Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022, Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
The rapid development of social networking sites (SNSs) has affected adolescents’ well-being with great impact on social experience. In this scoping review, we aimed to map out what is known from the most recent literature about adolescents’ emotional well-being and the role of emotional regulation skills in preventing problematic SNS use. We used the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework, and we based the study selection procedure on the PRISMA process. Then, we selected 52 English and peer-reviewed papers from PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Wiley Online Library, and Web of Science.
We found both positive and negative effects of SNS use on adolescents’ emotions with online self-presentation and social comparison as key mechanisms to explain differences in subjective well-being. The risk of developing problematic use of SNSs is influenced by time spent on SNSs, active or passive use, and adolescents’ social and emotional skills.
This review suggested the importance of emotional experiences and social support in both in-person and online interactions. Future research is needed to provide the basis for a better forthcoming classification of problematic SNS use.
Keywords: Adolescents, Social networking sites, Emotions, Self-presentation, Emotion regulation, Social comparison
With the rapid development of information technologies, social networking sites (SNSs) play an increasingly important role in providing new interpersonal communication channels [1]. According to Kuss and Griffhits [2], SNSs are «virtual communities where users can create individual public profiles, interact with real-life friends, and meet other people based on shared interests.» For the “digital native” [3] generation, online interaction and support may be as effective as face-to-face contact [4••], and life without digital communication is inconceivable [5]. The first SNS was SixDegrees in 1997, but it would not be until 2003 that the first social network, MySpace, would be known worldwide.
Despite the large number of studies that have investigated SNSs, there continues to be a gap in our understanding of why young people use SNSs (for a review: [6]). Early research has focused on digital platforms that exhibit similar characteristics for unraveling types of user behaviors. For example, Brandtzæg and Heim [7] highlighted that people who choose to use blogs as a medium of immediate social interaction have as a commonality the desire to pour out their feelings. Also, they feel a sense of connection with new and old friends. Other studies have shown that a sense of ownership, visibility, and shared interests [8] are essential for adolescents’ development. In particular, young girls revealed that they use SNSs to comment on photos, videos, or updates of others, whereas young males were more likely to use SNSs to play games [9].
Previous research has disagreed on the effect of SNSs on users’ well-being, and the modality of use (e.g., passive or active use) could be a discriminant factor [10, 11, 12]. Moderate use of SNSs has been found to be associated with greater social support [13], socialization [14], participation in public and political life [15], and affirmation of one’s online identity [16]. However, Herrero et al. [17] indicated that social support predicts later addiction to the smartphone and that smartphone addiction decreases social support over time. Further, adolescents do not perceive a real difference between online and “physical” social support [4••]. Despite these evidences, the problematic use of SNS is not yet recognized in the official clinical classifications (i.e., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 [18] and International Classification of Disease-11 [19]; DSM-5 and ICD-11). It is suggested as a potential condition that requires further investigations based on the purposed criteria for gaming disorder and gambling disorder in ICD-11 [20•].
Based on previous research [21]—applying the Goffman [22] dramaturgical model also on digital interactions—SNS users imagine themselves in front of a great audience and create a self-image that is shared daily on their profiles. The younger users post their great moments online―but not their negative moments, experiences, emotions, and so on―so that they can show the best of themselves [21]. The social comparison with these unreachable models of perfection and happiness can have an unfavorable impact on younger users’ life satisfaction and mental health outcomes [23, 24].
Indeed, excessive use of new technologies may increase psychological distress in terms of loneliness, depression, anxiety, and insomnia [25, 26, 27]. The flow experience of SNS use has been indicated as a key risk factor in the development of addiction due to emotion avoidance [28•], especially for vulnerable populations (e.g., adolescents) showing marked novelty seeking, low self-control [29], and difficulties in offline emotional relationships [30].
Thompson [31] defined emotional regulation as «the extrinsic and intrinsic process responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal features to accomplish one’s goal.» According to the Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution Model (I-PACE; [32••]), deficits in emotion regulation skills may represent a risk factor for substantial and non-substantial addiction [33, 34]. Difficulties in emotion regulation were found to be directly and indirectly associated with problematic social media use in a group of Italian adolescents [35]. Moreover, this theoretical model acknowledges the contribution of mood regulation in lessening the development of internet-use disorders [36].
