peer relations constructs with critical implications for adolescent adjustment: peer victimization; peer status, acceptance, and rejection; and peer influence ( Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein 2014 ; Furman and Rose 2015 ; Prinstein and Giletta 2016 ; Rubin et al. 2015 ). Although these processes and behaviors may occur within dyadic relationships, they are especially relevant to understanding adolescents’ experiences within the larger peer network. In addition, these group processes may be uniquely affected by the features of the social media environment.

It should be noted that the current paper is not meant to serve as a comprehensive review of the literature on adolescent social media use and peer relations. For example, it does not offer detailed discussions of the growing literatures on online dating applications, online gaming, sexting, or specific social media sites. Rather, this paper serves to present an organizing framework to synthesize prior findings related to peer victimization, status, and influence; and to inform future research in the field of social media use and peer relations. Note that in the current paper, we define social media in the broadest possible sense, as any media used for social interaction, including digital applications or tools where users may share content and communicate with others ( Moreno and Kota 2013 ). This includes social networking apps and Web sites (e.g., Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram), as well as platforms allowing for messaging and/ or photograph sharing.

Overview of the Transformation Framework

Drawing on recent conceptualizations of social media as a unique interpersonal context that shapes individuals’ thoughts, behaviors, and relationships ( boyd 2010 ; 1 McFarland and Ployhart 2015 ; Peter and Valkenburg 2013 ; Subrahmanyam and Šmahel 2011 ), we developed the transformation framework as a means of understanding how social media impacts adolescent peer relations (see Part 1 of this series). The transformation framework represents an effort to synthesize prior work across disciplines, including theories of computer-mediated communication (CMC), media effects, and organizational and developmental psychology, highlighting work that is most relevant for understanding social media’s role in adolescent peer relationships. Furthermore, it offers a theory-driven, organizing framework to stimulate future adolescent peer relations research. In particular, it builds on McFarland and Ployhart’s (2015) contextual framework of social media, which argues that “ambient stimuli” of social media comprise a discrete context that shapes behavior within organizational settings. We extend this framework by integrating prior models of adolescent social media use, and by identifying features of the social media context with particular implications for adolescents’ peer experiences. While prior work has often relied on a “mirroring” framework of social media, or the idea that social media merely reflects the same peer interactional processes that occur offline, our transformation framework proposes that social media fundamentally transforms adolescent peer experiences. We argue that this occurs across a range of both dyadic and group-based domains, and we identify five conceptual categories of transformation. We believe this represents a critical effort for advancing the field of adolescent peer relations, which aims to better understand a generation where social media use has become the norm. Indeed, a recent nationally representative survey suggests that 89% of teenagers belong to a social networking site, 71% belong to more than one, and 88% have access to a cell phone ( Lenhart 2015a ).

The transformation framework integrates prior cross-disciplinary work (e.g., boyd 2010 ; McFarland and Ployhart 2015 ; Peter and Valkenburg 2013 ; Walther 2011 ) to highlight features of social media that differentiate it from traditional, offline social contexts. In particular, this framework outlines seven features of social media that are critical to understanding adolescents’ online peer experiences: asynchronicity, permanence, publicness, availability, cue absence, quantifiability, and visualness . These features are discussed in detail in Part 1, and a brief description of each can be found in Table 1 of this paper. Notably, we suggest that these features should be considered on a continuum for any given social media platform (e.g., Facebook) or functionality (e.g., posting a public photograph, sending a private message), with different social media tools representing higher or lower levels of each feature. Overall, however, we suggest that social media tools show higher levels of each feature than do adolescents’ traditional, in-person peer contexts.

Examples of social media features transforming adolescents’ traditional group-level peer experiences

Many examples of transformed peer experiences are likely to be the result of multiple social media features. For ease of presentation, peer experiences are listed in relation to the social media feature believed to be most relevant in transforming that experience

We offer five broad categories of transformation as a means of conceptualizing the numerous ways that social media transforms peer experiences. First, social media may transform these experiences by changing the frequency or immediacy of those interactions. Second, social media may amplify peer experiences and demands by increasing their intensity and scale. Third, social media may alter the qualitative nature of peer experiences, offering interactions that may be higher or lower in their levels of positive qualities or negative qualities. Fourth, social media may transform peer experiences by creating new opportunities for compensatory behaviors —i.e., behaviors that would have been less likely or more challenging offline. Finally, it may create opportunities for entirely novel behaviors , or behaviors that would have been impossible offline. In applying the transformation framework to the constructs of peer victimization, peer influence, and peer status, we structure our discussion to highlight each of these forms of transformation. Figure 1 illustrates the application of the transformation framework , and its five categories of transformation, to these three peer relations constructs.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1014264-f0001.jpg

The transformation framework with examples of transformation of three group-level peer constructs

Application of the Transformation Framework to Peer Relations Constructs

The current review applies the principles of the transformation framework to three domains of peer relations shown to have critical implications for adolescent development and well-being: peer victimization, peer status, and peer influence ( Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein 2014 ; Furman and Rose 2015 ; Prinstein and Giletta 2016 ; Rubin et al. 2015 ). The social media environment may be particularly influential in shaping these group-based peer processes. In the upcoming sections, we outline how the features of social media may transform each of these domains, reviewing existing evidence and offering theory-driven hypotheses (see Table 1 ). In some cases, studies are available that directly compare offline and online processes. However, only a small number of these types of studies exist. Indeed, although numerous CMC studies have examined differences between online and offline communication—typically among adults and often specific to organizational settings—the literature examining adolescents’ peer experiences on social media remains surprisingly limited. Thus, where studies are not available that directly compare behaviors in the online and offline spheres, we draw on descriptive and experimental work. Although they do not directly examine the unique effects or predictors of social media experiences, over and above offline experiences, such studies offer rich descriptive data on the ways in which adolescents’ peer experiences are fundamentally different in the context of social media, illuminating the role of specific social media features (e.g., publicness and cue absence ). In addition, where studies of adolescents are not available, we review work conducted with adult samples and offer theory-based speculations regarding how similar processes may unfold among adolescents. Overall, we offer a growing body of theoretical and empirical evidence to suggest that social media transforms adolescents’ peer experiences, with such evidence highlighting the critical need for future investigative efforts into these processes.

Peer Victimization

For decades, researchers have studied the nature, correlates, and outcomes of peer victimization. As adolescents’ peer interactions increasingly occur via social media, a growing interest has developed in peer victimization as it occurs in this new context. In fact, online victimization (i.e., cyber victimization, cyber aggression, or “cyberbullying”) has been one of the most heavily researched topics in the field of adolescent social media use and peer relations. Additionally, the potentially devastating effects of cyber victimization have captured the attention of the general public, such as through news stories about teen suicides (e.g., Leung and Bascaramurty 2012 ). However, an implicit debate has arisen about cyberbullying within the scientific literature. Specifically, some scholars (e.g., Olweus 2012 ) have proposed that online victimization is simply traditional bullying that occurs online—i.e., that technology provides a new context for old behaviors, and that adolescent cyberbullying can be understood by studying traditional, offline bullying. Over the course of the past decade, however, other scholars have begun to examine cyberbullying as its own, unique construct, involving behaviors, correlates, and outcomes that are distinct from those of traditional victimization. It is critical to consider the ways in which experiences of victimization may be transformed within the context of social media. Notably, in this section, we use the term cyber victimization as an umbrella term to capture the broad range of intentional acts of aggression and victimization that occur through social media.

Increased Frequency and Immediacy of Victimization

Social media may transform the experience of victimization in a number of ways, beginning with the potential for increased frequency and immediacy of victimization episodes. The availability of social media means adolescents can never fully escape the potential for victimization, perhaps leading to feelings of powerlessness ( Dooley et al. 2009 ). Whereas most traditional bullying experiences occur during school hours, cyberbullying is more likely to occur outside of school ( Smith et al. 2008 ). Qualitative work suggests that whereas adolescents may have once perceived the home environment as a “sanctuary” from bullying, the availability of social media means that this is no longer the case ( Slonje and Smith 2008 ). Additionally, the ability to aggress against peers at night, outside of adult supervision is especially notable ( Runions 2013 ).

Altered Qualitative Nature of Victimization

In addition, social media may transform victimization by creating different qualitative experiences, with cyber victimization perceived as more harsh and uncontrollable by victims and more rewarding for perpetrators. Theoretical and empirical work offer evidence that the asynchronicity and cue absence of social media may alter the qualitative nature of bullying by encouraging harsher forms of victimization. Within the CMC and media effects literature, considerable evidence has accumulated for the “online disinhibition effect” ( Suler 2004 )—the idea that the features of the online environment create a context in which individuals are more likely to say or do things that they would not in the “offline world.” Perpetrators may not receive immediate feedback from peers, and likely cannot observe the verbal or facial cues of victims. Thus, they may engage in more extreme or aggressive forms of victimization or acting out online—a phenomenon known as “toxic disinhibition” ( Suler 2004 ). Indeed, prior research suggests that online disinhibition increases aggressive and threatening behavior ( Lapidot-Lefler and Barak 2012 ), and that adolescents who experience greater cues from victims (e.g., Smith et al. 2008 ). “Excitation transfer” from online gaming and internet pornography (i.e., anger resulting from broader arousal) has also been proposed as a possible contributor to the drive for cyber aggression, although this possibility has not been empirically tested ( Runions 2013 ). These processes are compounded by the fact that perpetrators often feel anonymous online, and thus may be less concerned about being discovered by parents or teachers ( Ehrenreich and Underwood 2016 ). Furthermore, experimental work has demonstrated that online “flaming,” or extreme harassment or aggressive behavior, is more likely when participants are unable to make eye contact with conversation partners in electronic communication ( Lapidot-Lefler and Barak 2012 ).

Whether extreme or not, the experience of being victimized by an anonymous perpetrator may additionally change victims’ qualitative experience by exacerbating feelings of hopelessness and fear, given the sense that anyone could potentially be the bully ( Smith et al. 2008 ; Sticca and Perren 2013 ). The anonymous perpetrator could be a stranger on another continent, or one’s best friend sitting in the same room ( White et al. 2016 ). Furthermore, adolescents are less likely to report cyberbullying to parents and teachers, compared to traditional bullying ( Agatston et al. 2007 ; Smith et al. 2008 ). This may be due in part to perceptions that adults are ill-equipped to help with cyberbullying ( Smith et al. 2008 ), as well as fears that parents will revoke online privileges ( Agatston et al. 2007 ).

The asynchronicity and quantifiability of social media may also transform the qualitative experience of perpetrators by creating a different reinforcement structure, compared to traditional bullying. On the one hand, the asynchronicity of social media means that perpetrators are unable to immediately see the impact of their behavior—a notable difference between cyberbullying and traditional bullying, given that victims’ responses have been documented as a powerful reinforcement for traditional bullies ( Olweus 1993 ). On the other hand, however, the quantifiability of social media may create a new and potent reinforcement structure for perpetrators, with the possibility of large audiences represented through likes and followers. Additionally, asynchronicity may increase the likelihood of victims’ retaliating disinhibition are more likely to victimize others online ( Udris 2014 ). Adolescents attribute “entertainment” as a key motivator for cyberbullies, further noting that perpetrators may lack concern about their behaviors due to an absence of empathy-inducing against their bullies. Whereas traditional bullying typically involves a power differential in which the victim is less able than the bully to fight back ( Olweus 1993 ), the asynchronicity of social media allows victims the space and time to carefully plan their response ( Runions 2013 ).

New Opportunities: Compensatory Behaviors in Cyber Victimization

Social media may further transform victimization experiences by creating new behaviors. In some cases, these behaviors may be “compensatory”—that is, possible but unlikely in an offline context. For example, the cue absence of social media creates new opportunities to perpetrate victimization without revealing one’s identity. Indeed, some adolescents have reported spreading damaging content about a close friend anonymously (e.g., during a fight) without ever being caught; in some cases, the perpetrating “friend” even comforted the victim through the ensuing pain ( White et al. 2016 ). A longitudinal study of US middle schoolers provides further support for the importance of social media’s permanence and cue absence in encouraging some youth to perpetrate anonymous victimization. Over a one-year period, increased engagement in anonymous cyber aggression was predicted by adolescents’ beliefs that their digital content would be impermanent, that they could remain anonymous, and that they would not be caught ( Wright 2014 ). This may help to explain why one study found that 27% of adolescents reported they did not know the perpetrator of their cyber victimization or that this person was a “stranger” ( Waasdorp and Bradshaw 2015 )—a striking difference from experiences of traditional bullying, which overwhelmingly involve experiences with known peers ( Olweus 1993 ).

Social media use may also transform adolescent peer relations by creating new opportunities for interpersonal conflict or “drama,” which is related to but distinct from cyber victimization ( Marwick and boyd 2011a , 2014 ). Adolescents often use the term “drama” to capture a broad range of conflicts on social media. Whereas drama may have always been possible offline, social media creates new opportunities for this experience as a “compensatory” behavior—one that some adolescents may not have engaged in without the affordances of social media. Marwick and boyd (2014) studied the construct of “drama” through unstructured interviews with adolescents about peer relationships, in which teens often spontaneously discussed this concept. Based on qualitative analysis, the authors ultimately defined “drama” as “performative, interpersonal conflict that takes place in front of an active, engaged audience, often on social media” (p. 1191). One motivation adolescents described for engaging in social media “drama” is that its visible and public nature creates entertainment, attention, and heightened impact ( Marwick and boyd 2014 ). For example, adolescents reported peers may publicly air grievances with friends or classmates to gain attention and/or support; peers who would not normally be involved in the argument then weigh in and “take sides” through social media comments, thereby “fostering drama” ( Marwick and boyd 2014 ). Note that the performative nature of social media drama capitalizes on the publicness of the sphere ( Marwick and boyd 2014 ). Importantly, adolescents differentiated between drama and the related but distinct concepts of cyber victimization and aggression. However, the authors noted that teens may conceptualize social media conflicts as “drama” in order to psychologically protect themselves from experiences that adults may consider to be “bullying” ( Marwick and boyd 2014 ). Several adolescents commented that much of this drama would not be possible without social media, noting specific aspects of social media that are central to the transformation framework . For example, youth noted that the availability and publicness of social media provide unprecedented access to content about peers’ lives, as well as the ability to communicate to broad networks of peers outside of school, anywhere and anytime ( Marwick and boyd 2014 ).

New Opportunities: Novel Experiences in Cyber Victimization

In addition to creating new opportunities for “compensatory behaviors” in the realm of cyber victimization, social media may also create opportunities for entirely novel victimization behaviors, which would not have been possible outside of social media. For example, Willard (2007) has identified unique forms of cyber victimization that include “impersonation,” in which a perpetrator may “hack” a victim’s social media account to gain access to private information or post damaging messages while impersonating the victim; and “outing and trickery,” in which a perpetrator publicly shares messages or photographs that a victim had privately sent. Social media’s cue absence and permanence allow a perpetrator to impersonate a victim and to access private information, while the availability and publicness of social media allow such content to be shared quickly with large groups of people.

