2021
DOI: 10.1080/19312458.2021.1918654
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Associations between Self-Reports and Device-Reports of Social Networking Site Use: An Application of the Truth and Bias Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
19
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A recent meta-analysis found a modest correlation ( r = .38, 95% confidence interval = [.33, .42]) between self-reported and device-logged digital-technology use, which indicates “that self-report measures of media use may not be a valid stand-in for more objective measures” (Parry et al, 2021, p. 7). Furthermore, several studies have found that the error involved with self-reported digital-technology use is systematically related to crucial participant characteristics, such as gender or age (Ernala et al, 2020; vanden Abeele et al, 2013), volume of digital-technology use (Boase & Ling, 2013; Deng et al, 2019; Ernala et al, 2020; Sewall et al, 2020), and level of mental well-being (Burnell et al, 2021; Sewall et al, 2020; Sewall & Parry, 2021). Thus, given the focus on explicating the association between digital-technology use and psychological distress, it is likely that the self-reported digital-technology use data in the extant longitudinal analyses described above—and the subsequent findings and conclusions—are systematically biased by participant characteristics that are fundamental to the phenomenon under investigation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent meta-analysis found a modest correlation ( r = .38, 95% confidence interval = [.33, .42]) between self-reported and device-logged digital-technology use, which indicates “that self-report measures of media use may not be a valid stand-in for more objective measures” (Parry et al, 2021, p. 7). Furthermore, several studies have found that the error involved with self-reported digital-technology use is systematically related to crucial participant characteristics, such as gender or age (Ernala et al, 2020; vanden Abeele et al, 2013), volume of digital-technology use (Boase & Ling, 2013; Deng et al, 2019; Ernala et al, 2020; Sewall et al, 2020), and level of mental well-being (Burnell et al, 2021; Sewall et al, 2020; Sewall & Parry, 2021). Thus, given the focus on explicating the association between digital-technology use and psychological distress, it is likely that the self-reported digital-technology use data in the extant longitudinal analyses described above—and the subsequent findings and conclusions—are systematically biased by participant characteristics that are fundamental to the phenomenon under investigation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the pandemic situation has naturally impeded data collection from human subjects, much research has relied on survey data 57 . By combining objective tracking of activity, sleep and phone data, with participants' self-report through ecological momentary assessment, the current study provides longitudinal insights, while minimizing reporting biases associated with (retrospective) surveys responses 14,[58][59][60][61]…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Motivations for using user-donated data stem from limitations of other methods. People's perceptions of their own online behavior, for instance, can be unreliable [27,42,9,12]. Additionally, researcher-created accounts on digital platforms may lack the authenticity, diversity and history that real user accounts have.…”
Section: Data Donationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to TikTok's lack of external access (e.g., API) through which to conduct direct measurements, all of this research must be conducted with external data. Prior work has gathered data by scraping the platform (e.g., [2,19,20]), an approach that can only collect a few thousands of videos, relies on publicly available information that are included on the web page's source, and is usually biased towards popular videos; from self-reports (e.g., [18,22,26]), which suffer from known biases in social media research [27,42,9,12]; or from researcher-created accounts [6,35], which is a promising technique, but may yield data that ultimately lacks the authenticity, diversity, and account history that real user accounts would contain.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%