Younger people who are more engaged in SNS flow may exhibit the fear of missing out (FOMO), which is described as the “pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent” [37]. FOMO is a predictor of smartphone addiction [38] and, in particular, phubbing as its special form. This refers to the act of snubbing others in social relations by focusing on one’s smartphone instead of having a conversation in person [38]. Adolescents with high levels of parental phubbing showed problematic smartphone use, depression symptoms, and low self-esteem [39•, 40•].
To date, a number of studies have evaluated the impact of SNSs on users’ emotional well-being [41], but the results are still controversial. Hence, a scoping review—using a systematic approach—may be valuable in providing a broad view on the topic, with a focus on the more recent studies. Therefore, we decided to apply the scoping review technique in order to identify the key concepts/definitions mostly used in the literature so that we could refer to the emotional well-being among adolescents who use SNSs. Our goal included mapping research activity within this specifically delimited area of study and identifying the gaps that may exist within the related literature.
This scoping review may serve as a systematization of the latest literature (i.e., the last 20 years) from a new point of view. Indeed, even though previous reviews concerned the general well-being among adolescent users of SNSs, the present contribution aims to provide a summary of the previous findings specifically related to emotional well-being. This study can be understood as a specific focus on a broad problem because it focuses on emotions as a specific variable instead of generic psychopathological implications (e.g., anxiety and depression). Consistent with this purpose, a scoping review is the most appropriate and robust methodology for our research conduct [42].
We structured this review according to Arksey and O’Malley’s [43] methodological framework. A scoping study can provide a rigorous and transparent method of research for mapping research findings compared with a systematic review, even if it is less likely to seek the quality assessment of included studies and the protection against bias risks. According to the required procedure, we adopted the following steps for conducting our scoping study: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection, according to the PRISMA statement [44]; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.
The aim of this scoping review was to map the current literature about the use of SNSs and emotional user experience among adolescent population, identify gaps that may exist within the literature, and consider implications for future research. Specific questions to be addressed included the following: (1) What is known from the existing literature about adolescents’ use of SNSs and its implication on their emotions; and (2) what knowledge is currently available on the role of emotional skills in preventing problematic SNS use?
To find papers concerning adolescents’ emotional experience during the use of SNSs, we searched the following keywords in both the title and abstract: (1) social networking sites OR social media; (2) emotion OR affect OR mood OR feeling OR emotive; and (3) adolescent OR teenager OR young adults OR teen OR youth. We searched the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Wiley Online Library, and Web of Science. To identify most of the available literature, according to the recent diffusion of SNSs, we screened papers published in the last 20 years. According to our eligibility criteria, we selected the following: (1) English full-text papers; (2) papers published in peer-review journals; and (3) papers focused on emotional experiences in adolescence (i.e., from 12 to 18 years old). However, given that the samples often had ranges conflicting with ours, we also included those studies whose samples’ mean age diverged by max 2 SD from our upper margin. Conversely, we excluded the following: (1) dissertation thesis, abstract, and books; (2) studies that referred to other age groups (i.e., children, adults, and old adults); (3) studies that referred to psychiatric illness; and (4) studies related to experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic; we decided not to consider the studies specifically referring to the pandemic because the internet was the only available means of socialization. It would be inadequate to compare results derived from radically different contexts. We also excluded (5) papers not focused directly on emotions as a variable. The study-selection procedure has been shown in the Fig. 1 , which was based on the PRISMA statement [44].
PRISMA flow chart for steps of scoping review
We analyzed an initial pool of 2387 papers. According to our eligibility criteria, and after deleting 13 duplicates, we screened 2374 papers. Among these studies, 483 were dissertation theses or abstracts, 96 were written in others languages, and the remaining were irrelevant; that is, they did not meet the eligibility criteria. For example, 32 of them were studies conducted on psychiatric adolescents. Finally, we selected 52 papers. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA study-selection process.
Based on Arksey and O’Malley’s [43] methodological framework, we summarized or charted the 52 selected papers in Table Table1, 1 , which briefly notes studies’ relevant results, sample characteristics, instruments, and methodologies.