Social media’s visualness , permanence , publicness , availability, and quantifiability collectively contribute to the possibility that photographs depicting embarrassing or illegal behaviors can be distributed without a victim’s consent. For example, although a full discussion of the phenomenon of “sexting” is beyond the scope of this review, the nonconsensual distribution of sexual images is one example of how social media transforms peer victimization by creating opportunities for new behaviors. Specifically, some episodes of cyber victimization involve the nonconsensual distribution of sexually suggestive or explicit images of peers. For example, adolescents may share nude images of themselves on Snapchat, believing this is “safe” because the images will “disappear”—but peers can in fact take screenshots of the images and then distribute them ( Vaterlaus et al. 2016 ). Other cases have been documented in which an adolescent privately shares a nude photograph with a friend or romantic partner, who then widely distributes the photograph to classmates ( Lorang et al. 2016 ). In extreme cases, youth have posted or live-streamed videos of sexual assault (e.g., Stelloh 2017 ), and cases have been documented in which the nonconsensual distribution of sexual images has led to felony charges or suicide ( Lorang et al. 2016 ).

As with other forms of cyber victimization, the availability , visualness, publicness , permanence, and quantifiability of social media have also transformed adolescents’ experiences of dating aggression within romantic relationships. For example, qualitative evidence suggests that some adolescents may search or monitor their dating partners’ phones to track their communications with members of the opposite sex—behaviors that are only possible due to the availability and permanence of social media ( Baker and Carreño 2016 ). Youth also describe using social media to publicly post aggressive, harassing, and humiliating messages about one’s current or former partner ( Draucker and Martsolf 2010 ). In extreme cases, victimization on social media may take the form of tracking a partner’s physical location via smart phone applications, breaking a partner’s phone to prevent communication with members of the opposite sex, or logging into a partner’s profile to “defriend” people or send damaging messages ( Baker and Carreño 2016 ; Draucker and Martsolf 2010 ).

Amplification of Victimization Experiences

In combination with the increased frequency and immediacy of victimization experiences, harsher nature of victimization, and opportunities for new behaviors, multiple features of social media may amplify peer victimization processes online. For example, the availability , publicness , and permanence of social media may increase the likelihood that cyber victimization content will be rapidly and widely spread. Due to these interrelated features of social media, adolescents can perpetrate cyberbullying anywhere, from any place, and then “repeat the harm over and over again with the click of a button” ( Kowalski et al. 2014 ), allowing large audiences to view the victimization ( White et al. 2016 ; Wigderson and Lynch 2013 ). Furthermore, this audience may even become an expanding (potentially infinite) set of perpetrators ( Dooley et al. 2009 ). For example, qualitative evidence suggests that adolescents may reproduce harmful messages or images of peers and transmit them widely (e.g., Slonje and Smith 2008 ). Such public attacks may feel acutely harmful to adolescents, given the centrality of social status to their identity and sense of self-worth ( Sticca and Perren 2013 ). The permanence of social media content—in combination with visualness —may further amplify the experience of victimization. Traditional bullying can create lasting harm, but the experience itself is often temporary. On many social media sites, however, content is permanently visually displayed, such that evidence of cyber victimization may be available indefinitely. Even on social media sites that allow individuals to remove unwanted content from their own profiles, content may rapidly spread and be permanently available through other channels. Further complicating these dynamics, a peer (or stranger) can digitally alter a teen’s text or photograph before distributing it, thereby creating false but permanent content that may be embarrassing and harmful ( White et al. 2016 ).

Several studies of adolescents’ perceptions of and beliefs about cyber victimization provide further evidence for the amplification of victimization experiences. For example, a mixed methods study highlighted the intersecting role of visualness and quantifiability in exacerbating the impact of cyber victimization. Specifically, adolescents reported perceiving cyber victimization involving photographs and videos as being more severe than traditional victimization (e.g., Smith et al. 2008 ). Swedish adolescents also described photo/video victimization as having a stronger negative impact than traditional victimization (as well as text-based cyber victimization), noting the publicness and visualness of such episodes as being especially powerful ( Slonje and Smith 2008 ). A study with an experimental design provides further direct evidence for role of social media’s publicness and cue absence in cyber victimization ( Sticca and Perren 2013 ). Swiss adolescents rated the severity of hypothetical episodes of bullying, which were experimentally manipulated to compare the type (cyber vs. traditional victimization), publicness (public vs. private episode), and anonymity (anonymous vs. non-anonymous bully) of the episode. Results suggested that cyber victimization was perceived as more severe than traditional victimization; notably the specific features of publicness and anonymity impacted the perceived severity of a bullying episode more than did the medium (traditional vs. cyber; Sticca and Perren 2013 ).

Theoretical work also highlights the ways in which social media’s features amplify the experience of victimization. For instance, Runions (2013) has proposed a conceptual model for understanding motive and self-control in cyber aggression, noting that the specific features of social media may predict different types of victimization. For example, impulsive aggression through social media may be fueled by the perception of a “perpetual peer audience” (i.e., due to publicness and availability ) which may increase thrill-seeking and risk-taking behaviors; impulsive aggression also may be exacerbated by cue absence and the possibility for misinterpreting ambiguous peer messages ( Runions 2013 ). On the other hand, controlled and planned forms of aggression may be nurtured by the asynchronicity and permanence of social media—i.e., by allowing adolescents to engage in hostile rumination while revisiting permanent content—as well as by the anonymity and lack of cue presence involved in cyber aggression, which decreases the likelihood of negative consequences for the perpetrator ( Runions 2013 ).

In addition to amplifying peer victimization processes more broadly, the social media context may specifically transform the processes of bystander intervention. As discussed above, a unique characteristic of cyber victimization is the large audience of peers involved, who may reinforce the behavior with quantifiable indices (e.g., “likes”). Given the specific characteristics of social media, the role of bystanders in cyber victimization is complex. On the one hand, if an episode of victimization is visible to a broad network of peers, the number who could potentially intervene is much greater than in a traditional bullying context. On the other hand, cue absence may create a sense of anonymity that decreases each peer’s likelihood to intervene. Furthermore, the high number of audience members may (paradoxically) decrease the likelihood that adolescents will assist or stand up for victims. This possibility is based on extensive research from social psychology on the (traditionally offline) bystander effect, which indicates that as the number of bystanders increases, the probability of any individual bystander’s intervening decreases ( Fischer et al. 2011 ). Interestingly, a meta-analysis found the bystander effect to be attenuated when individuals perceived physical danger and/ or the possibility of physical support from other bystanders ( Fischer et al. 2011 )—neither of which are relevant in the typical social media victimization episode. These findings suggest that the bystander effect may be amplified in the social media context, reducing the likelihood that witnesses will help victims. Providing support for this idea, in a Pew Research Center survey adolescents reported that the most common response to cruel online behavior was to ignore it ( Lenhart et al. 2011 ). Additionally, the availability , publicness , and cue absence of social media may encourage adolescents to endorse aggressive or harassing content that they might not support offline (see Bastiaensens et al. 2014 ), due to toxic disinhibition processes ( Suler 2004 ). Strikingly, 67% of the Pew respondents said they had witnessed others joining in cruel online behavior and 21% reported that they had personally joined in at some point ( Lenhart et al. 2011 ).

Discriminant Associations: Cyber Versus Traditional Victimization

Evidence has begun to accumulate that cyber victimization represents a distinct experience from traditional victimization, showing discriminant associations with predictors and outcomes. A comprehensive meta-analytic review found that traditional bullying explained only 20% of the variance in reports of cyberbullying ( Kowalski et al. 2014 ). Furthermore, a large study of over 28,000 adolescents found that 71% of participants reported being cyberbullied by an individual who had not also bullied them in-person, and cyber victims were significantly more likely to report externalizing and internalizing symptoms, compared to teens who reported only traditional victimization ( Waasdorp and Bradshaw 2015 ). Several other studies have found that cyber victimization experiences are associated with increased internalizing symptoms and lower academic performance, after accounting for the effects of traditional victimization ( Bonanno and Hymel 2013 ; Fredstrom et al. 2011 ; Wigderson and Lynch 2013 ). In addition, a recent meta-analysis of 90,877 youth found that cyber victimization was uniquely associated with increased internalizing symptoms, controlling for traditional victimization ( Gini et al. 2017 ).

Peer Status

Peer status has long been known to play a significant role in adolescents’ adjustment ( Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein 2014 ; Prinstein and Giletta 2016 ). Within the peer relations field, two distinct types of peer status have been described: likeability (i.e., sociometric popularity or peer acceptance; Coie et al. 1982 ) and peer-perceived popularity (based on an individual’s reputation of visibility and dominance in the peer hierarchy; Parkhurst and Hopmeyer 1998 ). Notably, peer-perceived popularity takes on increasing importance during adolescence, when young people are particularly attuned to peer feedback and status ( Harter et al. 1996 ). In this review, we primarily focus on peer-perceived popularity, given that the social media context may be particularly conducive to heightening adolescents’ orientation to this kind of status ( Nesi and Prinstein 2018 ).

Amplified Peer Status Experiences and Demands

The features of social media may amplify the experience of peer status. In particular, adolescents may experience heightened awareness of their own and others’ popularity, as well as concern about their status among peers. Within the context of social media, information regarding social status is readily available. The quantifiability of social media provides, for the first time, numerical indicators of status in the form of friend lists, comments, and likes, which can be easily counted and compared ( Chua and Chang 2016 ; Madden et al. 2013 ). The publicness and permanence of this environment also creates an opportunity for adolescents to view the status indicators of a wide range of their peers, with cue absence providing an invisible wall from behind which adolescents can view the activities of their high-status peers ( Marwick 2012 ).

The very concept of popularity, and what is considered to represent “high status,” may be amplified in the social media environment, where ethnographic work suggests that a “micro-celebrity” culture pervades ( Marwick 2013 ). The publicness and availability of social media platforms create the potential for any user to amass thousands of followers. Although the attainment of such high status is uncommon, its possibility encourages practices of “self-branding,” or attracting online attention through the use of techniques traditionally associated with consumer brands ( Marwick 2013 , 2015 ). Any teenager can in theory become a “celebrity” on social media and, in fact, some of them do. In a series of case studies of individuals who have become “Instagram famous,” Marwick (2015) highlights one seemingly average high school student with over 30,000 followers. Based on the photographs of parties and football games she posts, the author suspects that this Instagram user must be popular within her high school; the features of social media, however, allow her to expand her popularity beyond the bounds of her physical location. In addition, the emphasis on photographs on social media sites like Instagram may amplify the importance of visual representations in conferring peer status—with attractive self-presentations often accruing more attention and “likes” online ( Marwick 2015 ). Although such depictions of status may seem effortless, together the visualness and asynchronicity of social media sites encourage the careful engineering of photographs ( Kasch 2013 ).

Within an environment of heightened possibilities for status and rejection, demands around adolescents’ management of peer relationships also may be amplified. In qualitative studies, young people describe feeling “tethered” to social media, with significant pressure to manage social connections and keep up with relationships ( Fox and Moreland 2015 ). Similarly, publicness and availability may exacerbate adolescents’ experiences of “fear of missing out,” defined by researchers as the experience of apprehension that one may be missing out on rewarding social activities ( Przybylski et al. 2013 ). Indeed, one study suggests that this “fear of missing out” mediated the association between Facebook use and greater need for popularity among adolescents ( Beyens et al. 2016 ), and that adolescents with greater fear of missing out used Facebook more intensely. Furthermore, visualness , publicness , and permanence create an environment where photographs of social events, often carefully crafted or chosen, serve as clear evidence of rejection for adolescents who were not present at these events ( Underwood and Ehrenreich 2017 ). As social media allows adolescents greater access to the activities and relationships of their peers, it is likely to increase the sense that they are missing out on social opportunities, conversations, and events. Indeed, in a recent national survey, 53% of adolescent social media users reported having seen posts on social media about events to which they were not invited ( Lenhart 2015b ). Some adolescents thus engage in “uncertainty reduction” strategies online, using social media to gather information about peers’ personalities, opinions, and behaviors ( Courtois et al. 2012 ). In addition, this may heighten pressure to remain “in the loop” via social media, leading adolescents to engage in increased peer surveillance and monitoring behaviors, so as not to miss out on important social information, events, or gossip. Emerging research with adults on the phenomenon of “phantom phone signals” suggests that the pressure to remain constantly accessible via social media may even cause some individuals to experience the false sensation of receiving a cell phone notification ( Tanis et al. 2015 ). Interestingly, results suggest that adults reporting higher need for popularity were more likely to experience phantom phone signals ( Tanis et al. 2015 ).

The visualness of social media may also amplify adolescents’ social comparison processes by increasing the focus on physical appearance, particularly among girls. While historically, peer popularity has always been associated with physical attractiveness ( LaFontana and Cillessen 2002 ), social media platforms that reward attractive photographs in the form of quantifiable status indicators may intensify this link between appearance and peer status. Adolescents may engage in greater appearance-based upward comparisons with popular peers, and feel pressure to match the appearance standards of these peers in order to maintain their own status. Qualitative work suggests that adolescent girls are highly aware of their peers’ appearances in photographs, and that some may use quantifiable metrics (e.g., likes, complimentary comments) as measures of comparison to their own attractiveness ( Chua and Chang 2016 ). Indeed, numerous studies suggest a positive association between social media activities and body image concerns, and the initial evidence highlights appearance-based comparisons as a mechanism of this association (for a review, see Holland and Tiggemann 2016 ). Preliminary evidence suggests that upward appearance comparisons made via social media may have a unique impact on negative outcomes, including appearance dissatisfaction and negative mood, compared to such comparisons made in-person ( Fardouly et al. 2017 ). In line with the transformative features of social media, this discrepancy may be due to the heightened salience of appearance comparisons in the presence of quantifiable likes and comments on photographs.

Social media may even intensify efforts to maintain or increase peer status by impacting adolescents’ offline behavior. Specifically, while the publicness, availability, and permanence of social media may lead individuals to carefully manage their online reputations (known as the online “chilling effect”; Marwick and boyd 2011b ), these features may also transform adolescents’ offline behaviors by intensifying expectations and demands. In a study of adults, Marder et al. (2016) found qualitative and experimental evidence of an “ extended chilling effect,” whereby, when the potential audience of social media is made salient, individuals change their offline behavior to avoid negative self-presentations online . Another recent study found that college women reported frequently experiencing offline concerns about how their bodies would appear to a social media audience ( Choukas-Bradley et al. 2017 ). Given the emphasis on peer approval and reputation during adolescence, it seems likely that adolescents also shape their offline behaviors to maximize the appearance of status online.

