| Literature DB >> 35783764 |
Abstract
By using the nationally representative dataset of China Labor-force Dynamics Survey, this paper explored the relationship between internet-based social media use and Chinese people's homosexuality inclusion. Addressing endogeneity by using an instrumental variable approach, the results of instrumental variable-ordered probit model indicated that individuals' internet-based social media use had a positive and significant association with their homosexuality inclusion. Furthermore, the heterogeneity analysis revealed that the heterogeneous effects of internet-based social media use on homosexuality inclusion caused by income, gender, and region. The homosexuality inclusion of respondents with higher income, respondents of female gender, and respondents located in eastern region of China was found to be more evidently associated with internet-based social media use. The functional mechanism analysis suggested that the number of respondents' LGBT friends mediated the overall relationship between internet-based social media use and homosexuality inclusion. The robustness check showed that the results were robust cross different models. The findings in this paper provide new evidence that the effect of information technology development on individual perception and behavior in Chinese context.Entities:
Keywords: China; inclusion of LGBT; information technology development; internet-based social media; sexual psychology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35783764 PMCID: PMC9243644 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.882206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Descriptive analysis.
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Homosexuality inclusion | Strongly reject = 1 | 17.81 | 719 | ||||
| Somewhat reject = 2 | 49.12 | 1,983 | |||||
| Neutral = 3 | 29.63 | 1,196 | |||||
| Somewhat accept = 4 | 3.24 | 131 | |||||
| Strongly accept = 5 | 0.20 | 8 | |||||
| Internet-based social media use | Never = 1 | 50.66 | 2,045 | ||||
| Rarely = 2 | 13.57 | 548 | |||||
| Occasionally = 3 | 8.87 | 358 | |||||
| Frequently=4 | 26.90 | 1,086 | |||||
| Shopping online | Never = 1 | 53.55 | 2,162 | ||||
| Rarely = 2 | 12.53 | 506 | |||||
| Occasionally = 3 | 18.01 | 727 | |||||
| Frequently = 4 | 15.90 | 642 | |||||
| Gender | Male = 1 | 50.85 | 2,053 | ||||
| Household registration | Rural = 1 | 72.68 | 2,934 | ||||
| Religion | Non-religion = 1 | 91.60 | 3,698 | ||||
| Political status | Party member = 1 | 10.48 | 423 | ||||
| Marital status | Divorced, widowed, and never married = 0 | 6.42 | 259 | ||||
| Married = 1 | 93.58 | 3,778 | |||||
| Social trust | Neighborhood in a same community is very distrustful = 1 | 0.27 | 11 | ||||
| Neighborhood in a same community is somewhat distrustful = 2 | 3.99 | 161 | |||||
| Normal = 3 | 26.55 | 1,072 | |||||
| Neighborhood in a same community is somewhat trustful = 4 | 51.57 | 2,082 | |||||
| Neighborhood in a same community is very trustful = 5 | 17.61 | 711 | |||||
| Region | Eastern region = 1 | 50.98 | 2,058 | ||||
| Central region = 2 | 18.48 | 746 | |||||
| Western region = 3 | 30.54 | 1,233 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Age | Years old | 46.550 | 11.050 | 17 | 80 | 47 | |
| Education | 9.715 | 3.275 | 6 | 21 | 9 | ||
| Education of father | Years of schooling | 5.414 | 4.229 | 0 | 19 | 6 | |
| Education of mother | 3.540 | 4.039 | 0 | 16 | 0 | ||
| Logarithm of income | Total income in 2017 | 10.128 | 1.175 | 5.704 | 14.221 | 10.309 | |
| Number of LGBT friends | 0.048 | 0.250 | 0 | 5 | 0 | ||
| Observations | 4,037 | ||||||
Association between internet-based social media use and homosexuality inclusion (N = 4,037).
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Internet-based social media use | 0.052 | 0.171 |
| (0.018) | (0.043) | |
| Gender | −0.095 | −0.106 |
| (0.037) | (0.037) | |
| Education | 0.032 | 0.040 |
| (0.007) | (0.008) | |
| Age | −0.001 | −0.006 |
| (0.002) | (0.003) | |
| Household registration | 0.069 | 0.048 |
| (0.047) | (0.047) | |
| Religion | 0.071 | 0.084 |
| (0.062) | (0.062) | |
| Political status | −0.039 | −0.014 |
| (0.061) | (0.061) | |
| Education of father | −0.006 | −0.004 |
| (0.005) | (0.005) | |
| Education of mother | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| (0.006) | (0.006) | |
| Logarithm of income | 0.001 | 0.027 |
| (0.018) | (0.020) | |
| Marital status | −0.156 | −0.129 |
| (0.071) | (0.071) | |
| Social trust | −0.028 | −0.021 |
| (0.024) | (0.024) | |
| Regional effect | Yes | Yes |
| Pseudo | 0.008 | - |
| atanhrho_12 | - | −0.165 |
| - | (0.056) | |
| Endogeneity test | Durbin-Wu-Hausman | 4.604 |
| Weak IV identification test | Cragg-Donald Wald F statistic | 171.724 |
| Kleibergen-Paap rk Wald F statistic | 151.937 | |
| Under-identification test | Kleibergen-Paap rk LM | 144.052 |
| Observations | 4,037 | |
Standard errors in parentheses;
p < 0.01,
p < 0.05,
p < 0.1.