Studies characteristics (N = 52)
T2 = 1577 (14.76 ± 1.41)
U undetectable; N.A. not applicable
The 52 included studies were conducted in various countries (i.e., Italy, Germany, Turkey, and the USA). According to the timing of SNSs’ worldwide deployment, most of these have been conducted in the last 10 years. Therefore, using a time range of 20 years has shown to be a reasonable choice for a temporal range large enough to include most of the available literature on the topic. We gathered findings from 44,880 participants (range 8–10,563; Mage = 15.19; SD = 1.24). The most used psychometric instrument to evaluate SNS addictive behavior was the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS; [45]), but some studies used generic scales for measuring internet addiction, such as the Young Internet Addiction Test (YIAT; [46]), the Smartphone Addiction Scale [47], and ad hoc questionnaires (for more information, see Table Table1 1 ).
In the current review, we found various positive effects related to how adolescents use SNSs, especially in socialization, sensation seeking, and entertainment [48, 49]. The most important benefit came from the social support provided by online friends or followers. Cole et al. [13] highlighted that social support, both in-person and online, could offset some of the negative consequences of peers’ victimization and reduce depressive symptoms through the search for online positive emotion [50]. Indeed, the researchers showed that online social support is less redundant than in-person support among those who already have supportive in-person relationships. Online flow could reduce the feelings of loneliness among adolescents who use SNSs so that they can enhance their existing relationships or look for new friends [25]. Adolescents reported positive feelings when they received a “like” for their online contents, but they sometimes described these feelings as “false,” “unreal,” and “fleeting” [51].
The use of a mobile phone, rather than a personal computer, makes it easier to access SNSs and establish constant connection with friends [52]. Online interactions showed a positive emotional effect on prosocial behavior [53] and allowed for the formation of groups and online communities [54]. Moreover, the SNSs could generate a positive emotional contagion due to the vision of positive digital contents [55••]. Indeed, Vossen and Valkenburg [56] highlighted that social media use was related with higher cognitive and affective empathy, showing an increased ability to understand and share the feelings of their peers. Finally, these findings suggested that lonely people who have great social skills could improve their emotional well-being on SNSs.
The online relationships are characterized by feedback for the published contents, especially for shared personal photos and videos. Thanks to the various available communication mediums (e.g., photos, texts, and videos), adolescents perceived more authenticity in self-presentation [55••]. Recent research has shown [57] that self-construction and distance from others are mostly influenced by receiving positive feedbacks. The “like” mechanism can have an impact on self-acceptance or social isolation and control the association between personality and digital identity. Thus, feedback (“likes”) can be interpreted as measures of self-worth [55••, 58]. However, Shankleman et al. [55••] underlined that adolescents used SNSs to express their distinctiveness and to maintain a sense of continuity of identity over time.
Several studies [10, 59] have suggested that social comparison is a key mechanism to explain differences in subjective well-being. This comparison was predicted through the passive use of SNSs. In addition, the intensive use of SNSs could reduce self-concept clarity [60]. Recent literature [57, 61] has also shown gender differences in online self-presentation: female adolescents were likely to modify their online self-presentation by editing their photos, which led to lower self-acceptance, including reduced body and life satisfaction [10, 62]. Indeed, SNSs make online social status comparisons easier, with negative emotional consequences [63], regardless of explicit negative comments [64]. For example, adolescent girls undergoing treatment for obesity «undertook self-presentation strategies to conceal weight-related content such as avoiding showing close-up photos of their bodies and not posting images of unhealthy ‘fattening’ foods» [61]. Comparing themselves to others predicted objectified body consciousness [65], increased anxiety symptoms as well as compulsive profile-checking behaviors [51] for both adolescent girls and boys [66•], and amplified the gap between self-beliefs and perceived peer standards of beauty [67]. Finally, young males who reported speaking to online friends regarding their personal problems described greater levels of psychological well-being [68].
Use of SNSs can also have negative effects [63, 69]. When the SNSs are used to escape from the real social world, avoiding negative emotions and in-person interactions, feelings of loneliness and the risk of SNS addiction may be high [25, 70]. Some research has also suggested that electronic intrusiveness is associated with in-person dating violence perpetration [71]. The online risks were associated with both active and passive use [72–74]. However, passive SNS use (i.e., watching videos) was associated with increasing anxious and depressive symptoms and a substantial reduction of life satisfaction, whereas active use (i.e., posting online) was associated with rising users’ well-being and life satisfaction, especially among young girls [75]. In particular, feelings of depression seemed to trigger higher SNS involvement for girls, and anxious symptoms seemed to trigger higher SNS involvement for boys [76].