Altered Qualitative Nature of Peer Status

The features of social media may change the qualitative nature of the experience of peer status, specifically creating a “high stakes” environment in which online interactions may be more careful or calculated. Preliminary evidence suggests that social media creates a context in which social identities and status indicators are carefully managed and constructed. Scholars have long considered the role of the “imagined audience” in adolescence ( Elkind 1967 ), or the belief that peers are observing and scrutinizing one’s behavior. Within the literature on social media, researchers have suggested that social media allows for the “imagined audience come-to-life” ( boyd 2014 ; Underwood and Ehrenreich 2017 ), as the publicness of many platforms allows for an actual audience of adolescents’ peers to observe their behaviors and interactions. Furthermore, the asynchronicity of many platforms creates an opportunity for careful, deliberate construction of one’s posts. Indeed, qualitative work suggests that teens often take steps to “curate” their social media content, with the majority of adolescents reporting that they have deleted and/or edited posts on their profiles made by themselves or others ( Madden et al. 2013 ). A qualitative study of adolescents receiving mental health services further highlights young people’s desire to present a “safe and socially acceptable” version of themselves online, so as to manage their reputations by ensuring positive feedback and avoiding negative feedback from peers ( Singleton et al. 2016 ). Similarly, in a national survey, 40% of adolescent social media users reported feeling pressure to post only content that “makes them look good to others” ( Lenhart 2015b ). Qualitative work suggests that adolescents are well aware of the quantifiable , public markers of peer status that are available on social media, such as numbers of followers, comments, likes, and even the time it takes to accrue those markers ( Chua and Chang 2016 ; Madden et al. 2013 ). According to one survey, as many as 39% of adolescent social media users report feeling pressure to post content that will “be popular and get lots of comments and likes” ( Lenhart 2015b ). Importantly, within this environment of selective self-presentation, online social comparison processes may increase in frequency and intensity ( Manago et al. 2008 ) and can have unique effects, over and above general tendencies toward social comparison, on rumination and depressive symptoms ( Feinstein et al. 2013 ).

Whereas certain photographs and posts can increase an individual’s perceived attractiveness or status, deviations from socially acceptable online behavior can have negative repercussions for an adolescent’s status. For example, research suggests that adolescents risk negative feedback online if they friend, message, or comment on the online content of peers whom they do not know well ( Koutamanis et al. 2015 ). With such negative feedback publicly and permanently available, the reputational repercussions may be significant, increasing adolescents’ desire to carefully manage their online reputations. Furthermore, as social media norms continue to develop, it may be difficult for some adolescents to navigate which online behaviors will be beneficial versus detrimental to their peer status. The example of sexualized online self-presentations represents this difficulty well and highlights important role of social media’s visualness . In one study, high school students who engaged in online sexual self-presentations (e.g., photographs of themselves in a sexual pose) reported higher perceived peer norms for these behaviors and stronger need for popularity, suggesting that they viewed these behaviors as a means to maintain or increase status. However, when participants evaluated mock social media pages, they rated individuals of the same sex more negatively (i.e., less cool, less popular)—but peers of the opposite sex more positively—when they believed those individuals had posted sexualized self-images ( Baumgartner et al. 2015 ). Other studies suggest that individuals who post sexualized images receive more negative feedback from peers in general ( Koutamanis et al. 2015 ). Yet qualitative work with college students highlights the balance that young people—and women in particular—must strike between posting sexual images that are viewed as desirable versus being labeled promiscuous ( Manago et al. 2008 ). The emphasis on public and permanent visual displays may thus complicate the experience of reputation management online, particularly as adolescents begin to navigate the status implications of their sexual identities.

New Opportunities: Compensatory Status Behaviors

The features of social media may facilitate adolescents’ engagement in status-seeking behaviors. For example, as previously discussed, qualitative work has identified the construct of “drama” among adolescents ( Marwick and boyd 2011a ), or the performative practice of conflict and gossip that often plays out within the social media context. Participants reported that “drama” online increases individuals’ visibility and status in the larger peer group, attracting a participatory audience that would have been unlikely offline. Similarly, one longitudinal study found that engagement in cyber victimization, but not traditional victimization, resulted in increases in adolescents’ peer status over time—which was especially notable given the overall stability of popularity ( Wegge et al. 2016 ). This suggests the unique role that social media environments may play in contributing to status—and the possibility that adolescents may engage in cyber victimization as a means of increasing their popularity. In addition to participating in drama and victimization online, adolescents may use the publicness and visualness of social media to enhance popularity through showcasing connections with high-status peers, or highlighting status-related activities such as parties ( Marwick and boyd 2011b ). While these behaviors may have been possible offline, social media may make them especially easy or enticing.

New Opportunities: Novel Status Behaviors

Social media also may create new opportunities for status-related behaviors that may have been impossible outside of this context. The publicness and availability of social media provide adolescents with unprecedented access to information about popular peers, perhaps heightening “upward” social comparison processes, particularly among low-status adolescents ( Nesi and Prinstein 2015 ). Scholars have identified new online “surveillance” behaviors ( Manago et al. 2008 ), such as “Facebook stalking,” or “cyberstalking”—in which adolescent social media users (often of lower status) systematically gather digital information about their peers (often of higher status; Marwick 2012 ). These behaviors may serve to maintain and reinforce social status hierarchies ( Marwick 2012 ). Among adults, research suggests that those who perceive that they are more anonymous in their social media interactions (i.e., through cue absence ) are more likely to engage in surveillance behaviors ( Jung et al. 2012 ), and that such behaviors may increase feelings of envy ( Tandoc et al. 2015 ).

In addition, evidence suggests that adolescents encounter new opportunities to engage in behaviors that will increase their appearance of status online. For example, research suggests that adolescents may attempt to maximize the number of “likes” and comments received on their photographs by posting at times of day when peers are more likely to be online ( Nesi and Prinstein 2018 ), taking down or untagging photographs that do not receive enough likes or comments ( Dhir et al. 2016 ; Nesi and Prinstein 2018 ), and filtering photographs in order to appear more attractive ( McLean et al. 2015 ; Underwood and Faris 2015 ). The publicness and availability of social media also allow adolescents to add high numbers of “friends” to their profiles, even if they do not know them well, in order to increase the size of their friends lists ( Zywica and Danowski 2008 ). Offering evidence for the unique role of these new behaviors in contributing to adolescent adjustment, one study found that, over and above the effects of adolescents’ actual, “offline” peer status, online status-seeking behaviors were longitudinally associated with adolescents’ increased substance use and sexual risk behavior ( Nesi and Prinstein 2018 ).

Social Compensation Effects: Qualitative Communication Differences and Opportunities for Compensatory Behaviors for Rejected Youth

Within the media and communications fields, two major hypotheses have emerged to address how online communication may interact with offline peer status, acceptance, and rejection ( Valkenburg and Peter 2007 ). The social enhancement hypothesis (i.e., “rich-get-richer” hypothesis) posits that extraverted and popular adolescents are more likely to benefit from online communication, as it serves to enhance their popularity and social connections ( Kraut et al. 2003 ). The social compensation hypothesis , on the other hand, suggests that individuals with poorer offline social resources—such as those who are socially anxious, lonely, or unpopular—benefit more from Internet communication because they gain greater social support and connection online ( Ellison et al. 2007 ; McKenna and Bargh 2000 ). Both of these hypotheses have garnered some evidence in the literature ( Valkenburg and Peter 2007 ). Importantly, however, both support the primary proposition of the transformation framework —that social media changes adolescents’ peer experiences.

Many of the studies discussed above support the social enhancement hypothesis, providing evidence for the idea that social media—and in particular the publicness , availability , and quantifiability of this context—may increase opportunities for popular adolescents to connect with peers and amplify their high social status. However, the studies discussed below fall in line with the social compensation hypothesis , suggesting that social media features create compensatory opportunities for low status or rejected youth to communicate more anonymously and safely. In particular, these studies suggest that the cue absence and asynchronicity of social media platforms may change the qualitative nature of online experiences, making them more “safe” or comfortable. Adolescents with interpersonal difficulties report that social media allows for greater levels of controllability over what, when, and how they communicate, and many find that this allows for greater reciprocity or responsiveness from their communication partners ( Peter and Valkenburg 2006 ; Schouten et al. 2007 ; Young and Lo 2012 ). As such, Valkenburg and Peter (2009) introduced the “Internet-enhanced self-disclosure hypothesis” to describe the phenomenon by which the cue absence of the online environment leads adolescents to engage in higher levels of self-disclosure when using social media. Indeed, adolescents with higher levels of social anxiety report finding it easier to communicate about secrets and feelings online (i.e., using Instant messaging tools) compared to in-person ( Valkenburg and Peter 2007 ; Wang et al. 2011 ). Furthermore, studies with adults suggest that shy or socially anxious individuals prefer to communicate via channels with fewer interpersonal cues (i.e., email vs. face-to-face; Hertel et al. 2008 ) and lower synchronicity (i.e., social networking sites versus instant messaging; Chan 2011 ). Preliminary evidence from longitudinal studies suggests that the sense of social comfort provided by the online environment can result in increases in well-being and decreases in internalizing symptoms ( Szwedo et al. 2012 ; Valkenburg and Peter 2009 ); however, few studies have controlled for the influence of offline social interactions in contributing to these positive outcomes, thus limiting these conclusions.

Social media may also provide new, compensatory opportunities for less popular adolescents in that these new media can provide an “escape” from the offline social hierarchies of their schools and communities. For marginalized or rejected adolescents, social media may provide a sense of belonging. Experimental work provides evidence for this compensatory effect, showing that even communicating with an unknown peer online can help adolescents restore a sense of self-esteem and reduce negative affect following a “cyberball” social exclusion task ( Gross 2009 ). Further evidence comes from descriptive work outlining new opportunities for an entirely novel online behavior known as “identity experiments,” where the cue absence of the social media environment allows rejected adolescents to pretend to be someone else or present unrealistic or exaggerated versions of themselves online ( Harman et al. 2005 ; Michikyan et al. 2014 ; Valkenburg and Peter 2008 ). The consequences of such behaviors are not yet clear; however, preliminary evidence suggests that engaging in online “identity experiments” can confer benefits for the development of social competence, particularly among lonely adolescents ( Valkenburg and Peter 2008 ). Furthermore, social media can help connect youth to similar peers across wide distances, creating a sense of connection and community. For example, youth who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) can connect with other sexual and gender minority peers across the world, which can provide critically important social support for adolescents who might otherwise feel alone ( Ybarra et al. 2015 ). The availability and cue absence of social media may present opportunities for LGBT youth to explore aspects of their identities and attraction in a community of similar peers ( Hillier and Harrison 2007 ; Hillier et al. 2012 ).

Peer Influence

One of the most consistent findings across the peer relations literature has been that adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors are similar to those of their peers ( Brechwald and Prinstein 2011 ). Research suggests that adolescents are especially susceptible to peer influence effects, perhaps due to the developmental characteristics of this period, including greater identity exploration, increased unsupervised time spent with peers, and valuing of peer approval ( Prinstein and Giletta 2016 ). Research and theory regarding mechanisms of peer influence propose that adolescents may engage in behaviors to match the social norms of valued and desired groups, to receive social rewards in the peer hierarchy, and to foster positive self-identity ( Brechwald and Prinstein 2011 ). Extensive research suggests that children tend to choose friends who are similar to themselves in behaviors and attitudes (i.e., selection effects) and also become more similar to their friends in behaviors and attitudes over time [i.e., socialization effects; Kandel (1978) ; see also Prinstein and Dodge (2008) ]. Recently, researchers have posited that the unique features of the social media environment may produce a particularly powerful context for adolescent peer influence ( Ehrenreich and Underwood 2016 ). In this section, we discuss numerous mechanisms by which social media transforms peer influence processes.

Amplification of Socialization Effects Via Social Media

In terms of socialization processes, the features of social media may amplify the speed, volume, and scale with which peer influence effects can occur. The publicness of the social media environment allows for content to be shared with a wide network of individuals, and for adolescents to view content posted by individuals outside of their immediate peer group ( Ehrenreich and Underwood 2016 ). In addition, the availability of social media allows this content to be accessed with increased frequency and immediacy, at any time of day, from any location, with social media’s permanence ensuring that such content can be accessed repeatedly and shared over an extended period of time. Thus, within the social media context, the potential for information to spread quickly and widely exceeds that of traditional, offline environments ( Berger 2014 ). Indeed, the power of social media “contagion,” or the rapid dissemination of content across social networks, has been the focus of some recent work. For example, large-scale studies employing data mining techniques have suggested the possibility for “emotional contagion” on social media, showing that users are more likely to post content matching the emotional valence of posts they have viewed on Facebook ( Kramer et al. 2014 ) and Twitter ( Ferrara and Yang 2015 ), thus influencing the affect of individuals across the social network. Other work provides evidence for the amplification of socialization processes by highlighting the speed with which content can be spread. A quasi-experimental study of social influence regarding college students’ joining Facebook groups, for example, emphasizes the “r-curve shaped diffusion process” by which information spreads at an exponential rate on social media ( Kwon et al. 2014 ). Content is often described as “going viral”—a phrase that did not exist before the advent of social media—to exemplify the incredible speed and broad reach of influence processes occurring online ( Berger and Milkman 2012 ).

While much of the research regarding peer influence processes via social media has focused on risk behaviors (as outlined below), it is important to highlight that the same amplified processes have the potential to aid in the spread of health promotion and risk prevention behaviors. The features of social media provide unique opportunities to rapidly spread health promotion messages, to create positive norms regarding behavior, and to reach adolescents who might not otherwise receive such information. A full discussion of social media-based intervention and prevention efforts is beyond the scope of this review; however, social media-based interventions have targeted a range of health behaviors among youth ( Cushing and Steele 2010 ), including physical activity ( Lau et al. 2011 ), smoking ( Buller et al. 2008 ), asthma control ( Joseph et al. 2007 ), and sexual health ( Bull et al. 2012 ).

New Opportunities: Novel Experiences of Peer Influence

Peer influence processes may be transformed within the context of social media through opportunities for novel behaviors, such as accruing “likes,” sexting, and posting public and permanent risky content. The quantifiability of social media is likely to play an important role in creating new opportunities for reinforcement of behavior. For the first time, adolescents can receive measurable indicators of approval of their behavior (e.g., in the form of likes and comments), which is likely to be particularly reinforcing, and to encourage similar posts in the future. Relatedly, adolescents can view this measurable peer engagement on their peers’ posts and photographs, creating a clear indicator of which behaviors and attitudes are sanctioned within the peer network. Insight into the mechanisms by which this may occur is found in the first study to apply an fMRI paradigm to adolescent social media use. Through a simulation of the social media site Instagram, Sherman et al. (2016) found that when adolescents viewed photographs with higher numbers of likes, they were influenced to “like” those photographs as well. When viewing photographs with more likes, compared to fewer likes, adolescents showed greater activation in the precuneus, medial prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus, which are areas relevant to social cognition and social memories, as well as the inferior frontal gyrus, which is important for imitation. Notably, these effects occurred whether photographs contained either neutral or risky (e.g., photographs depicting alcohol or drugs) content. In addition, these effects occurred despite the fact that participants were viewing photographs of individuals who were not known offline. It is possible that on adolescents’ actual social media networks, where adolescents view friends’ and acquaintances’ photographs, the reinforcing value of quantifiable indicators might be even greater, given the desire to engage in behaviors that match the social norms of valued or high-status individuals within a known, offline peer hierarchy ( Brechwald and Prinstein 2011 ).

