| Literature DB >> 36011479 |
Sarah C Boyle1, Sebastian Baez1, Bradley M Trager1, Joseph W LaBrie1.
Abstract
Public health researchers are increasingly interested in the potential relationships between social media (SM) use, well-being, and health behavior among adolescents. However, most research has assessed daily SM time via self-report survey questions, despite a lack of clarity around the accuracy of such reports given the current tendency of youth to access SM on multiple electronic devices and cycle between multiple SM platforms on a daily basis (i.e., platform swinging). The current study investigates the potential for systematic reporting biases to skew findings. Three hundred and twenty incoming college students downloaded software on their computers, tablets, and smartphones to track their active use of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat over a 2-week surveillance period and then self-reported their average daily minutes on each platform immediately after. Larger proportions of students over-estimated than under-estimated their use, with the largest overestimations found on the most heavily used platforms. Females logged significantly more SM time and were less accurate in reporting than were males and, independently, the likelihood of substantial inaccuracies in reporting total SM time and time on most individual platforms increased with each additional SM platform participants reported using. Findings demonstrate that self-reported estimates of SM time among adolescents in the age of SM platform swinging are prone to substantial error and may lead to biased conclusions about relationships between variables. Alternative measurement approaches are suggested to improve the validity of future research in this area.Entities:
Keywords: adolescence; objective assessment; platform swinging; self-report assessment; social media use; validity
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011479 PMCID: PMC9408042 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169847
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Percentages of the sample self-reporting versus logging active use of each SM.
Figure 2Number (#) of SM platforms “used” assessed via self-report and objectively logged time.
Objectively assessed and self-reported daily minutes of active SM use and discrepancies between measures overall and by sex.
| Overall ( | Males ( | Females ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Facebook A | 11.49 (18.26) ***C, D | 10.34 (20.51) | 12.19 (16.75) |
| Twitter B | 14.32 (33.65) ***C, D | 14.25 (29.01) | 14.36 (36.20) |
| Instagram C | 34.42 (37.49) ***A, B | 27.60 (28.12) | 38.58 (41.71) |
| Snapchat D | 41.75 (43.09) ***A, B | 35.65 (36.43) | 45.46 (46.37) |
| Total SM | 101.99 (91.70) | 87.84 (75.85) | 110.60 (99.32) |
|
| |||
| Facebook A | 18.28 (30.12) ***C, D | 17.00 (29.58) | 19.07 (30.49) |
| Twitter B | 20.69 (32.75) ***C, D | 18.93 (29.35) | 21.76 (34.69) |
| Instagram C | 49.96 (52.12) ***A, B | 31.56 (27.82) | 61.21 (59.82) |
| Snapchat D | 57.51 (68.08) ***A, B | 42.31 (43.18) | 66.80 (78.21) |
| Total SM | 146.38 (129.54) | 109.80 (87.01) | 168.74 (145.44) |
|
| |||
| Facebook A | −6.83 (28.62) *** | −6.65 (27.76) ** | −6.93 (29.21) *** |
| Twitter B | −6.34 (35.68) ** | −4.70 (28.89) | −7.34 (39.29) ** |
| Instagram C | −15.53 (55.28) *** | −3.95 (29.72) | −22.60 (65.28) *** |
| Snapchat D | −15.98 (65.10) *** | −6.66 (37.25) | −21.67 (76.87) *** |
| Total SM | −44.60 (137.79) *** | −21.95 (78.50) ** | −58.45 (162.44) *** |
Notes. Objective and Self-Report Measure rows in the overall column flag significant differences between time spent on individual SM platforms which are labeled A–D (Facebook A, Twitter B, Instagram C, and Snapchat D). The Meandiff rows at the bottom of the table indicate significant mean differences between Objective and Self-Report Measures for each platform and overall (computed as Objective minus Self-report) are flagged. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 throughout).
Bivariate correlations between retrospectively self-reported and objectively assessed daily minutes spent on SM among all participants and self-reported users overall and by sex.
| Overall | By Sex | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 0.39 *** | 0.43 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.81 | |
| 0.42 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.38 *** | 1.39 | |
| 0.27 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.21 ** | 2.22 ** | |
| Snapchat | 0.32 *** | 0.57 *** | 0.32 *** | 2.70 ** |
| All SM | 0.26 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.16 * | 3.79 *** |
Notes. Z Sex Rdiff refers to tests of the difference between the male and female specific correlation coefficients; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Percentages of students under-reporting, accurately reporting, and over-reporting their social media use by platform and across all platforms among all participants.
Multinomial regression models predicting the odds of self-report classification (relative to Accurate) for each SM platform as a function of participant sex and total number of SM platforms used.
| Platform | Outcome | Predictors | OR | 95% CI [OR] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under-estimator | Female Sex | 0.89 | 0.39–2.03 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 1.01 | 0.59–1.72 | ||
| Over-estimator | Female Sex | 1.36 | 0.79–2.33 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 0.96 | 0.69–1.35 | ||
| Under-estimator | Female Sex | 1.08 | 0.44–2.67 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 6.07 ** | 2.14–17.21 | ||
| Over-estimator | Sex | 1.19 | 0.67–2.13 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 7.94 ** | 4.10–15.37 | ||
| Under-estimator | Female Sex | 1.22 | 0.64–2.31 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 1.06 | 0.72–1.57 | ||
| Over-estimator | Sex | 2.15 ** | 1.29–3.59 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 1.51 ** | 1.08–2.10 | ||
| Snapchat | ||||
| Under-estimator | Female Sex | 1.92 * | 1.01–3.64 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 1.69 * | 1.08–2.66 | ||
| Over-estimator | Female Sex | 2.26 ** | 1.35–3.79 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 1.43 * | 1.03–2.00 | ||
| Total SM | ||||
| Under-estimator | Sex | 1.28 | 0.63–2.58 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 1.38 | 0.91–2.08 | ||
| Over-estimator | Sex | 1.43 | 0.78–2.62 | |
| Number of SM platforms used | 1.82 ** | 1.26–2.60 |
Notes. OR refers to Odds Ratio and 95% CI of [OR] refers the 95% confidence interval for the Odds Ratio; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.