Teenagers themselves perceived the SNSs to be a threat to their mental well-being [77]. Many adolescents used various strategies to avoid negative feedback, including posting less content than their peers [51] because of the fear of being judged [55••]. Indeed, Marin-Lopez et al. [78] showed that people who use more emotional online content are more exposed to the risk of cybervictimization (e.g., cyberbullying). SNS communities might generate alienation and ostracism [54]. More lonely adolescents disclosed their personal and relationship information than adolescents with satisfied physical relationships [79]. Male and older adolescents, who set their SNS profile as public, have a larger online network size, and having strangers on an SNS friend list increases self-disclosure [80]. Lastly, the amount of time spent on SNSs may affect the risk of addictive behavior and insomnia [55••, 81], especially for adolescents with a dysfunctional attachment to parents and peers [55••, 82]. Some research has highlighted that male and older teenagers are more stressed by SNS use and that they also feel they spend too much time on such platforms [55••, 83], thus showing lower self-esteem and increased instances of depressed mood [84, 85]. FOMO is a predictor of SNS use and resulting in detriment of in-person relationships (i.e., phubbing) [76, 86].
Emotional regulation skills may be important targets in preventing problematic SNS use [1, 87]. In particular, some research has found an association between moderate levels of SNS disorders and deficits in emotional regulation in both directions [35, 50, 88]. Indeed, access to SNSs may serve to counter emotions like boredom and anger [55••, 88, 89]. Spada and Marino [89] showed that emotion regulation has a direct negative effect on problematic internet disorders among adolescents. Also, the ability to recover quickly from negative emotions inversely predicted SNS addiction [1]. The expression of negative emotions was more reactive in positive than in negative online interactions [90]. Moreover, based on Marin-Lopez et al. [78], great levels of online emotional skills protected adolescents from cybervictimization and cyberperpetration. However, other research [91] has shown that worse emotion recognition predicted SNS addiction.
Finally, two recent studies [92, 93] did not show agreement about the differences in emotional sharing between various SNSs. Generally, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat were mostly used to share positive emotions; conversely, Whatsapp, Twitter, and Messenger were mostly used to share negative emotions. In conclusion, the risk of problematic SNS use was higher in adolescents with deficits in emotional regulation [66•].
Of the 52 selected papers, 26 are recent findings (last 5 years). Most of them are cross-sectional studies which investigated the relationship between problematic SNS use and indicators of psychological disease (e.g., anxiety and depression). These results are essentially in line with prior evidences, but they also improve the previous point of view with new studied variables. Moreover, 5 of the 6 reviews are recent: this shows the urgency of results’ systematization in order to finally propose a nomothetic classification of the disorder in the main diagnostic manuals [20•].
This scoping review included 52 papers that studied the emotional experiences associated with SNS use during adolescence. Most of the articles were published in the last 10 years. This has shown that choosing a time range of 20 years has offered a sufficiently broad perspective in offering a complete review on the subject. The most used psychometric scale for evaluating SNS addictive behavior is the BSMAS, but the use of various scales in the selected papers has highlighted its ambiguous theoretical definition. In fact, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5; [18]) has not yet definitively included SNS addiction. Further research, as well as the present scoping review, may be worthwhile in increasing and systematizing both empirical and theoretical knowledge, leading to progress in diagnostic classification with consequent clinical implications, such as the individuation of risk and protective factors.
Some studies have shown the positive effects of SNS use for the socialization and reduction of psychological symptoms [49, 50]. The mobile devices increased the frequency of SNS use [52], and online social support was less redundant than in-person support [94]. Indeed, online friends might be more numerous than offline ones, and feedback from others (i.e., “likes” and comments) may be more numerous in online spaces than in physical interactions [51]. Adolescents who shared their emotions on SNS improved their cognitive and affective empathy [56] using online communities to improve their social skills [54] with positive emotional contagion [55••]. Based on these findings, online relationships—also increased by the portability of smartphones that establish a constant sense of closeness [95]—could be a valuable source of positive emotions capable of improving interactions with old and new friends. As a practical implication, planning a common set of rules for civil coexistence in online environments is crucial in encouraging healthy and enriching relationships. Formal and informal learning contexts, such as schools and cultural associations, should promote opportunities to address these issues by exploiting the internet resources and being a better online citizen.