Peer influence processes may also be transformed through new opportunities for socialization around behaviors specific to the online context, as adolescents adopt the online behaviors of their peers. For example, longitudinal studies suggest that young people’s decisions about online privacy settings are shaped by norms about peers’ privacy settings ( Saeri et al. 2014 ), as well as their peers’ actual privacy settings ( Hofstra et al. 2016 ). More concerning, perhaps, is the tendency for adolescents to imitate the online behavior of their peers in posting risky online content. Studies indicate that adolescents are significantly more likely to “sext” and to post sexually suggestive content online when their peers have done the same ( Rice et al. 2012 ). In addition, evidence suggests that adolescents who report a greater number of friends sharing alcohol references on social media are more likely to post such references themselves ( Geusens and Beullens 2017 ). Interestingly, in this cross-sectional study, perceptions of peers’ posts were a stronger predictor of adolescents’ alcohol-related posting than were self-reports of their own drinking behavior. Similarly, a cross-sectional study of college students found that individuals reporting greater desire to adhere to alcohol-related social norms were more likely to post alcohol-related content, but not necessarily to consume more alcohol ( Thompson and Romo 2016 ). These findings, though preliminary, point to the strong incentive for adolescents to match the online behavior of their peers, and the potential for social media to create biased norms surrounding offline risk behavior engagement.

Altered Qualitative Nature of Peer Influence: Increased Risky Content and Effects on Offline Risk Behaviors

In addition to amplifying and creating new opportunities for socialization processes, social media may also transform the domain of peer influence by changing the qualitative nature of this experience—specifically, by featuring a higher volume of risky behaviors, as compared to offline interactions. This may create qualitative differences in norms surrounding risk behaviors, including alcohol use and sexual risk behavior. One national survey indicates that as many as 68% of 16- to 17-year olds report having seen pictures online of their peers drinking, passed out, or using drugs ( National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University 2012 ). As indicated by social presence theory ( Short et al. 1976 ), it may be that social media’s cue absence and asychronicity contribute to feelings of disinhibition that encourage posting risky content. As such, a growing body of work has examined the ways in which peer influence processes on social media contribute to adolescents’ health risk behaviors, with a particular focus on alcohol use and sexual risk behavior.

Evidence has accumulated to suggest that adolescents and young adults who are exposed to peers’ alcohol-related content on social media are longitudinally more likely to initiate and escalate drinking behaviors ( Geusens and Beullens 2016 ; Nesi et al. 2017 ) and, in experimental studies, to show increased willingness to drink ( Litt and Stock 2011 ). One possible mediator of this peer influence process is adolescents’ development of more alcohol-favorable descriptive and injunctive norms following exposure to alcohol content. Indeed, studies have shown that adolescents exposed to alcohol content on social media are more likely to endorse favorable alcohol norms ( Beullens and Vandenbosch 2016 ; Fournier et al. 2013 ), and that these norms serve as a mediator of the associations between exposure and alcohol intentions and use ( Geusens and Beullens 2016 ; Nesi et al. 2017 ). Furthermore, reflecting the potency of social media’s visualness in contributing to peer influence effects, studies have highlighted the role of alcohol-related photographs in changing norms and increasing use, particularly when photographs contain older or more popular peers ( Litt and Stock 2011 ). One study found that exposure to peers’ alcohol-related photographs, but not text, longitudinally influenced adolescents’ use of alcohol ( Huang et al. 2013 ).

It is important to note that many studies of alcohol-related influence processes via social media do not control for offline influence processes or behavior, thus precluding conclusions regarding discriminant associations between social media versus offline influence and alcohol use. However, evidence is beginning to accumulate to suggest that social media does, in fact, contribute additive effects to the peer influence process, thus providing further evidence for the transformation framework . For example, in a study of first-year college students, exposure to peers’ alcohol-related content on social media (i.e., text or pictures of their peers drinking, being drunk or hung-over) predicted one’s own drinking behavior six months later—above and beyond the effects of friends’ actual alcohol use ( Boyle et al. 2016 ). Furthermore, a study of high school students found that exposure to friends’ online posts related to partying or drinking alcohol online were longitudinally associated with adolescents’ increases in alcohol use, controlling for the actual drinking behavior of those same friends ( Huang et al. 2013 ). Taken together, these findings support the idea that the features of social media create a unique environment for the enactment of peer influence processes related to alcohol use, over and above such processes offline.

Peer influence processes on social media may alter the qualitative nature of peer influence by heightening the socialization of other risk behaviors as well. In terms of sexual activity, preliminary experimental results suggest that viewing sexually suggestive photographs on social media may influence norms around sex, highlighting the visualness of many social media sites. In a study of college students, those who viewed sexually suggestive Facebook photographs estimated that a greater percentage of their peers engaged in risky sexual behavior (e.g., having unprotected sex, having sex with strangers) and were more likely to report that they would be willing to engage in these behaviors ( Young and Jordan 2013 ). Other work supports the idea that norms and beliefs about peers’ sexual beliefs may uniquely develop on social media, compared to other types of media. In a prospective longitudinal study of adolescents ( van Oosten et al. 2017 ), researchers found that adolescents who were exposed to peers’ sexually provocative self-presentations on social media reported more favorable descriptive norms and prototypes of peers who engage in casual sex. Compared to other forms of media examined in this study (i.e., online pornography, sexually oriented television), exposure to peers’ sexualized social media images may have uniquely created perceptions of casual sex as both normative and desirable. This may be due to the publicness and availability of social media, which allow for frequent exposure to seemingly realistic portrayals of a range of peers. Beyond sexual activity, initial work suggests that exposure to peers’ risky social media content can influence other behaviors as well, including young peoples’ smoking attitudes and intentions ( Yoo et al. 2016 ), actual smoking behavior ( Huang et al. 2013 ), eating and weight-related beliefs and behaviors (for review, see Holland and Tiggemann 2016 ), and criminal activity ( McCuddy and Vogel 2015 ).

Despite evidence to suggest the unique role that social media plays in influencing risky behaviors, however, the relationship between the social media environment and the development and reinforcement of social norms remains complex. On the one hand, theories of online disinhibition ( Suler 2004 ) suggest that the cue absence and asynchronicity of the online environment may alter the qualitative nature of influence processes online by encouraging individuals to more freely express individual opinions and engage in more disinhibited behaviors than they might offline ( Christopherson 2007 ). As such, we might expect adolescents to feel more comfortable posting content—even risky content—that falls outside of offline peer norms. On the other hand, as previously discussed, the publicness , availability , and permanence of the social media environment may actually amplify peer influence processes by creating and enforcing strong norms prescribing the types of content sanctioned in adolescents’ online peer groups. An experimental study of adults provides evidence for this dichotomy between the potential for stronger and weaker peer norms online ( Woong Yun and Park 2011 ). In an online forum designed for discussion of polarizing social issues, individuals were equally likely to express their opinions whether or not they perceived those opinions to be popular offline—in other words, they were willing to post “anti-normative” opinions. However, individuals were less likely to post opinions that went against the majority opinion within the online forum at any given time, suggesting that norms within social media sites are likely to influence online behavior. Similarly, studies of online forums suggest that individuals are likely to match the style of other forum users who have posted before them ( Welbers and de Nooy 2014 ). As such, social media may create an environment where some adolescents feel more comfortable posting risky content, with others then encountering strong incentives to mimic such online behavior.

New Opportunities: Compensatory Behaviors Through “Extreme Communities”

These increased opportunities for peer influence effects around risky behaviors may extend to include behaviors that, traditionally, have been considered “anti-normative” or extreme within the offline context. The availability and publicness of the social media environment may create compensatory opportunities for adolescents to seek out a wide range of peers with similar interests or concerns with whom they might not have the opportunity to connect offline. In many cases, this selection effect may be relatively harmless—for example, with online interest groups and pages devoted to specific music preferences or games ( Subrahmanyam and Šmahel 2011 ). However, the potential for young people to seek out others engaged in risky, damaging, or otherwise “anti-normative” behaviors, such as disordered eating and self-injury, is equally possible ( Reid and Weigle 2014 ).

Indeed, a growing body of the literature has identified the potential for both socialization and selection effects around “extreme communities” online ( Bell 2007 ). For example, research has examined young people’s use of social media to promote eating disorders, i.e., through pro-anorexia blogs or communities within social networking sites ( Juarascio et al. 2010 ; Levine and Chapman 2011 ), and studies are beginning to explore the role of social media in spreading suicidal and self-injurious thoughts and behaviors ( Dyson et al. 2016 ). Social media’s cue absence and asynchronicity may encourage adolescents with mental health difficulties to share their experiences with disordered eating or self-injury online as a means of receiving social support. Simultaneously, the features of social media may create a context in which these behaviors are reinforced, imitated, and made to feel “normative” within certain online communities—thus reinforcing and encouraging such behaviors (for a review, see Reid and Weigle 2014 ). A qualitative study of pro-anorexia bloggers, for example, suggests that the stigma associated with eating disorders offline is what drives many individuals to such sites; once there, however, powerful norms regarding language and behavior may reinforce individuals’ eating disorder identities ( Yeshua-Katz 2015 ). Studies also highlight the ease and scale with which such content can be socialized, indicating that many pro-eating disorder Twitter accounts have hundreds of followers, approximately half of whom have also posted pro-eating disorder tweets ( Arseniev-Koehler et al. 2016 ).

Nonsuicidal self-injury content may also be easily discovered and socialized on social media, with descriptive analyses of Instagram revealing millions of posts containing self-injury content, spread through the use of ambiguous hashtags ( Moreno et al. 2016 ). The visualness of social media may make these posts particularly powerful. Unlike ever before, adolescents can access harmful content, such as photographs and explicit videos of self-injurious acts, on a wide scale ( Lewis et al. 2011 )—potentially changing the qualitative nature of peer influence processes by normalizing problem behaviors. This normalization can have devastating effects. Suicide contagion effects have been well-documented in the context of mass media, with documentation of “suicide clusters” among young people following exposure to information about suicide in new media and television ( Gould et al. 2003 ). The potential for social media to contribute to these processes is considerable, given that social media’s publicness and availability creates a context in which youth are connected with large networks of potentially similar peers, where information can spread rapidly. Few studies have examined suicide contagion effects on social media. However, one study suggests that social media are a common source by which adolescents learn of peers’ suicides ( Dunlop et al. 2011 ). This study found that learning about suicides via online forums, but not social networking sites, was associated with increases in suicidal ideation. In addition, one study provides descriptive evidence of the role of social networking sites in contributing to a suicide cluster among adolescents in New Zealand ( Robertson et al. 2012 ). Highlighting the publicness of social media, most of these adolescents did not know each other offline, but were connected through social media. In addition, many were linked through pages developed “in memory” of previous suicides, reflecting the permanence of social media content. The potential for social media features to create new opportunities for risky, and potentially life-threatening, behaviors warrants further research into the transformation of these peer influence processes online.

Conclusions

Decades of research have shown that adolescents’ peer experiences influence a range of adaptive and maladaptive outcomes into adulthood, including mental health and psychopathology, as well as physical health and morbidity ( Almquist 2009 ; Almquist and Östberg 2013 ; Menting et al. 2016 ; Modin et al. 2011 ). However, as adolescents’ peer experiences increasingly occur in the context of social media, it is critical to consider how social media may shape these experiences. The first paper in this series (Part 1) outlined the transformation framework as a new model for understanding how the unique features of the social media environment may transform adolescent peer relations and discussed the transformation of adolescents’ dyadic friendship processes in this context. In the current paper (Part 2), we expanded on this prior work by applying the transformation framework to three domains of peer relations that typically occur within larger, group-based contexts: peer victimization, peer status, and peer influence. We argued that, rather than simply mirroring adolescents’ offline peer processes in a new environment, social media fundamentally transforms these experiences. In particular, we highlighted the ways that social media may change the frequency, immediacy, or intensity of these processes, alter the qualitative nature of these experiences, or provide new opportunities for behaviors. Furthermore, we reviewed preliminary evidence for the transformation of peer experiences in each of these domains.

In regard to peer victimization, we discussed how the features of social media may amplify peer victimization processes, as they become more frequent and inescapable, and may change the qualitative nature of such experiences to be perceived as harsher for victims and more rewarding for perpetrators. In addition, social media may create opportunities for new victimization behaviors, from “hacking” to “drama.” Examining the transformation of peer status suggests that status-related processes may be amplified through social media, as adolescents become more aware of, concerned about, and motivated to increase status reputations. In addition, the qualitative nature of these experiences may be transformed as adolescents experience greater pressure to maintain status. Social media may provide new opportunities for compensatory behaviors for rejected youth, and new possibilities for novel behaviors such as seeking out “likes” and “followers.” For peer influence, evidence suggests that social media amplifies the speed, scale, and volume of socialization processes around both positive (e.g., health promotion) and negative (e.g., health risk) behaviors, and that social media creates changes in the qualitative nature of influence processes that may normalize risky behaviors. Evidence of new opportunities for compensatory behaviors is found in adolescents’ ability to join “extreme” communities, and for novel behaviors in the form of quantifiable reinforcement and risky online posts.

Building on the Transformation Framework: Methodological Considerations for Future Research

Taken together, this review highlights the utility of the transformation framework for illuminating social media’s role in adolescents’ peer experiences, and highlights the need for future empirical work building on this organizing framework. Indeed, while this review outlines a growing body of descriptive, cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental studies that provide evidence in support of the transformation framework , many of the proposed transformative processes described in this paper remain necessarily speculative. Thus, a number of suggestions are offered for future work to rigorously examine whether and how the social media context changes adolescents’ peer experiences.

Although studies that use rigorous experimental designs have been highlighted throughout this paper, much of what is known regarding adolescent social media use and peer relations still derives from cross-sectional studies relying on self-report data. More longitudinal studies are sorely needed to begin to address the directionality of social media use on outcomes and vice versa, as this will provide further evidence for the unique role of social media in transforming peer experiences. In addition, although the CMC field has often relied on experimental work to examine specific communication processes via different media tools, these studies are much rarer within developmental psychology’s examinations of adolescent social media use. Such work will be essential to delineate the ways in which specific peer processes are transformed by features of social media. Given the challenges of self-report data in regard to social media use, a number of other methods should be employed as well, with preliminary work showing promise in the use of novel methods, such as observational coding of adolescent social media pages (e.g., Moreno et al. 2012 ; Underwood et al. 2013 ), ecological momentary assessment (e.g., Jelenchick et al. 2013 ), media diaries (e.g., Gross 2004 ), and guided “tours” of social media pages (e.g., Salimkhan et al. 2010 ). In addition, the application of fMRI techniques to examining adolescent social media use will add a level of complexity and greater nuance to our understanding of these processes, as has been shown in preliminary work (e.g., Sherman et al. 2016 ). Measures of physiological activity, including heart rate and blood pressure, have also recently been applied to examining adults’ experiences of stress when separated from their cell phones ( Clayton et al. 2015 ); similar measures may provide insight into adolescents’ physiological response to social media. That said, continued descriptive work will be invaluable in this area. Descriptive work can provide rich data on the ways in which adolescents’ uses of social media may coincide with or differ from their offline experiences. Descriptive studies also can offer explorations of new experiences that may occur via social media, and thus are critical to building a basic understanding of constructs, particularly in a newly emerging field ( Shanahan et al. 2005 ). In addition, such studies may allow for more in-depth analyses into adolescents’ subjective experiences of the features of social media, including their perceptions of how such features change peer experiences relative to offline interactions. Multi-method assessments will be especially important to draw on the strengths of each of these methods.