Heterogeneous effect of internet-based social media use on homosexuality inclusion.
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Internet-based social media use | 0.206 | 0.062 | 0.105 | 0.202 | 0.219 | 0.141 | 0.104 |
| (0.072) | (0.063) | (0.071) | (0.055) | (0.061) | (0.097) | (0.085) | |
| Gender | −0.231 | −0.034 | - | 0.050 | −0.174 | −0.056 | −0.042 |
| (0.057) | (0.049) | (0.011) | (0.052) | (0.087) | (0.066) | ||
| Education | 0.033 | 0.022 | 0.025 | −0.009 | 0.038 | 0.037 | 0.035 |
| (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.011) | (0.004) | (0.011) | (0.018) | (0.016) | |
| Age | −0.014 | 0.001 | −0.004 | 0.031 | −0.013 | −0.005 | 0.004 |
| (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.067) | (0.004) | (0.007) | (0.006) | |
| Household registration | −0.088 | 0.193 | 0.066 | 0.045 | 0.044 | −0.088 | 0.106 |
| (0.069) | (0.067) | (0.067) | (0.082) | (0.063) | (0.108) | (0.101) | |
| Religion | 0.022 | 0.123 | 0.112 | −0.022 | 0.060 | −0.123 | 0.199 |
| (0.099) | (0.081) | (0.095) | (0.100) | (0.083) | (0.167) | (0.116) | |
| Political status | −0.040 | 0.013 | −0.016 | −0.005 | −0.025 | −0.098 | 0.031 |
| (0.081) | (0.096) | (0.079) | (0.008) | (0.085) | (0.141) | (0.116) | |
| Education of father | −0.012 | −0.001 | −0.003 | 0.013 | −0.020 | −0.011 | 0.023 |
| (0.009) | (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.013) | (0.009) | |
| Education of mother | 0.011 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 0.054 | 0.006 | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| (0.009) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.027) | (0.008) | (0.014) | (0.011) | |
| Logarithm of income | 0.057 | −0.028 | −0.010 | −0.219 | 0.088 | 0.005 | −0.031 |
| (0.054) | (0.029) | (0.031) | (0.102) | (0.031) | (0.041) | (0.034) | |
| Marital status | −0.048 | −0.148 | −0.037 | −0.001 | −0.102 | −0.384 | −0.045 |
| (0.104) | (0.099) | (0.100) | (0.034) | (0.095) | (0.184) | (0.137) | |
| Social trust | −0.069 | 0.003 | −0.045 | 0.202 | −0.007 | −0.093 | −0.010 |
| (0.039) | (0.030) | (0.034) | (0.055) | (0.033) | (0.058) | (0.043) | |
| Regional effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | - | - | - |
| atanhrho_12 | −0.146 | −0.070 | −0.058 | −0.238 | −0.226 | −0.064 | −0.094 |
| (0.086) | (0.081) | (0.089) | (0.073) | (0.077) | (0.126) | (0.113) | |
| Observations | 1,626 | 2,411 | 2,053 | 1,984 | 2,058 | 746 | 1,233 |
Standard errors in parentheses;
p < 0.01,
p < 0.05,
p < 0.1.
Robustness check (N = 4,037).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Shopping online | 0.074 | 0.224 |
| (0.021) | (0.057) | |
| Gender | −0.071 | −0.031 |
| (0.037) | (0.040) | |
| Education | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| (0.008) | (0.009) | |
| Age | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| (0.002) | (0.003) | |
| Household registration | 0.092 | 0.120 |
| (0.047) | (0.048) | |
| Religion | 0.056 | 0.037 |
| (0.062) | (0.062) | |
| Political status | −0.053 | −0.057 |
| (0.061) | (0.061) | |
| Education of father | −0.008 | −0.010 |
| (0.005) | (0.005) | |
| Education of mother | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| (0.006) | (0.006) | |
| Logarithm of income | −0.018 | −0.034 |
| (0.018) | (0.019) | |
| Marital status | −0.167 | −0.167 |
| (0.071) | (0.071) | |
| Social trust | −0.024 | −0.010 |
| (0.024) | (0.024) | |
| Regional effect | Yes | Yes |
| Pseudo | 0.009 | - |
| atanhrho_12 | - | −0.171 |
| - | (0.063) | |
| Observations | 4,037 | |
Standard errors in parentheses;
p < 0.01,
p < 0.05,
p < 0.1.
Mechanism analysis of Bootstrap replications.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||
| Bootstrap | Internet-based social media use → | 0.0180 | 0.0082 | 0.0268 |
| (0.0046) | ||||
|
| ||||
| Bootstrap | Internet-based social media use → | 0.0180 | 0.0087 | 0.0274 |
| (0.0046) | ||||
Bootstrap standard error in parentheses; BootLLCI is the Lower Bound and the BootULCI is the Upper Bound.
p < 0.01. Control variables are controlled in the process of Bootstrap replications.