However, SNSs are also an online space providing wider opportunities for adolescent users to interact with other peers. According to previous research [57], the “like” mechanism can be a negative emotional experience when the published contents (i.e., photos and videos) do not receive the expected feedback. Both self-acceptance and self-worth [58] might be negatively affected by receiving a few likes on one’s own photos [51], even if the young males disclosing their own personal problems receive good online support [68]. As a matter of fact, feedback from others, especially from peers, is particularly significant during adolescence. Also, the distress caused by a lack of approval is a risk factor for emotion regulation, psychopathology, and life satisfaction [10, 63, 64], especially when referring to body consciousness and body perfect ideal issues [55••, 65, 67]. As a clinical implication, self-esteem–enhancement programs could prevent the development of psychiatric symptoms, including addictive behaviors and emotional consequences. Some research [59] has shown that online social comparison is a key mechanism in explaining the impact on subjective well-being. Because people look at the profiles of successful others, their own life can never live up to these unattainable models. Hence, clinical practice with adolescents (who are also creating their identity through comparison with peers’ online profiles) should pay attention to their online activities because these experiences are as impactful as those that are in person. Young girls appeared to be more vulnerable to these risks than boys [57]. As a possible explanation, adolescent girls are more interested in social interactions than boys. Further empirical observations are necessary to study the gender differences in the motivation to stay online (e.g., using a between-subjects design).
When SNSs are used to escape from the real social world, avoiding in-person interactions and negative emotions, the risk of developing SNS addiction increased [25, 72, 75, 81, 84]. As a possible explanation, the online world is a space where in-person social interactions are avoided, thus preventing them from developing new social skills. As a result, users keep their difficulties to themselves by continuing to isolate themselves from social reality. On a clinical level, it is important to prevent social isolation and social withdrawal when working in groups and practicing social skills. Research has also shown differences in gender-related SNS addiction: Depressive symptoms triggered higher SNS engagement for girls, whereas anxious symptoms triggered higher SNS engagement for boys [76]. As a practical implication, online contents related to anxious and depressive symptoms should receive more attention to prevent the development of psychological problems. For example, consideration for negative emotional content could be an external trigger for self-evaluation. Indeed, people who used more emotional online content received heightened exposure to the risk of cybervictimization [78]. Also, lonely older male teenagers shared more personal information, especially when they used a public profile with a large number of unknown online friends [79, 80]. Based on these findings, male adolescents who are lacking social skills are likely to try to overcome their own difficulties through virtual relationships that provide an illusory sense of protection, especially with unknown others. Therefore, it would be desirable to increase involvement in positive social learning experiences for adolescents, even within formal institutions such as schools, in order to prevent problematic internet use and possible social withdrawal. People who experienced dysfunctional attachment to parents and peers [82] and FOMO spent more time engaged in SNS flow, regardless of their social relationships (i.e., phubbing) [76, 83, 86]. Based on these foregoing facts, psychologists should pay attention to adolescents’ online identity and shared posts in order to form a complete picture of their social resources. To improve the knowledge centered on communication skills in relevant contexts, future research could focus on the differences between online and offline interactions.
Lastly, we reviewed papers examining emotion regulation patterns in SNSs. Users who are able to recover quickly from negative emotion, as well as report great levels of online emotional skills, showed less risk of developing an addictive behavior [1, 29, 50, 66•, 87–89]. SNS users take advantage of emotion-related skills to widen their chances of meeting new friends. However, the results are controversial. Indeed, previous research [90] has highlighted that positive emotion expressions were more reactive than negative ones in online interactions. As a possible explanation, negative emotion expressions may be especially impactful for adolescents’ online reputation. Working on social skills may be beneficial in achieving improved online prosocial behavior that could prevent cybervictimizations. Additional research [91] has not found any association between emotional recognition and SNS addiction. Specifically, according to the biopsychosocial model, emotional dysfunction may not be enough to explain the SNS addiction process, which involves a number of factors. Further research is needed to overcome these inconsistencies. Finally, no agreement emerged regarding the positive or negative prevalence of emotional content in various online platforms [92].
In conclusion, in the present scoping review, we aimed to elucidate gaps in the literature regarding the impact of SNSs on users’ emotional well-being. Moderate use of these online spaces could serve as an avenue for improving social relationships through the provided online social support from friends and followers. However, excessive use could be a risk factor for SNS addiction, especially when SNS became a space to escape from emotions. Further research should study constructs related to emotional well-being in order to improve theoretical knowledge and develop training programs for practicing online social skills. With regards to the role of emotion regulation in protecting against problematic SNS use, emotional and social skills could increase adolescents’ ability to establish satisfactory relationships in both physical and online contexts. Socially competent adolescents may be able to recognize the boundaries of online information-sharing practice, thus receiving social support without violating their personal privacy.