Although the current review highlights an emerging body of promising evidence in support of the transformation framework , much further work is needed to continue to examine the complex interplay of peer relations constructs and adolescent social media use. For social media-based behaviors with directly comparable offline corollaries, studies that simultaneously examine both traditional and social media-based constructs will be essential in order to determine the unique role of social media in contributing to peer experiences. In the current review, a small number of studies were identified that do show discriminant associations between social media-based peer experiences and adjustment outcomes, over and above similar offline experiences, including cyber victimization (e.g., Fredstrom et al. 2011 ), social comparison ( Feinstein et al. 2013 ), and exposure to peers’ alcohol-related activities ( Huang et al. 2013 ). Outside of these domains, however, such studies remain limited. In addition, it will be critical for future research to identify new social media-based peer experiences through descriptive, qualitative, and experimental work, and to continue to examine the impact that these experiences have on broad peer relations constructs.

Building on the Transformation Framework: Key Conceptual Principles for Future Research

If we accept the premise that the context of social media fundamentally transforms adolescents’ peer experiences, this principle has a number of critical implications for future research in this area. First, as the transformation framework outlines the many important differences between online and offline experiences—highlighting the possibility for peer experiences on social media that are amplified, qualitatively changed, or consisting of entirely novel behaviors—it may be necessary to expand our conceptualization of traditional peer relations constructs. It may no longer be adequate, for example, to study “peer status” without a consideration of social media “likes” or “followers,” or to examine “friendship quality” without a consideration of social media’s amplified communication demands and expectations. In many cases, this change in conceptualization may require simply adding items or subscales to traditional measures of peer relations variables. In other cases, however, it may require entirely new measures and variables. Many studies of social media simply adapt existing measures of peer constructs, using near-identical items—for example, by simply changing a scale’s wording to assess the same behaviors through Facebook or via text message, rather than in-person. However, in line with the transformation framework , in order to truly assess novel experiences via social media, researchers may need to develop and validate new measures to assess these constructs. One example of this challenge is the assessment of online behaviors related to peer status. Traditional research on peer status has relied on self-report measures assessing such constructs as desire for popularity (i.e., “peer importance”; Prinstein and Aikins 2004 ) and extreme peer orientation ( Fuligni et al. 2001 ). However, even if these measures are adapted to ask about these behaviors online, they do not assess status-related behaviors that are unique to the social media context, such as posting at times of day when photographs will receive more “likes” and comments, or adding excessive numbers of friends or followers to increase the appearance of popularity. In order to gain a comprehensive picture of adolescents’ peer experiences through social media, it may be necessary to expand and adapt the ways in which we think about these traditional constructs, integrating an understanding of the uniqueness of these constructs as they occur online.

A second implication of the transformation framework is the need for future research to more directly consider the specific features of social media tools. Outside of the CMC and organizational psychology literature (e.g., McFarland and Ployhart 2015 ), developmental scholars examining adolescent social experiences have rarely considered the specific features of social media, with a few notable exceptions (see boyd 2010 ; Peter and Valkenburg 2013 ; Subrahmanyam and Šmahel 2011 ). By moving away from attempts to broadly characterize the overall effects of “social media use,” and instead focusing on the specific features of social media tools that may transform adolescents’ peer experiences, we may better capture the broad range of ways that adolescents currently use social media. In addition, a framework focusing on the effects of specific social media features will better allow for continuity of research as new social media platforms are inevitably introduced. An ideal method to examine the transformative effects of various social media features is through experimental work with adolescents. In particular, studies that manipulate the extent to which various features are present will be critical. For example, drawing on classic CMC research, studies might manipulate asynchronicity or cue absence within a communication task (e.g., as in Tang et al. 2013 ), or may manipulate visualness or quantifiability through the presentation of experimental social media profiles. In non-experimental studies, researchers should strive to specify the features that contribute to various social media activities. They may move, for example, from measures of “frequency” of use on a given platform (e.g., Facebook) to measures of specific features within the functionalities on that platform, such as posting public photographs (i.e., high publicness and visualness ) versus sending private messages (i.e., low publicness and visualness ). Similarly, researchers may examine the differential impacts of features on adolescents’ experiences by comparing experiences across platforms—for example, comparing photographs posting that is higher (e.g., on Instagram) versus lower (e.g., on Snapchat) in permanence.

A third implication of the transformation framework , and perhaps the most obvious extension of this research, is to examine the effects of this transformation on adolescent adjustment outcomes. While studies examining associations between social media use and psychosocial outcomes have been highlighted throughout this review to illustrate the transformation framework , it is important to note that this framework remains agnostic with regard to the benefits or drawbacks of social media use. Rather, it simply proposes that adolescents’ peer experiences are different when conducted via social media. Future research, then, must examine how these transformed peer experiences contribute to adolescent development, in ways that may be positive, negative, both, or neither. If adolescents’ peer experiences via social media are, indeed, qualitatively different from offline experiences, this elicits a number of possibilities. For example, we might expect that adolescents who use different types of social media (i.e., with higher or lower levels of certain features) will show differential outcomes. Also, we might expect differences in experiences and functioning between today’s adolescents and prior generations, who grew up before the advent of social media. As others have noted (e.g., Peter and Valkenburg 2013 ), the effects of social media use on adolescent development are likely to be complex, impacted by many factors including culture (e.g., gender, race, and ethnicity), personality, motivations to use technologies, subjective internal experiences, and communication partners. By examining the ways that specific social media features transform peer experiences, we can begin to develop a more nuanced understanding of the potential positive and negative impacts of social media on adolescent well-being.

Finally, it should be noted that the current review presents a conceptual overview of the transformation framework , highlighting existing evidence for the principles of this framework across studies. Thus, the aim of the current paper is not to highlight the many individual differences that occur in regard to adolescents’ social media use, but rather, to offer a general framework upon which future peer relations work can build. As such, a critical future direction in this area will be to examine the ways in which adolescents’ demographic and cultural backgrounds—including gender, race/ ethnicity, nationalities, and sexual identities—may impact the types of transformation that occur though online peer experiences. For example, recent statistics suggest that, compared to boys, adolescent girls are more likely to use visually oriented, photo-sharing social media platforms, such as Instagram and Pinterest ( Lenhart 2015a ). As such, future studies may examine whether the visualness or publicness of social media represent transformative features with greater relevance to girls. For racial and ethnic minority youth, as well as sexual and gender minority youth, preliminary research suggests that the social media context may provide a space in which these youth can meet similar individuals, navigate intersecting identities, and build self-esteem ( Grasmuck et al. 2009 ; Hillier and Harrison 2007 ; Hillier et al. 2012 ; Tynes 2007 ; Tynes et al. 2008a ), facilitated by the availability and publicness of this environment. On the other hand, as social media intersects with a larger cultural system of prejudice against minority groups, the cue absence and asynchronicity of this context may lead to harmful instances of targeted harassment. Indeed, studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority adolescents experience racial discrimination within the social media environment ( Tynes et al. 2008b ; Tynes et al. 2012 ), and that LGBT youth are more likely to face online victimization than those who identify as heterosexual and cisgender ( Wiederhold 2014 ). Thus, it will be imperative for future research to identify the ways in which the features of social media, and the transformative impacts of those features on peer experiences, are similar or different across cultural groups.

Overall, this two-part theoretical review critically advances the study of adolescent social media use by providing a new model for understanding adolescent peer relations and social media, and applying this model to critical domains of adolescent peer relations. We hope that the transformation framework will serve as an organizing framework to stimulate future work in this area. Although recent years have seen an increase in the number of studies examining social media use, the current body of work on adolescent peer relations has not kept pace with the growth of social media as a ubiquitous presence in adolescents’ social lives. Social media provides a compelling context in which adolescents may navigate the complicated peer-based developmental tasks of this period, and thus may be particularly appealing to this age group ( Peter and Valkenburg 2013 ; Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 2008 ; Subrahmanyam and Šmahel 2011 ). It is likely that social media’s presence in the lives of young people will only expand over time, and that its impact on peer relationships will continue to increase. Future research, guided by a theory-based perspective, will be needed to adequately understand and address the transformative role of social media in this generation.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1144081] awarded to Jacqueline Nesi. This work was also supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health [R01-MH85505, R01-HD055342] grants awarded to Mitchell J. Prinstein.

Publisher's Disclaimer: Disclaimer Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIH or NSF.

