Social Media and Well-being: A Methodological Perspective

Abstract

Due to the methodological challenges inherent in studying social media use (SMU), as well as the methodological choices that have shaped research into the effects of SMU on well- being, clear conclusions regarding relationships between SMU and well-being remain elusive. We provide a review of five methodological developments poised to provide increased understanding in this domain: (1) the use of longitudinal and experimental designs; (2) the adoption of behavioural (rather than self-report) measures of SMU; (3) a shift away from aggregate use; (4) the emergence of an idiographic media effects paradigm; and (5) the use of formal modelling and machine learning. We focus on how these advances stand to bring us closer to understanding relations between SMU and well-being.

Fuzzy constructs in technology usage scales

“…For example, recent debates have focused on the negative impacts of 'screen time' on children and young adults (UK Parliament, 2018). However, many studies rely on self-reported scales or ask participants to estimate how long they spend using devices or services (known as screen time estimates), which do not align with objective logs of technology use (Ellis, Davidson, Shaw, & Geyer, 2019;Parry et al, 2021;Sewall, Bear, Merranko, & Rosen, 2020;Shaw et al, 2020). While subjective (psychometric) measures suggest that technology is inherently 'bad' for society (Ellis, 2019), pre-registered designs observe near-zero associations between well-being and objective technology use or screen time estimates (e.g., Orben & Przybylski, 2019;Shaw et al, 2020).…”

Online health community for change: Analysis of self-disclosure and social networks of users with depression

“…Given the omnipresence of SNS and their dual effects on well-being, a key research question with practical and theoretical importance is to investigate the various conditions by which SNS may either enhance or interfere with well-being ( Ramamoorthy et al, 2021 ; Valkenburg et al, 2021 ; Hall and Liu, 2022 ; Parry et al, 2022 ). It is to understand why, how, and/or for whom SNS use is associated with well-being ( Valkenburg, 2022 ).…”

“…It is to understand why, how, and/or for whom SNS use is associated with well-being ( Valkenburg, 2022 ). As pointed out by some recent reviews, this line of argument has predominantly relied on cross-sectional designs and self-reported measures of SNS use, which can be subject to recall ( Hall and Liu, 2022 ; Parry et al, 2022 ; Valkenburg, 2022 ). Similarly, other reviews indicate that studies on SNS use tend to focus mainly on quantity (e.g., time spent, frequency of use) without much consideration of users’ content or communication partners ( Yoon et al, 2019 ; Cingel et al, 2022 ; Oliver, 2022 ).…”

“…We focus on a group of engaged users who have been within an online community for half a year, thus enabling within-person observation to assess SNS’ effects. Users’ authentic data also helps to avoid recall bias commonly found in self-reported data ( Cingel et al, 2022 ; Parry et al, 2022 ). Longitudinal within-person analyses can facilitate public health intervention as more people turn to SNS for online support ( Leung et al, 2014 ; Yang et al, 2017 ; van der Schuur et al, 2019 ).…”

To use or be used? The role of agency in social media use and well-being

“…Understanding the extent to which individuals are using social media intentionally or unintentionally may enrich how we describe, study, and assess social media use. As increasing work confirms that social media affects people differently (Beyens et al, 2021;Pouwels et al, 2021), it is clear that using social media can both help and harm people's lives (Orben, 2020;Meier and Reinecke, 2021;Hancock et al, 2022), and that these effects cannot be explained by differences in time spent with social media alone (Przybylski et al, 2020;Parry et al, 2021). Examining the extent to which people use social media intentionally or unintentionally may help explain when social media is most enhancing.…”