The results of this scoping review should be interpreted with caution because of some limitations. The first notable limitation is that the data consisted of only 52 empirical studies published in peer-reviewed international journals in English in the last 20 years. Furthermore, we selected the most recent studies on the emotional well-being of adolescents using SNSs. However, we could not identify possible differences in the purpose of SNS use among adolescents with respect to age subgroups because of the limited data. Further research should expand on age differences in order to determine the distribution of SNS addiction across different adolescent age subgroups because variations in the stage of maturity are not uncommon. Likewise, the results of the study do raise a concern as to whether the methodology used in the examined studies (i.e., cross-sectional, longitudinal, and review) might introduce bias. However, analyzing these biases goes beyond the objectives of a scoping review. Further research should consider these methodological aspects and discuss the effect sizes of the detected associations.
In addition, we selected generic search keywords (i.e., emotion, affect, mood, and feeling); as a result, some documents focusing on specific emotions (e.g., happiness, fear, and anger) could have been excluded. Consistent with the wide objective of the present scoping review, we chose this solution as the most effective one. Lastly, in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley [43], we used a scoping review to explore the current knowledge about a very broad and complex topic, but this method has some well-known limits. When the number of papers analyzing specific emotions increases, future studies should summarize the theoretical and empirical evidences by means of systematic review or meta-analysis.
This scoping review provided initial evidences to understand the implications of SNS use on adolescents’ emotional well-being. The goal was to provide a review of more recent theoretical and empirical studies in order to add to the knowledge on this topic and provide a basis for a better forthcoming classification of SNS addiction (or problematic use). Our results suggested the importance of emotional experiences and social support in both in-person and online relationships. According to the great prevalence of SNSs in modern life, these findings encourage further investigations into psychological needs and disorders connected to SNS use, with the aim of developing a scientific knowledge base regarding this widespread behavior among adolescents.
All human and animal studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Participants accepted an informed consent.
Conflict of InterestsThe authors declare no competing interests.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Internet Use Disorders.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1. Nie J, Li W, Long J, Zeng P, Wang P, Lei L. Emotional resilience and social network site addiction: the mediating role of emotional expressivity and the moderating role of type D personality. Curr Psychol. 2020.10.1007/s12144-020-00745-w
2. Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD. Online social networking and addiction–a review of the psychological literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011; 8 (9):3528–52. doi: 10.3390/ijerph8093528. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon. 2001; 9 (5):1–6. doi: 10.1108/10748120110424816. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. •• Colasante T, Lin L, De France K, Hollenstein T. Any time and place? Digital emotional support for digital natives. Am Psychol. 2020.10.1037/amp0000708. An innovative positive point of view for online social support in digital natives [PubMed]
5. Singh A, Halgamuge MN, Moses B. An analysis of demographic and behavior trends using social media: Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Soc Netw Anal. 2019:87–108. 10.1016/B978-0-12-815458-8.00005-0
6. Baker DA, Algorta GP. The relationship between online social networking and depression: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2016; 19 (11):638–648. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0206. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Brandtzæg PB, Heim J. Why People Use Social Networking Sites. 3rd International Conference on Online Communities and Social Computing, San Diego. 2009. p. 143–52. 10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_16
8. Sussman S, Pokhrel P, Ashmore RD, Brown BB. Adolescent peer group identification and characteristics: a review of the literature. Addict Behav. 2007; 32 (8):1602–27. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.11.018. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Gray L. Exploring how and why young people use social networking sites. Educ Psychol Pract. 2018; 34 (2):175–194. doi: 10.1080/02667363.2018.1425829. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Frison E, Eggermont S. Exploring the relationships between different types of Facebook use, perceived online social support, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2015; 34 (2):153–171. doi: 10.1177/0894439314567449. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Chen W, Fan C-Y, Liu Q-X, Zhou Z-K, Xie X-C. Passive social network site use and subjective well-being: a moderated mediation model. Comput Hum Behav. 2016; 64 :507–514. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.038. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Escobar-Viera CG, Shensa A, Bowman ND, Sidani JE, Knight J, James AE, et al. Passive and active social media use and depressive symptoms among United States adults. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2018; 21 (7):437–443. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2017.0668. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Cole DA, Nick EA, Zelkowitz RL, Roeder KM, Spinelli T. Online social support for young people: does it recapitulate in-person social support; can it help? Comput Hum Behav. 2017; 68 :456–464. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.058. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N. A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis. Psychol Sci. 2017; 28 (2):204–215. doi: 10.1177/0956797616678438. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Boulianne S. Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Inf Commun Soc. 2015; 18 (5):524–538. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Toma CL. Affirming the self through online profiles: beneficial effects of social networking sites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2010.