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

  • Agatston PW, Kowalski R, & Limber S (2007). Students’ perspectives on cyber bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health , 41 ( 6 ), S59–S60. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Almquist Y (2009). Peer status in school and adult disease risk: A 30-year follow-up study of disease-specific morbidity in a Stockholm cohort. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 63 ( 12 ), 1028–1034. 10.1136/jech.2009.088377. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Almquist YB, & Östberg V (2013). Social relationships and subsequent health-related behaviours: Linkages between adolescent peer status and levels of adult smoking in a Stockholm cohort: Peer status in school and adult smoking. Addiction , 108 ( 3 ), 629–637. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04097.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Arseniev-Koehler A, Lee H, McCormick T, & Moreno MA (2016). #Proana: Pro-eating disorder socialization on twitter. Journal of Adolescent Health , 58 ( 6 ), 659–664. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.02.012. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Baker CK, & Carreño PK (2016). Understanding the role of technology in adolescent dating and dating violence. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 25 ( 1 ), 308–320. 10.1007/s10826-015-0196-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bastiaensens S, Vandebosch H, Poels K, Van Cleemput K, DeSmet A, & De Bourdeaudhuij I (2014). Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human Behavior , 31 , 259–271. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.036. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Baumgartner SE, Sumter SR, Peter J, & Valkenburg PM (2015). Sexual self-presentation on social network sites: Who does it and how is it perceived? Computers in Human Behavior , 50 , 91–100. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.061. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bell V (2007). Online information, extreme communities and internet therapy: Is the internet good for our mental health? Journal of Mental Health , 16 ( 4 ), 445–457. 10.1080/09638230701482378. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Berger J (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 24 ( 4 ), 586–607. 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Berger J, & Milkman KL (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research , 49 ( 2 ), 192–205. 10.1509/jmr.10.0353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Beullens K, & Vandenbosch L (2016). A conditional process analysis on the relationship between the use of social networking sites, attitudes, peer norms, and adolescents’ intentions to consume alcohol. Media Psychology , 19 ( 2 ), 310–333. 10.1080/15213269.2015.1049275. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Beyens I, Frison E, & Eggermont S (2016). “I don’t want to miss a thing”: Adolescents’ fear of missing out and its relationship to adolescents’ social needs, Facebook use, and Facebook related stress. Computers in Human Behavior , 64 , 1–8. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bonanno RA, & Hymel S (2013). Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of traditional forms of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42 ( 5 ), 685–697. 10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • boyd d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/2010/SNSasNetworkedPublics . Accessed 8 July 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
  • boyd d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens New Haven: Yale University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Boyle SC, LaBrie JW, Froidevaux NM, & Witkovic YD (2016). Different digital paths to the keg? How exposure to peers’ alcohol-related social media content influences drinking among male and female first-year college students. Addictive Behaviors , 57 , 21–29. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.01.011. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brechwald WA, & Prinstein MJ (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 21 ( 1 ), 166–179. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Bull SS, Levine DK, Black SR, Schmiege SJ, & Santelli J (2012). Social media-delivered sexual health intervention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 43 ( 5 ), 467–474. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.07.022. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Buller DB, Borland R, Woodall WG, Hall JR, Hines JM, Burris-Woodall P, et al. (2008). Randomized trials on “consider this,” a tailored, internet-delivered smoking prevention program for adolescents. Health Education & Behavior , 35 ( 2 ), 260–281. 10.1177/1090198106288982. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chan M (2011). Shyness, sociability, and the role of media synchronicity in the use of computer-mediated communication for interpersonal communication: Shyness and computer-mediated communication. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01335.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Choukas-Bradley S, Nesi J, Widman L, & Higgins MK (2017). Carryover of social media to young women’s offline lives: Associations with physical appearance concerns and depressive symptoms Manuscript submitted for publication. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Choukas-Bradley S, & Prinstein MJ (2014). Peer relationships and the development of psychopathology. In Lewis M & Rudolph KD (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (pp. 185–204). Boston, MA: Springer; 10.1007/978-1-4614-9608-3_10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Christopherson KM (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 ), 3038–3056. 10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chua THH, & Chang L (2016). Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls’ engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Computers in Human Behavior , 55 , 190–197. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Clayton RB, Leshner G, & Almond A (2015). The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 20 ( 2 ), 119–135. 10.1111/jcc4.12109. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Coie JD, Dodge KA, & Coppotelli H (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology , 18 ( 4 ), 557–570. 10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Courtois C, All A, & Vanwynsberghe H (2012). Social network profiles as information sources for adolescents’ offline relations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 15 ( 6 ), 290–295. 10.1089/cyber.2011.0557. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cushing CC, & Steele RG (2010). A meta-analytic review of eHealth interventions for pediatric health promoting and maintaining behaviors. Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 35 ( 9 ), 937–949. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsq023. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dhir A, Kaur P, Lonka K, & Nieminen M (2016). Why do adolescents untag photos on Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior , 55 , 1106–1115. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dooley JJ, Pyżalski J, & Cross D (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology , 217 ( 4 ), 182–188. 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Draucker CB, & Martsolf DS (2010). The role of electronic communication technology in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing , 23 ( 3 ), 133–142. 10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00235.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dunlop SM, More E, & Romer D (2011). Where do youth learn about suicides on the Internet, and what influence does this have on suicidal ideation? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 52 ( 10 ), 1073–1080. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02416.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dyson MP, Hartling L, Shulhan J, Chisholm A, Milne A, Sundar P, et al. (2016). A systematic review of social media use to discuss and view deliberate self-harm acts. PLoS ONE , 11 ( 5 ), e0155813 10.1371/journal.pone.0155813. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ehrenreich SE, & Underwood MK (2016). Peer coercion and electronic messaging. In Dishion TJ & Snyder J (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics Oxford: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324552.013.12. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Elkind D (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development , 38 ( 4 ), 1025 10.2307/1127100. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ellison NB, Steinfield C, & Lampe C (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 12 ( 4 ), 1143–1168. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fardouly J, Pinkus RT, & Vartanian LR (2017). The impact of appearance comparisons made through social media, traditional media, and in person in women’s everyday lives. Body Image , 20 , 31–39. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.11.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Feinstein BA, Hershenberg R, Bhatia V, Latack JA, Meuwly N, & Davila J (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture , 2 ( 3 ), 161–170. 10.1037/a0033111. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ferrara E, & Yang Z (2015). Measuring emotional contagion in social media. PLoS ONE , 10 ( 11 ), e0142390 10.1371/journal.pone.0142390. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fischer P, Krueger JI, Greitemeyer T, Vogrincic C, Kastenmüller A, Frey D, et al. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin , 137 ( 4 ), 517–537. 10.1037/a0023304. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fournier AK, Hall E, Ricke P, & Storey B (2013). Alcohol and the social network: Online social networking sites and college students’ perceived drinking norms. Psychology of Popular Media Culture , 2 ( 2 ), 86–95. 10.1037/a0032097. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fox J, & Moreland JJ (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior , 45 , 168–176. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fredstrom BK, Adams RE, & Gilman R (2011). Electronic and school-based victimization: Unique contexts for adjustment difficulties during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 40 ( 4 ), 405–415. 10.1007/s10964-010-9569-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fuligni AJ, Eccles JS, Barber BL, & Clements P (2001). Early adolescent peer orientation and adjustment during high school. Developmental Psychology , 37 ( 1 ), 28–36. 10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.28. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Furman W, & Rose AJ (2015). Friendships, romantic relationships, and peer relationships. In Lerner RM (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 1–43). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Geusens F, & Beullens K (2016). The association between social networking sites and alcohol abuse among Belgian adolescents: The role of attitudes and social norms. Journal of Media Psychology 10.1027/1864-1105/a000196. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Geusens F, & Beullens K (2017). Strategic self-presentation or authentic communication? Predicting adolescents’ alcohol references on social media. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs , 78 ( 1 ), 124–133. 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.124. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gini G, Card NA, & Pozzoli T (2017). A meta-analysis of the differential relations of traditional and cyber-victimization with internalizing problems. Aggressive Behavior 10.1002/ab.21742. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gould M, Jamieson P, & Romer D (2003). Media contagion and suicide among the young. American Behavioral Scientist , 46 ( 9 ), 1269–1284. 10.1177/0002764202250670. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Grasmuck S, Martin J, & Zhao S (2009). Ethno-racial identity displays on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 15 ( 1 ), 158–188. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01498.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gross EF(2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 25 ( 6 ), 633–649. 10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gross EF (2009). Logging on, bouncing back: An experimental investigation of online communication following social exclusion. Developmental Psychology , 45 ( 6 ), 1787–1793. 10.1037/a0016541. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harman JP, Hansen CE, Cochran ME, & Lindsey CR (2005). Liar, liar: Internet Faking but not frequency of use affects social skills, self-esteem, social anxiety, and aggression. CyberPsychology & Behavior , 8 ( 1 ), 1–6. 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harter S, Stocker C, & Robinson NS (1996). The perceived directionality of the link between approval and self-worth: The liabilities of a looking glass self-orientation among young adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 6 ( 3 ), 285–308. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hertel G, Schroer J, Batinic B, & Naumann S (2008). Do shy people prefer to send e-mail? Personality effects on communication media preferences in threatening and nonthreatening situations. Social Psychology , 39 ( 4 ), 231–243. 10.1027/1864-9335.39.4.231. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hillier L, & Harrison L (2007). Building realities less limited than their own: Young people practising same-sex attraction on the Internet. Sexualities , 10 ( 1 ), 82–100. 10.1177/1363460707072956. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hillier L, Mitchell KJ, & Ybarra ML (2012). The Internet as a safety net: Findings from a series of online focus groups with LGB and non-LGB young people in the United States. Journal of LGBT Youth , 9 ( 3 ), 225–246. 10.1080/19361653.2012.684642. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hofstra B, Corten R, & van Tubergen F (2016). Understanding the privacy behavior of adolescents on Facebook: The role of peers, popularity and trust. Computers in Human Behavior , 60 , 611–621. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.091. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Holland G, & Tiggemann M (2016). A systematic review of the impact of the use of social networking sites on body image and disordered eating outcomes. Body Image , 17 , 100–110. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Huang GC, Unger JB, Soto D, Fujimoto K, Pentz MA, Jordan-Marsh M, et al. (2013). Peer influences: The Impact of online and offline friendship networks on adolescent smoking and alcohol use. Journal of Adolescent Health , 54 ( 5 ), 508–514. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jelenchick LA, Eickhoff JC, & Moreno MA (2013). “Facebook depression?” Social networking site use and depression in older adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health , 52 ( 1 ), 128–130. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Joseph CLM, Peterson E, Havstad S, Johnson CC, Hoerauf S, Stringer S, et al. (2007). A Web-based, tailored asthma management program for urban African-American high school students. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine , 175 ( 9 ), 888–895. 10.1164/rccm.200608-1244OC. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Juarascio AS, Shoaib A, & Timko CA (2010). Pro-eating disorder communities on social networking sites: A content analysis. Eating Disorders , 18 ( 5 ), 393–407. 10.1080/10640266.2010.511918. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jung Y, Song H, & Vorderer P (2012). Why do people post and read personal messages in public? The motivation of using personal blogs and its effects on users’ loneliness, belonging, and wellbeing. Computers in Human Behavior , 28 ( 5 ), 1626–1633. 10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kandel DB (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology 10.1086/226792. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kasch DM (2013). Social media selves: College students’ curation of self and others through Facebook University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA: Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Koutamanis M, Vossen HGM, & Valkenburg PM (2015). Adolescents’ comments in social media: Why do adolescents receive negative feedback and who is most at risk? Computers in Human Behavior , 53 , 486–494. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, & Lattanner MR (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin , 140 ( 4 ), 1073–1137. 10.1037/a0035618. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kramer ADI, Guillory JE, & Hancock JT (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111 ( 24 ), 8788–8790. 10.1073/pnas.1320040111. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, Cummings J, Helgeson V, & Crawford A (2003). Internet paradox revisited. The Wired Homestead: An MIT Press Sourcebook on the Internet and the Family , 58 , 347. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kwon KH, Stefanone MA, & Barnett GA (2014). Social network influence on online behavioral choices: Exploring group formation on social network sites. American Behavioral Scientist , 58 ( 10 ), 1345–1360. 10.1177/0002764214527092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • LaFontana KM, & Cillessen AHN (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology , 38 ( 5 ), 635–647. 10.1037//0012-1649.38.5.635. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lapidot-Lefler N, & Barak A (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior , 28 ( 2 ), 434–443. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lau PW, Lau EY, Wong DP, & Ransdell L (2011). A systematic review of information and communication technology-based interventions for promoting physical activity behavior change in children and adolescents. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 13 ( 3 ), e48 10.2196/jmir.1533. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lenhart A (2015a, April 9). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015 Retrieved June 28, 2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/ . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lenhart A (2015b, August 6). Teens, technology and friendships Retrieved May 3, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/06/teens-technology-and-friendships/ . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lenhart A, Madden M, Smith A, Purcell K, Zickuhr K, & Rainie L (2011, November 9). Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites Retrieved May 6, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/09/teens-kindness-and-cruelty-on-social-network-sites/ . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Leung W, & Bascaramurty D (2012, October 12). Amanda Todd tragedy highlights how social media makes bullying inescapable. The Globe and Mail Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/amanda-todd-tragedy-highlights-how-social-media-makes-bullying-inescapable/article4611068/ . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Levine MP, & Chapman K (2011). Media influence on body image. In Cash TF & Smolak L (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention (2nd ed., pp. 101–109). New York: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lewis SP, Heath NL, St Denis JM, & Noble R (2011). The scope of nonsuicidal self-injury on YouTube. Pediatrics , 127 ( 3 ), e552–e557. 10.1542/peds.20102317. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Litt DM, & Stock ML (2011). Adolescent alcohol-related risk cognitions: The roles of social norms and social networking sites. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors , 25 ( 4 ), 708–713. 10.1037/a0024226. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lorang MR, McNiel DE, & Binder RL (2016). Minors and sexting: Legal implications. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law , 44 ( 1 ), 73–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Madden M, Lenhart A, Cortesi S, Gasser U, Duggan M, Smith A, et al. (2013, May 21). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/ . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Manago AM, Graham MB, Greenfield PM, & Salimkhan G (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 29 ( 6 ), 446–458. 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Marder B, Joinson A, Shankar A, & Houghton D (2016). The extended “chilling” effect of Facebook: The cold reality of ubiquitous social networking. Computers in Human Behavior , 60 , 582–592. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.097. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Marwick AE (2012). The public domain: Social surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance & Society Newcastle upon Tyne , 9 ( 4 ), 378–393. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Marwick AE (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age New Haven: Yale University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Marwick AE (2015). Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Culture , 27 ( 1(75) ), 137–160. 10.1215/08992363-2798379. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Marwick A, & boyd (2011a). The drama! Teen conflict, gossip, and bullying in networked publics. In A Decade in Internet time: Symposium on the dynamics of the internet and society , Oxford, UK. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Marwick AE, & boyd d. (2011b). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society , 13 ( 1 ), 114–133. 10.1177/1461444810365313. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Marwick A, & boyd d. (2014). “It’s just drama”: Teen perspectives on conflict and aggression in a networked era. Journal of Youth Studies , 17 ( 9 ), 1187–1204. 10.1080/13676261.2014.901493. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • McCuddy T, & Vogel M (2015). Beyond traditional interaction: Exploring the functional form of the exposure-offending association across online network size. Journal of Criminal Justice , 43 ( 2 ), 89–98. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.01.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • McFarland LA, & Ployhart RE (2015). Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 100 ( 6 ), 1653–1677. 10.1037/a0039244. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • McKenna KYA, & Bargh JA (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 4 ( 1 ), 57–75. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • McLean SA, Paxton SJ, Wertheim EH, & Masters J (2015). Photoshopping the selfie: Self photo editing and photo investment are associated with body dissatisfaction in adolescent girls: Photoshopping of the selfie. International Journal of Eating Disorders , 48 ( 8 ), 1132–1140. 10.1002/eat.22449. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Menting B, Van Lier PAC, Koot HM, Pardini D, & Loeber R (2016). Cognitive impulsivity and the development of delinquency from late childhood to early adulthood: Moderating effects of parenting behavior and peer relationships. Development and Psychopathology , 28 ( 1 ), 167–183. 10.1017/S095457941500036X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Michikyan M, Subrahmanyam K, & Dennis J (2014). Can you tell who I am? Neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among young adults. Computers in Human Behavior , 33 , 179–183. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Modin B, Östberg V, & Almquist Y (2011). Childhood peer status and adult susceptibility to anxiety and depression. A 30-year hospital follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 39 ( 2 ), 187–199. 10.1007/s10802-010-9462-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Moreno MA, Christakis DA, Egan KG, Brockman LN, & Becker T (2012). Associations between displayed alcohol references on Facebook and problem drinking among college students. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , 166 ( 2 ), 157–163. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.180. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Moreno M, & Kota R (2013). Social media. In Strasburger VC, Wilson B, & Beth Jordan AB (Eds.), Children, adolescents, and the media (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc; Retrieved from https://nls.ldls.org.uk/welcome.html?ark:/81055/vdc_100025421490.0×000001 . Accessed 27 May 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Moreno MA, Ton A, Selkie E, & Evans Y (2016). Secret society 123: Understanding the language of self-harm on Instagram. Journal of Adolescent Health , 58 ( 1 ), 78–84. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.015. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (2012). National Survey on American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XVII: Teens Retrieved from http://www.centeronaddiction.org/addiction-research/reports/national-survey-american-attitudes-substance-abuse-teens-2012 . Accessed 1 June 2016.
  • Nesi J, & Prinstein MJ (2015). Using social media for social comparison and feedback-seeking: Gender and popularity moderate associations with depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 10.1007/s10802-015-0020-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nesi J, & Prinstein MJ (2018). In search of likes: Longitudinal associations between adolescents’ digital status seeking and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 10.1080/15374416.2018.1437733. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nesi J, Rothenberg WA, Hussong AM, & Jackson KM (2017). Friends’ alcohol-related social networking site activity predicts escalations in adolescent drinking: Mediation by peer norms. Journal of Adolescent Health , 60 ( 6 ), 641–647. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.01.009. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Olweus D (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do New York: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Olweus D (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 9 ( 5 ), 520–538. 10.1080/17405629.2012.682358. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Parkhurst JT, & Hopmeyer A (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence , 18 ( 2 ), 125–144. 10.1177/0272431698018002001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Peter J, & Valkenburg PM (2006). Research note: Individual differences in perceptions of internet communication. European Journal of Communication , 21 ( 2 ), 213–226. 10.1177/0267323105064046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Peter J, & Valkenburg PM (2013). The effects of Internet communication on adolescents’ psychological development. The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems136/full . [ Google Scholar ]
  • Prinstein MJ, & Aikins JW (2004). Cognitive moderators of the longitudinal association between peer rejection and adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 32 ( 2 ), 147–158. 10.1023/B:JACP.0000019767.55592.63. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Prinstein MJ, & Dodge KA (2008). Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents New York: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Prinstein MJ, & Giletta M (2016). Peer relations and developmental psychopathology. In Cicchetti D (Ed.), developmental psychopathology (pp. 1–53). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy112. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Przybylski AK, Murayama K, DeHaan CR, & Gladwell V (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior , 29 ( 4 ), 1841–1848. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Reid D, & Weigle P (2014). Social media use among adolescents: Benefits and risks. Adolescent Psychiatry , 4 ( 2 ), 73–80. 10.2174/221067660402140709115810. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rice E, Rhoades H, Winetrobe H, Sanchez M, Montoya J, Plant A, et al. (2012). Sexually explicit cell phone messaging associated with sexual risk among adolescents. Pediatrics , 130 ( 4 ), 667–673. 10.1542/peds. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Robertson L, Skegg K, Poore M, Williams S, & Taylor B (2012). An adolescent suicide cluster and the possible role of electronic communication technology. Crisis , 33 ( 4 ), 239–245. 10.1027/0227-5910/a000140. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rubin KH, Bukowski WM, & Bowker JC (2015). Children in peer groups. In Lerner RM (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 1–48). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy405. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Runions KC (2013). Toward a conceptual model of motive and self-control in cyber-aggression: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42 ( 5 ), 751–771. 10.1007/s10964-013-9936-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Saeri AK, Ogilvie C, La Macchia ST, Smith JR, & Louis WR (2014). Predicting Facebook users’ online privacy protection: Risk, trust, norm focus theory, and the theory of planned behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology , 154 ( 4 ), 352–369. 10.1080/00224545.2014.914881. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Salimkhan G, Manago AM, & Greenfield PM (2010). The construction of the virtual self on MySpace. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace , 4 ( 1 ). Retrieved from https://journals.muni.cz/cyberpsychology/article/view/4231 . Accessed 6 May 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Schouten AP, Valkenburg PM, & Peter J (2007). Precursors and underlying processes of adolescents’ online self-disclosure: Developing and testing an “Internet-attribute-perception” model. Media Psychology , 10 ( 2 ), 292–315. 10.1080/15213260701375686. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shanahan MJ, Erickson LD, & Bauer DJ (2005). One hundred years of knowing: The changing science of adolescence, 1904 and 2004. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 15 ( 4 ), 383–394. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00103.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sherman LE, Payton AA, Hernandez LM, Greenfield PM, & Dapretto M (2016). The power of the like in adolescence: Effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychological Science , 27 ( 7 ), 1027–1035. 10.1177/0956797616645673. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Short J, Williams E, & Christie B (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications New York: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Singleton A, Abeles P, & Smith IC (2016). Online social networking and psychological experiences: The perceptions of young people with mental health difficulties. Computers in Human Behavior , 61 , 394–403. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Slonje R, & Smith PK (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 49 ( 2 ), 147–154. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, & Tippett N (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 49 ( 4 ), 376–385. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stelloh T (2017, April 3). Second boy arrested in gang rape of Chicago teen streamed on Facebook Live. NBC News Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/second-boy-arrested-gang-rape-chicago-teen-streamed-facebook-live-n742341 . Accessed 6 May 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sticca F, & Perren S (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42 ( 5 ), 739–750. 10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Subrahmanyam K, & Greenfield PM (2008). Virtual worlds in development: Implications of social networking sites. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 29 ( 6 ), 417–419. 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Subrahmanyam K, & Šmahel D (2011). Digital youth: The role of media in development New York: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Suler J (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior , 7 ( 3 ), 321–326. 10.1089/1094931041291295. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Szwedo DE, Mikami AY, & Allen JP (2012). Social networking site use predicts changes in young adults’ psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 22 ( 3 ), 453–466. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00788.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tandoc ECJ, Ferrucci P, & Duffy M (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior , 43 , 139–146. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tang F, Wang X, & Norman CS (2013). An investigation of the impact of media capabilities and extraversion on social presence and user satisfaction. Behaviour & Information Technology , 32 ( 10 ), 1060–1073. 10.1080/0144929X.2013.830335. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tanis M, Beukeboom CJ, Hartmann T, & Vermeulen IE (2015). Phantom phone signals: An investigation into the prevalence and predictors of imagined cell phone signals. Computers in Human Behavior , 51 , 356–362. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Thompson CM, & Romo LK (2016). College students’ drinking and posting about alcohol: Forwarding a model of motivations, behaviors, and consequences. Journal of Health Communication , 21 ( 6 ), 688–695. 10.1080/10810730.2016.1153763. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tynes BM (2007). Internet safety gone wild? Sacrificing the educational and psychosocial benefits of online social environments. Journal of Adolescent Research , 22 ( 6 ), 575–584. 10.1177/0743558407303979. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tynes BM, Giang MT, & Thompson GN (2008a). Ethnic identity, intergroup contact, and outgroup orientation among diverse groups of adolescents on the Internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior , 11 ( 4 ), 459–465. 10.1089/cpb.2007.0085. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tynes BM, Giang MT, Williams DR, & Thompson GN (2008b). Online racial discrimination and psychological adjustment among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health , 43 ( 6 ), 565–569. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.08.021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tynes BM, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Rose CA, Lin J, & Anderson CJ (2012). Online racial discrimination and the protective function of ethnic identity and self-esteem for African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology , 48 ( 2 ), 343–355. 10.1037/a0027032. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Udris R (2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and validation of the online disinhibition scale. Computers in Human Behavior , 41 , 253–261. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.036. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Underwood MK, & Ehrenreich SE (2017). The power and the pain of adolescents’ digital communication: Cyber victimization and the perils of lurking. American Psychologist , 72 ( 2 ), 144–158. 10.1037/a0040429. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Underwood MK, Ehrenreich SE, More D, Solis JS, & Brinkley DY (2013). The BlackBerry project: The hidden world of adolescents’ text messaging and relations with internalizing symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 25 ( 1 ), 101–117. 10.1111/jora.12101. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Underwood MK, & Faris R (2015). #Being thirteen: Social media and the hidden world of young adolescents’ peer culture Cable News Network (CNN) Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/being-13-teens-social-media-study/ . Accessed 13 Oct 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Valkenburg PM, & Peter J (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology , 43 ( 2 ), 267–277. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.267. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Valkenburg PM, & Peter J (2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the Internet: Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research , 35 ( 2 ), 208–231. 10.1177/0093650207313164. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Valkenburg PM, & Peter J (2009). The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents’ existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication , 59 ( 1 ), 79–97. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01405.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • van Oosten JMF, Peter J, & Vandenbosch L (2017). Adolescents’ sexual media use and willingness to engage in casual sex: Differential relations and underlying processes. Human Communication Research , 43 ( 1 ), 127–147. 10.1111/hcre.12098. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Vaterlaus JM, Barnett K, Roche C, & Young JA (2016). “Snapchat is more personal”: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behavior , 62 , 594–601. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.029. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Waasdorp TE, & Bradshaw CP (2015). The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health , 56 ( 5 ), 483–488. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Walther JB (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In Knapp ML & Daly JA (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 443–479). Washington, D.C.: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wang J-L, Jackson LA, & Zhang D-J (2011). The mediator role of self-disclosure and moderator roles of gender and social anxiety in the relationship between Chinese adolescents’ online communication and their real-world social relationships. Computers in Human Behavior , 27 ( 6 ), 2161–2168. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wegge D, Vandebosch H, Eggermont S, & Pabian S (2016). Popularity through online harm: The longitudinal associations between cyberbullying and sociometric status in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence , 36 ( 1 ), 86–107. 10.1177/0272431614556351. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Welbers K, & de Nooy W (2014). Stylistic accommodation on an Internet forum as bonding: Do posters adapt to the style of their peers? American Behavioral Scientist , 58 ( 10 ), 1361–1375. 10.1177/0002764214527086. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • White AE, Weinstein E, & Selman RL (2016). Adolescent friendship challenges in a digital context: Are new technologies game changers, amplifiers, or just a new medium? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 10.1177/1354856516678349. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wiederhold BK (2014). Cyberbullying and LGBTQ Youth: A deadly combination. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 17 ( 9 ), 569–570. 10.1089/cyber.2014.1521. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wigderson S, & Lynch M (2013). Cyber- and traditional peer victimization: Unique relationships with adolescent well-being. Psychology of Violence , 3 ( 4 ), 297–309. 10.1037/a0033657. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Willard NE (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress Champaign, Ill: Research Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Woong Yun G, & Park S-Y (2011). Selective posting: Willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 16 ( 2 ), 201–227. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01533.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wright MF (2014). Predictors of anonymous cyber aggression: The role of adolescents’ beliefs about anonymity, aggression, and the permanency of digital content. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 17 ( 7 ), 431–438. 10.1089/cyber.2013.0457. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ, Palmer NA, & Reisner SL (2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among US LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect , 39 , 123–136. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.006. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Yeshua-Katz D (2015). Online stigma resistance in the pro-ana community. Qualitative Health Research , 25 ( 10 ), 1347–1358. 10.1177/1049732315570123. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Yoo W, Yang J, & Cho E (2016). How social media influence college students’ smoking attitudes and intentions. Computers in Human Behavior , 64 , 173–182. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.061. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Young SD, & Jordan AH (2013). The influence of social networking photos on social norms and sexual health behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 16 ( 4 ), 243–247. 10.1089/cyber.2012.0080. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Young CMY, & Lo BCY (2012). Cognitive appraisal mediating relationship between social anxiety and internet communication in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences , 52 ( 1 ), 78–83. 10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zywica J, & Danowski J (2008). The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses: Predicting Facebook tm and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 14 ( 1 ), 1–34. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Logo for Open Textbook Collection

