PURPOSE: Although there is evidence of associations between social media (SM) use and mental well-being among the general population, these associations among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) persons are poorly understood. This study compared the influence of SM experiences on mental well-being between LGB and non-LGB persons. DESIGN AND SETTING: Online cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: National sample of 2408 US adults aged 18 to 30 years. METHOD: We asked participants to provide examples of when SM affected their well-being separately in good and bad ways. We coded, summed, and used rate ratios (RRs) to compare responses of LGB and non-LGB individuals. Thematically similar codes were described and grouped into categories. RESULTS: Most responses described positive SM effects. However, of 6 codes that were significantly more frequent among LGB respondents, only social capital (RR = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-2.12) described a positive effect. Five codes described negative effects of SM for LGB users: negative emotional contagion (RR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.04-1.58), comparison with others (RR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.01-1.62), real-life repercussions (RR = 1.86, 95% CI, 1.18-2.94), envy (RR = 2.49, 95% CI, 1.48-4.19), and need for profile management (RR = 2.32, 95% CI, 1.07-5.03). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that, for LGB persons, gaining social capital from SM is valuable for establishing and maintaining connections. Increased negative SM experiences may pose a risk for the mental well-being of LGB individuals.
PURPOSE: Although there is evidence of associations between social media (SM) use and mental well-being among the general population, these associations among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) persons are poorly understood. This study compared the influence of SM experiences on mental well-being between LGB and non-LGB persons. DESIGN AND SETTING: Online cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: National sample of 2408 US adults aged 18 to 30 years. METHOD: We asked participants to provide examples of when SM affected their well-being separately in good and bad ways. We coded, summed, and used rate ratios (RRs) to compare responses of LGB and non-LGB individuals. Thematically similar codes were described and grouped into categories. RESULTS: Most responses described positive SM effects. However, of 6 codes that were significantly more frequent among LGB respondents, only social capital (RR = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-2.12) described a positive effect. Five codes described negative effects of SM for LGB users: negative emotional contagion (RR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.04-1.58), comparison with others (RR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.01-1.62), real-life repercussions (RR = 1.86, 95% CI, 1.18-2.94), envy (RR = 2.49, 95% CI, 1.48-4.19), and need for profile management (RR = 2.32, 95% CI, 1.07-5.03). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that, for LGB persons, gaining social capital from SM is valuable for establishing and maintaining connections. Increased negative SM experiences may pose a risk for the mental well-being of LGB individuals.
Entities:
Keywords:
LGBT; content analysis; mental health; social media; young adults
Authors: Keith J Horvath; Gene P Danilenko; Mark L Williams; Jane Simoni; K Rivet Amico; J Michael Oakes; B R Simon Rosser Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2012-05
Authors: Michael P Marshal; Sarah S Dermody; Jeewon Cheong; Chad M Burton; Mark S Friedman; Frances Aranda; Tonda L Hughes Journal: J Youth Adolesc Date: 2013-06-20
Authors: César G Escobar-Viera; Darren L Whitfield; Charles B Wessel; Ariel Shensa; Jaime E Sidani; Andre L Brown; Cristian J Chandler; Beth L Hoffman; Michael P Marshal; Brian A Primack Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2018-07-23
Authors: César G Escobar-Viera; Sophia Choukas-Bradley; Jaime Sidani; Anne J Maheux; Savannah R Roberts; Bruce L Rollman Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-06-27
Authors: Gunnhild Johnsen Hjetland; Turi Reiten Finserås; Børge Sivertsen; Ian Colman; Randi Træland Hella; Jens Christoffer Skogen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.614