17. Herrero J, Urueña A, Torres A, Hidalgo A. Socially connected but still isolated: smartphone addiction decreases social support over time. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2017; 37 (1):73–88. doi: 10.1177/0894439317742611. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. American Psychiatric Association. Diagn Stat Manual of MentDisord. 5th ed. Washington, DC2013. 19. World Health Organization. 2019ICD-11: International classification of diseases (11th revision).20. • Brand M, Rumpf H-J, Demetrovics Z, Müller A, Stark R, King DL, et al. Which conditions should be considered as disorders in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) designation of “other specified disorders due to addictive behaviors”? %J J Behav Addict. 2022;11(2):150–9. 10.1556/2006.2020.00035. An overview for nomothetic classification of SNS addiction [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Boyd D. Why youth (heart) social networking sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: Buckingham D, editor. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning: Youth, Identity and Media Volume. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2007. pp. 119–142. [Google Scholar]
22. Goffman E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life'. Doubleday AB, editor. New York. 1959.23. Chou HT, Edge N. “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: the impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2012; 15 (2):117–121. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0324. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. George MJ, Odgers CL. Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 10 (6):832–851. doi: 10.1177/1745691615596788. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Nowland R, Necka EA, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness and social internet use: pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018; 13 (1):70–87. doi: 10.1177/1745691617713052. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Seabrook EM, Kern ML, Rickard NS. Social networking sites, depression, and anxiety: a systematic review. JMIR Ment Health. 2016;3(4):e50-e. 10.2196/mental.5842 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Twenge JM, Joiner TE, Rogers ML, Martin GN. Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clin Psychol Sci. 2017; 6 (1):3–17. doi: 10.1177/2167702617723376. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Brailovskaia J, Schillack H, Margraf J. Tell me why are you using social media (SM)! Relationship between reasons for use of SM, SM flow, daily stress, depression, anxiety, and addictive SM use - An exploratory investigation of young adults in Germany. Comput Hum Behav. 2020; 113 :9. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106511. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Spada MM. An overview of problematic internet use. Addict Behav. 2014; 39 (1):3–6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Waytz A, Gray K. Does online technology make us more or less sociable? A preliminary review and call for research. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018; 13 (4):473–491. doi: 10.1177/1745691617746509. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Thompson RA. Emotion regulation: a theme in search of definition. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1994;59(2–3):25–52, 250–83. 10.2307/1166137 [PubMed]
32. Brand M, Wegmann E, Stark R, Müller A, Wölfling K, Robbins TW, et al. The interaction of person-affect-cognition-execution (I-PACE) model for addictive behaviors: update, generalization to addictive behaviors beyond internet-use disorders, and specification of the process character of addictive behaviors. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019; 104 :1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.032. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Schweizer S. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010; 30 (2):217–237. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Williams AD, Grisham JR, Erskine A, Cassedy E. Deficits in emotion regulation associated with pathological gambling. Br J Clin Psychol. 2012; 51 (2):223–238. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02022.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Marino C, Gini G, Angelini F, Vieno A, Spada MM. Social norms and e-motions in problematic social media use among adolescents. Addictive Behaviors Reports. 2020; 11 :100250. doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100250. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Brand M, Young KS, Laier C, Wölfling K, Potenza MN. Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations regarding the development and maintenance of specific internet-use disorders: an interaction of person-affect-cognition-execution (I-PACE) model. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016; 71 :252–266. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Przybylski AK, Murayama K, DeHaan CR, Gladwell V. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Comput Hum Behav. 2013; 29 (4):1841–1848. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas KM. How “phubbing” becomes the norm: the antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Comput Hum Behav. 2016; 63 :9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. • Niu G, Yao L, Wu L, Tian Y, Xu L, Sun X. Parental phubbing and adolescent problematic mobile phone use: the role of parent-child relationship and self-control. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;116:105247. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105247. The parental phubbing is an innovative point of view for child attachment in the modern era