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 9: New Media & Communication

9.1 New Media, the Self, and Relationships

Learning Objectives

  • Discuss the relationship between new media and the self.
  • Identify positive and negative impacts of new media on our interpersonal relationships.

Think about some ways that new media have changed the way you think about yourself and the way you think about and interact in your relationships. Have you ever given your Facebook page a “once-over” before you send or accept a friend request just to make sure that the content displayed is giving off the desired impression? The technological changes of the past twenty years have affected you and your relationships whether you are a heavy user or not. Even people who don’t engage with technology as much as others are still affected by it, since the people they interact with use and are affected by new media to varying degrees.

New Media and the Self

The explicit way we become conscious of self-presentation when using new media, social networking sites (SNSs) in particular, may lead to an increase in self-consciousness. You’ll recall that in Chapter 1 “ Introduction to Communication Studies ” we talked about the role that communication plays in helping us meet our identity needs and, in Chapter 2 “ Communication and Perception “, the role that self-discrepancy theory plays in self-perception. The things that we “like” on Facebook, the pictures we are tagged in, and the news stories or jokes that we share on our timeline all come together to create a database of information that new and old friends can access to form and reform impressions of us. Because we know that others are making impressions based on this database of information and because we have control over most of what appears in this database, people may become overfocused on crafting their online presence to the point that they neglect their offline relationships. This extra level of self-consciousness has also manifested in an increase in self-image and self-esteem issues for some users. For example, some cosmetic surgeons have noted an uptick in patients coming in to have facial surgeries or procedures specifically because they don’t like the way their chin looks on the webcam while chatting on Skype or because they feel self-conscious about the way they look in the numerous digital pictures that are now passed around and stored on new media. Since new media are being increasingly used in professional capacities, some people are also seeking cosmetic surgery or procedures as a way of investing in their personal brand or as a way of giving them an edge in a tight job market. [1]

The personal and social nature of new media also creates an openness that isn’t necessarily part of our offline social reality. Although some people try to address this problem by creating more than one Facebook account, according to the terms of use we all agreed to, we are not allowed to create more than one personal profile. People may also have difficulty managing their different commitments, especially if they develop a dependence on or even addiction to new media devices and/or platforms. New media blur the lines between personal and professional in many ways, which can be positive and negative. For example, the constant connection offered by laptops and smartphones increases the expectation that people will continue working from home or while on vacation. At the same time, however, people may use new media for non-work-related purposes while at work, which may help even out the work/life balance. Cyberslacking, which is the non-work-related use of new media while on the job, is seen as a problem in many organizations and workplaces. However, some research shows that occasional use of new media for personal reasons while at work can have positive effects, as it may relieve boredom, help reduce stress, or lead to greater job satisfaction. [2]

Personal media devices bring with them a sense of constant connectivity that makes us “reachable” nearly all the time and can be comforting or anxiety inducing. Devices such as smartphones and computers, and platforms such as e-mail, Facebook, and the web, are within an arm’s reach of many people. While this can be convenient and make things more efficient in some cases, it can also create a dependence that we might not be aware of until those connections are broken or become unreliable. You don’t have to look too far to see people buried in their smartphones, tablets, or laptops all around. While some people have learned to rely on peripheral vision in order to text and walk at the same time, others aren’t so graceful. In fact, London saw the creation of a “text safe” street with padding on street signs and lamp poles to help prevent injuries when people inevitably bump into them while engrossed in their gadgets’ screens. Follow this link to read a story in Time magazine and see a picture of the street [3] . Additionally, a survey conducted in the United Kingdom found that being away from social networks causes more anxiety than being a user of them. Another study found that 73 percent of people would panic if they lost their smartphone. [4] .

Of course, social media can also increase self-esteem or have other social benefits. A recent survey of fifteen thousand women found that 48 percent of the respondents felt that social media helped them stay in touch with others while also adding a little stress in terms of overstimulation. Forty-two percent didn’t mention the stress of overstimulation and focused more on the positive effects of being in touch with others and the world in general. When asked about how social media affects their social lives, 30 percent of the women felt that increased use of social media helped them be more social offline as well. [5] Other research supports this finding for both genders, finding that Facebook can help people with social anxiety feel more confident and socially connected. [6]

New Media and Interpersonal Relationships

How do new media affect our interpersonal relationships, if at all? This is a question that has been addressed by scholars, commentators, and people in general. To provide some perspective, similar questions and concerns have been raised along with each major change in communication technology. New media, however, have been the primary communication change of the past few generations, which likely accounts for the attention they receive. Some scholars in sociology have decried the negative effects of new technology on society and relationships in particular, saying that the quality of relationships is deteriorating and the strength of connections is weakening. [7]

Facebook greatly influenced our use of the word friend, although people’s conceptions of the word may not have changed as much. When someone “friends you” on Facebook, it doesn’t automatically mean that you now have the closeness and intimacy that you have with some offline friends. And research shows that people don’t regularly accept friend requests from or send them to people they haven’t met, preferring instead to have met a person at least once. [8] Some users, though, especially adolescents, engage in what is called “friend-collecting behavior,” which entails users friending people they don’t know personally or that they wouldn’t talk to in person in order to increase the size of their online network. [9] As we will discuss later, this could be an impression management strategy, as the user may assume that a large number of Facebook friends will make him or her appear more popular to others.

Although many have critiqued the watering down of the term friend when applied to SNSs, specifically Facebook, some scholars have explored how the creation of these networks affects our interpersonal relationships and may even restructure how we think about our relationships. Even though a person may have hundreds of Facebook friends that he or she doesn’t regularly interact with on- or offline, just knowing that the network exists in a somewhat tangible form (catalogued on Facebook) can be comforting. Even the people who are distant acquaintances but are “friends” on Facebook can serve important functions. Rather than Facebook users seeing these connections as pointless, frivolous, or stressful, they are often comforting background presences. A dormant network is a network of people with whom users may not feel obligated to explicitly interact but may find comfort in knowing the connections exist. Such networks can be beneficial, because when needed, a person may be able to more easily tap into that dormant network than they would an offline extended network. It’s almost like being friends on Facebook keeps the communication line open, because both people can view the other’s profile and keep up with their lives even without directly communicating. This can help sustain tenuous friendships or past friendships and prevent them from fading away, which as we learned in Chapter 7 “ Communication in Relationships ” is a common occurrence as we go through various life changes.

A key part of interpersonal communication is impression management, and some forms of new media allow us more tools for presenting ourselves than others. Social networking sites (SNSs) in many ways are platforms for self-presentation. Even more than blogs, web pages, and smartphones, the environment on an SNS like Facebook or Twitter facilitates self-disclosure in a directed way and allows others who have access to our profile to see our other “friends.” This convergence of different groups of people (close friends, family, acquaintances, friends of friends, colleagues, and strangers) can present challenges for self-presentation. Although Facebook is often thought of as a social media outlet for teens and young adults, research shows half of all US adults have a profile on Facebook or another SNS. [10] . The fact that Facebook is expanding to different generations of users has coined a new phrase—“the graying of Facebook.” This is due to a large increase in users over the age of fifty-five. In fact, it has been stated the fastest-growing Facebook user group is women fifty-five and older, which is up more than 175 percent since fall 2008. [11] So now we likely have people from personal, professional, and academic contexts in our Facebook network, and those people are now more likely than ever to be from multiple generations. The growing diversity of our social media networks creates new challenges as we try to engage in impression management.

