| Literature DB >> 35805753 |
Sijia Guo1, Kun Bi2, Liwei Zhang3, He Jiang4.
Abstract
Flourishing indicates one's emotional status and functioning level and is essential for adolescents' further development. Adolescents' social media use has been rising, with various potential effects on their development. Therefore, in this study, we shifted the emphasis from a traditional deficit-based approach to a strength-based approach by exploring how social comparison and social media usage influence Chinese adolescents' flourishing. Altogether, 786 Chinese adolescents aged 12-19 years completed a self-report questionnaire. The results indicate that (1) both social media social comparison of ability (SCA) and social media social comparison of opinion (SCO) have no significant effect on Chinese adolescents' flourishing; (2) integration into social routine has a positive indirect effect on the relationship between social media social comparison and flourishing; and (3) social integration and emotional connection negatively affect the relationship between social media social comparison and flourishing. These findings highlight the interaction between social media social comparison and social media usage. Furthermore, the results of this study clarify that the potentially harmful effect of social media usage on adolescents' flourishing is not determined by the frequency or time spent on using social media, but how much adolescents are connected to or invested in social media.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; flourishing; social comparison; social media use
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805753 PMCID: PMC9266214 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19138093
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The theoretical model and research hypotheses.
Percentages of demographic characteristics (n = 786).
| Characteristics | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Female | 49% |
| Male | 51% |
|
| |
| Not married | 21% |
| Married | 79% |
|
| |
| Lower than the top 20% | 73% |
| Top 20% | 27% |
|
| |
| NA | 46% |
| 0.5–1.5 h | 38% |
| 2–3 h | 10% |
| >3 h | 6% |
|
| |
| NA | 23% |
| 0.5–1.5 h | 51% |
| 2–3 h | 18% |
| >3 h | 8% |
Figure 2The standardized SEM results of social media social comparison, social media use integration, and flourishing. Note: Non-significant links, control variables, and error terms are omitted from the figure. *** p < 0.01.
Standardized SEM results.
| Predictors | ->SMSC-A | ->SMSC-O | ->ISR | ->SIEC | ->FLO | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMSC-A | 0.21 *** | 0.33 *** | −0.07 | |||||||||||
| SMSC-O | 0.32 *** | 0.20 *** | 0.08 | |||||||||||
| ISR | 0.16 *** | |||||||||||||
| SIEC | −0.16 *** | |||||||||||||
| 0.26 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.00 | 0.08 | −0.33 *** | ||||||||||
| Male | 0.07 | 0.01 | −0.00 | 0.08 | 0.04 | |||||||||
| Married | 0.07 | −0.04 | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0.11 * | |||||||||
| Age (years) | −0.00 | 0.04 | 0.03 | −0.02 | −0.05 | |||||||||
| Academic ranking—upper 20% | 0.06 | −0.00 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.10 | |||||||||
| SVWD | 0.00 | −0.07 | 0.01 | −0.00 | −0.07 | |||||||||
| SVWE | −0.00 | 0.05 | 0.24 *** | 0.25 *** | 0.05 | |||||||||
| Sleeping hours | −0.10 | −0.09 | −0.08 | 0.00 | 0.16 *** | |||||||||
| Factor loadings for indicators of the latent variable | ||||||||||||||
| Flourishing-> | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | F11 | F12 | F13 | F14 |
| Factor loading | 0.72 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.43 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.42 *** | 0.67 *** | 0.68 *** | 0.69 *** | 0.81 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.68 *** | 0.78 *** | 0.78 *** | 0.67 *** |
| Model-fit index | ||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| RMSEA = 0.057, with 90% CI = (0.05−0.06) | ||||||||||||||
| CFI = 92; TLI = 90 | ||||||||||||||
Note *** p < 0.01, * p < 0.5.