We should be aware that people form impressions of us based not just on what we post on our profiles but also on our friends and the content that they post on our profiles. In short, as in our offline lives, we are judged online by the company we keep. [12] The difference is, though, that via Facebook a person (unless blocked or limited by privacy settings) can see our entire online social network and friends, which doesn’t happen offline. The information on our Facebook profiles is also archived, meaning there is a record the likes of which doesn’t exist in offline interactions. Recent research found that a person’s perception of a profile owner’s attractiveness is influenced by the attractiveness of the friends shown on the profile. In short, a profile owner is judged more physically attractive when his or her friends are judged as physically attractive, and vice versa. The profile owner is also judged as more socially attractive (likable, friendly) when his or her friends are judged as physically attractive. The study also found that complimentary and friendly statements made about profile owners on their wall or on profile comments increased perceptions of the profile owner’s social attractiveness and credibility. An interesting, but not surprising, gender double standard also emerged. When statements containing sexual remarks or references to the profile owner’s excessive drinking were posted on the profile, perceptions of attractiveness increased if the profile owner was male and decreased if female. [13]

Self-disclosure is a fundamental building block of interpersonal relationships, and new media make self-disclosures easier for many people because of the lack of immediacy, meaning the fact that a message is sent through electronic means arouses less anxiety or inhibition than would a face-to-face exchange. SNSs provide opportunities for social support. Research has found that Facebook communication behaviors such as “friending” someone or responding to a request posted on someone’s wall lead people to feel a sense of attachment and perceive that others are reliable and helpful. [14] . Much of the research on Facebook, though, has focused on the less intimate alliances that we maintain through social media. Since most people maintain offline contact with their close friends and family, Facebook is more of a supplement to interpersonal communication. Since most people’s Facebook “friend” networks are composed primarily of people with whom they have less face-to-face contact in their daily lives, Facebook provides an alternative space for interaction that can more easily fit into a person’s busy schedule or interest area. For example, to stay connected, both people don’t have to look at each other’s profiles simultaneously. I often catch up on a friend by scrolling through a couple weeks of timeline posts rather than checking in daily.

The space provided by SNSs can also help reduce some of the stress we feel in regards to relational maintenance or staying in touch by allowing for more convenient contact. The expectations for regular contact with our Facebook friends who are in our extended network are minimal. An occasional comment on a photo or status update or an even easier click on the “like” button can help maintain those relationships. However, when we post something asking for information, help, social support, or advice, those in the extended network may play a more important role and allow us to access resources and viewpoints beyond those in our closer circles. And research shows that many people ask for informational help through their status updates. [15] .

These extended networks serve important purposes, one of which is to provide access to new information and different perspectives than those we may get from close friends and family. For example, since we tend to have significant others that are more similar to than different from us, the people that we are closest to are likely to share many or most of our beliefs, attitudes, and values. Extended contacts, however, may expose us to different political views or new sources of information, which can help broaden our perspectives. The content in this section hopefully captures what I’m sure you have already experienced in your own engagement with new media—that new media have important implications for our interpersonal relationships. Given that, we will end this chapter with a “Getting Competent” feature box that discusses some tips on how to competently use social media.

Examples – “Getting Competent”

Using Social Media Competently

We all have a growing log of personal information stored on the Internet, and some of it is under our control and some of it isn’t. We also have increasingly diverse social networks that require us to be cognizant of the information we make available and how we present ourselves. While we can’t control all the information about ourselves online or the impressions people form, we can more competently engage with social media so that we are getting the most out of it in both personal and professional contexts.

A quick search on Google for “social media dos and don’ts” will yield around 100,000 results, which shows that there’s no shortage of advice about how to competently use social media. I’ll offer some of the most important dos and don’ts that I found that relate to communication. [16] Feel free to do your own research on specific areas of concern.

Be consistent. Given that most people have multiple social media accounts, it’s important to have some degree of consistency. At least at the top level of your profile (the part that isn’t limited by privacy settings), include information that you don’t mind anyone seeing.

Know what’s out there. Since the top level of many social media sites are visible in Google search results, you should monitor how these appear to others by regularly (about once a month) doing a Google search using various iterations of your name. Putting your name in quotation marks will help target your results. Make sure you’re logged out of all your accounts and then click on the various results to see what others can see.

Think before you post. Software that enable people to take “screen shots” or download videos and tools that archive web pages can be used without our knowledge to create records of what you post. While it is still a good idea to go through your online content and “clean up” materials that may form unfavorable impressions, it is even a better idea to not put that information out there in the first place. Posting something about how you hate school or your job or a specific person may be done in the heat of the moment and forgotten, but a potential employer might find that information and form a negative impression even if it’s months or years old.

Be familiar with privacy settings. If you are trying to expand your social network, it may be counterproductive to put your Facebook or Twitter account on “lockdown,” but it is beneficial to know what levels of control you have and to take advantage of them. For example, I have a “Limited Profile” list on Facebook to which I assign new contacts or people with whom I am not very close. You can also create groups of contacts on various social media sites so that only certain people see certain information.

Be a gatekeeper for your network. Do not accept friend requests or followers that you do not know. Not only could these requests be sent from “bots” that might skim your personal info or monitor your activity; they could be from people that might make you look bad. Remember, we learned earlier that people form impressions based on those with whom we are connected. You can always send a private message to someone asking how he or she knows you or do some research by Googling his or her name or username.

  • Identify information that you might want to limit for each of the following audiences: friends, family, and employers.
  • Google your name (remember to use multiple forms and to put them in quotation marks). Do the same with any usernames that are associated with your name (e.g., you can Google your Twitter handle or an e-mail address). What information came up? Were you surprised by anything?
  • What strategies can you use to help manage the impressions you form on social media?

Key Takeaways

  • New media affect the self as we develop a higher degree of self-consciousness due to the increased visibility of our lives (including pictures, life events, and communication). The constant connectivity that comes with new media can also help us feel more connected to others and create anxiety due to overstimulation or a fear of being cut off.
  • New media affect interpersonal relationships, as conceptions of relationships are influenced by new points of connection such as “being Facebook friends.” While some people have critiqued social media for lessening the importance of face-to-face interaction, some communication scholars have found that online networks provide important opportunities to stay connected, receive emotional support, and broaden our perspectives in ways that traditional offline networks do not.
  • Getting integrated: Social networking sites (SNSs) can present interpersonal challenges related to self-disclosure and self-presentation since we use them in academic, professional, personal, and civic contexts. Given that people from all those contexts may have access to our profile, we have to be competent in regards to what we disclose and how we present ourselves to people from different contexts (or be really good at managing privacy settings so that only certain information is available to certain people).
  • Discuss the notion that social media has increased our degree of self-consciousness. Do you agree? Why or why not?
  • Do you find the constant connectivity that comes with personal media overstimulating or comforting?
  • Have you noticed a “graying” of social media like Facebook and Twitter in your own networks? What opportunities and challenges are presented by intergenerational interactions on social media?
  • Jessica Roy, “Facebook, Skype Give Cosmetic Surgery Industry a Lift,” BetaBeat.com, July 11, 2012, accessed November 8, 2012, http://betabeat.com/2012/07/facebook-skype-plastic-surgery-cosmetic-increase-07112012. ↵
  • Jessica Vitak, Julia Crouse, and Robert LaRose, “Personal Internet Use at Work: Understanding Cyberslacking,” Computers in Human Behavior 27, no. 5 (2011): 1752. ↵
  • Hylton, Hilary. “Texting and Walking: Dangerous Mix.” Time, Mar. 2008. ↵
  • Brittney Fitzgerald, “Social Media Is Causing Anxiety, Study Finds,” Huffington Post, July 11, 2012, accessed November 8, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/social-media-anxiety_n_1662224.html ↵
  • Bonnie Kintzer, “Women Find Social Media Make Them More Social Offline, Too,” Advertising Age, July 9, 2012, accessed November 8, 2012, http://adage.com/article/guest-columnists/women-find-social-media-makes-social-offline/235712. ↵
  • Tracii Ryan and Sophia Xenos, “Who Uses Facebook? An Investigation into the Relationship between the Big Five, Shyness, Narcissism, Loneliness, and Facebook Usage,” Computers in Human Behavior 27, no. 5 (2011): 1659. ↵
  • Kathleen Richardson and Sue Hessey, “Archiving the Self?: Facebook as Biography of Social and Relational Memory,” Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society 7, no. 1 (2009): 29. ↵
  • Kathleen Richardson and Sue Hessey, “Archiving the Self?: Facebook as Biography of Social and Relational Memory,” Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society 7, no. 1 (2009): 32. ↵
  • Emily Christofides, Amy Muise, and Serge Desmarais, “Hey Mom, What’s on Your Facebook? Comparing Facebook Disclosure and Privacy in Adolescents and Adults,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 3, no. 1 (2012): 51. ↵
  • Jessica Vitak and Nicole B. Ellison, “‘There’s a Network Out There You Might as Well Tap’: Exploring the Benefits of and Barriers to Exchanging Informational and Support-Based Resources on Facebook,” New Media and Society (in press) ↵
  • Anita Gates, “For Baby Boomers, the Joys of Facebook,” New York Times, March 19, 2009, accessed November 8, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/nyregion/new-jersey/22Rgen.html. ↵
  • Joseph B. Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, Sang-Yeon Kim, David Westerman, and Stephanie Tom Tong, “The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep?” Human Communication Research 34 (2008): 29. ↵
  • Joseph B. Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, Sang-Yeon Kim, David Westerman, and Stephanie Tom Tong, “The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep?” Human Communication Research 34 (2008): 41–45. ↵
  • Alison Doyle, “Top 10 Social Media Dos and Don’ts,” About.com, accessed November 8, 2012, http://jobsearch.about.com/od/onlinecareernetworking/tp/socialmediajobsearch.htm. ↵

A quality of personal media whereby we are “reachable” nearly all the time, which can be both comforting and anxiety inducing.

Interpersonal Communication Textbook by Anonymous Publisher is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

IMAGES

  1. make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

    make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

  2. make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

    make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

  3. make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

    make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

  4. How Social Media affects Relationships? by Mariana Duarte

    make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

  5. How Social Media Affects Relationships (According to 7 Experts

    make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

  6. Social Media’s Effects on Relationships

    make a drama presentation of how social media affects relationships

VIDEO

  1. How has social media 📱💻 changed the way we think and feel about activism?💭"

  2. How Social Media Affects Relationships

  3. "The Surprising Ways Social Media Affects Your Mind"

  4. How Social Media Affects Your Life

  5. How Social Media Affects Relationships

  6. Role of social media ll essay

COMMENTS

  1. How Social Media Affects Relationships

    According to research from 2021, partner phubbing, or pphubbing, is negatively associated with relationship satisfaction. It can lead to feelings of isolation, jealousy, and less intimacy....

  2. How Your Social Media Habits Are Damaging Your Relationships

    The study also found that social media use negatively impacted interpersonal relationships due to: "distraction, irritation, and decreased quality time with their significant other in offline...

  3. Social Media and Teen Romantic Relationships

    44% say social media helps them feel emotionally closer to their significant other, with 10% feeling that way "a lot.". Half (50%) do not feel that social media offers a space to feel emotionally closer. 27% say social media makes them feel jealous or unsure about their relationship, with 7% feeling this way "a lot.".

  4. Social Media and Relationships

    4. Importance of Relationships in Social Media Systems • All social media systems affect and are affected by the relationships of their users • Social media systems support: 1. explicit interactions based on the exchange of discrete messages 2. indirect interaction through the construction and discussion of shared artifacts • Interactions are within different relationships: friendships ...

  5. How does social media affect relationships?

    Negative effects Managing social media use Dangers of social media Summary Social media can affect all types of relationships in both positive and negative ways. It can help...

  6. How Social Media Affects Relationships (Positive & Negative

    November 30, 2022 Romanticizing other people's relationships is not a new concept (thanks, rom-coms). Unlike a movie script, though, social media shows real couples living real lives. But can looking at these seemingly perfect couples online interfere with our own romantic relationships?

  7. Social Media Use and Its Impact on Relationships and Emotions

    The top three responses for negative effects of social media use on interpersonal relationships were distraction, irritation, decreased quality time with and their significant other in offline settings. An analysis of these, and other, results, along with relative implications, are discussed.

  8. How Does Social Media Affect Relationships?

    Published: September 23, 2022 Social media can connect us, but there are also pitfalls. It may be a problem in your relationship if you and your partner are having conflicts over (or spurred by) social media or are spending less quality time together.

  9. When Partners Display Love on Social Media for All to See

    The couple who Facebooks together, stays together: Facebook self-presentation and relationship longevity among college-aged dating couples. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18 (7 ...

  10. Social Media's Effects on Relationships

    799 people responded to the Relationships Australia October 2019 survey on the impact social media has on your relationships. 71% of our respondents were women, 23% men and three percent did not state their gender or chose 'other' (figure 1).

  11. How Social Media Can Damage Relationships (+ How To Stop It Harming Yours)

    Spend less time on social media. The simplest way to curb the damage social media can do to a relationship is to reduce the time, effort, and attention we give to social media. People spend an average of 135 minutes per day on social media. That is a lot of time to be scrolling, liking, and having one's feelings and perceptions influenced by ...

  12. The Impact of Social Media on Relationships

    Social media allows people to connect to family and friends who might be on the other side of the world. You can connect with people who have similar interests who you might never meet otherwise. In romantic relationships, where couples are long-distance or have to travel often for work, it can help them feel like they are part of each other ...

  13. Effects of Social Media on Interpersonal Relationships

    Social media seems to diminish relationships by negatively impacting mental health and self esteem, and removing cues that are important in relational upkeep and maintaining the idea that the other communicant is a real person. My main focus for the purposes of this paper is how the relationships of college-aged people are affected.

  14. Teen Life on Social Media in 2022: Connection, Creativity and Drama

    Another 23% say these platforms make them feel worse about their own life. Teen girls report encountering some of these pressures at higher rates. Some 45% of girls say they feel overwhelmed because of all the drama on social media, compared with 32% of boys. Girls are also more likely than boys to say social media has made them feel like their ...

  15. Social Media and Relationships

    A few important rules. Research has shown that social media can affect the quality of our relationships. In fact, one survey study with 205 Facebook users demonstrated that a higher level of ...

  16. An Expert Explains How Social Media Affects Relationships

    Consider the Time You Spend Online. Shore explains that the time we spend on social media can affect our ability to communicate with those we care about. "Research shows that, on average, we spend ...

  17. How Social Media Affects Relationships (According to 7 Experts)

    Social media can have positive effects on relationships. It allows relationships to be established and continued from a distance. Countless people create real friendships or start romantic relationships through social media.

  18. The Impact of social media on modern relationships

    Tampa (BLOOM) - Social media has become an integral part of our lives, with billions of people using it to connect with friends and family, share experiences, and even find love. While it has...

  19. Social Media's Affect on Relationships

    Social Media's Affect on Relationships. An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Download presentation by click this link.

  20. 16.3 New Media, the Self, and Relationships

    A key part of interpersonal communication is impression management, and some forms of new media allow us more tools for presenting ourselves than others. Social networking sites (SNSs) in many ways are platforms for self-presentation. Even more than blogs, web pages, and smartphones, the environment on an SNS like Facebook or Twitter ...

  21. Your Brain On Drama: What Social Media Means For Your Personal ...

    Naturally, since drama uses the same mechanisms in the brain as opiates, people can easily become addicted to drama. Like any addiction, you build up a tolerance that continuously requires more to ...

  22. Transformation of Adolescent Peer Relations in the Social Media Context

    Introduction. Recent years have seen a significant rise in research examining adolescent social media use. As these digital tools become nearly ubiquitous among adolescents (Lenhart 2015a), individuals—from investigators to the general public—have shown increasing interest in the impact of social media on adolescent peer relationships.For over 50 years, studies of peer relationships have ...

  23. 9.1 New Media, the Self, and Relationships

    New Media and the Self. The explicit way we become conscious of self-presentation when using new media, social networking sites (SNSs) in particular, may lead to an increase in self-consciousness. You'll recall that in Chapter 1 " Introduction to Communication Studies " we talked about the role that communication plays in helping us meet ...