40. Wang X, Gao L, Yang J, Zhao F, Wang P. Parental phubbing and adolescents’ depressive symptoms: self-esteem and perceived social support as moderators. J Youth Adolesc. 2020; 49 (2):427–437. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01185-x.. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Leung L, Chen C. A review of media addiction research from 1991 to 2016. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2018; 39 (4):648–665. doi: 10.1177/0894439318791770. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18 (1):143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8 (1):19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6 (7):e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Cecilie Schou A, Stale P. Social network site addiction - an overview. Curr Pharm Des. 2014; 20 (25):4053–4061. doi: 10.2174/13816128113199990616. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Young K. Internet addiction: evaluation and treatment. Student British Medical Journal. 1999;747. Kwon M, Kim D-J, Cho H, Yang S. The smartphone addiction scale: development and validation of a short version for adolescents. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8 (12):e83558. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083558. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Apaolaza V, He J, Hartmann P. The effect of gratifications derived from use of the social networking site Qzone on Chinese adolescents’ positive mood. Comput Hum Behav. 2014; 41 :203–211. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.029. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Kross E, Verduyn P, Sheppes G, Costello CK, Jonides J, Ybarra O. Social media and well-being: pitfalls, progress, and next steps. Trends Cogn Sci. 2021; 25 (1):55–66. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Fu LQ, Wang PC, Zhao M, Xie X, Chen Y, Nie J, et al. Can emotion regulation difficulty lead to adolescent problematic smartphone use? A moderated mediation model of depression and perceived social support. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020; 108 :7. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104660. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Calancie O, Ewing L, Narducci L, Horgan S, Khalid-Khan S. Exploring how social networking sites impact youth with anxiety: a qualitative study of Facebook stressors among adolescents with an anxiety disorder diagnosis. Cyberpsychology: J Psychosoc Res Cyberspace. 2017;1110.5817/CP2017–4–2.
52. Quinn S, Oldmeadow J. The Martini effect and social networking sites: early adolescents, mobile social networking and connectedness to friends. Mob Media Commun. 2013; 1 (2):237–247. doi: 10.1177/2050157912474812. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Erreygers S, Vandebosch H, Vranjes I, Baillien E, De Witte H. Nice or naughty? The role of emotions and digital media use in explaining adolescents’ online prosocial and antisocial behavior. Media Psychol. 2017; 20 (3):374–400. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2016.1200990. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Allen KA, Ryan T, Gray DL, McInerney DM, Waters L. Social media use and social connectedness in adolescents: the positives and the potential pitfalls. Aust Educ Dev Psychol. 2014; 31 (1):18–31. doi: 10.1017/edp.2014.2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Shankleman M, Hammond L, Jones FW. Adolescent social media use and well-being: a systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis. Adolesc Res Rev. 2021; 6 (4):471–492. doi: 10.1007/s40894-021-00154-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Vossen HGM, Valkenburg PM. Do social media foster or curtail adolescents’ empathy? A longitudinal study. Comput Hum Behav. 2016; 63 :118–124. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.040. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Cipolletta S, Malighetti C, Cenedese C, Spoto A. How can adolescents benefit from the use of social networks? The iGeneration on Instagram. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17 (19):15. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17196952. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
58. Sala LLA, Skues J, Wise L, Theiler S. Chasing the ‘Like’: adolescent use of social networking sites in Australia. Annu Rev Cybertheraphy Telemed. 2015; 13 :101–105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Verduyn P, Gugushvili N, Massar K, Taht K, Kross E. Social comparison on social networking sites. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020; 36 :32–37. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.04.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
60. Appel M, Schreiner C, Weber S, Mara M, Gnambs T. Intensity of Facebook use is associated with lower self-concept clarity: cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. J Media Psychol: Theories Methods Appl. 2018; 30 (3):160–172. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000192. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. Holmberg C, Berg C, Hillman T, Lissner L, Chaplin JE. Self-presentation in digital media among adolescent patients with obesity: striving for integrity, risk-reduction, and social recognition. Digit Health. 2018; 4 :15. doi: 10.1177/2055207618807603. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. Fioravanti G, Bocci Benucci S, Ceragioli G, Casale S. How the exposure to beauty ideals on social networking sites influences body image: a systematic review of experimental studies. Adolesc Res Rev. 2022.10.1007/s40894-022-00179-4
63. Weinstein E. The social media see-saw: positive and negative influences on adolescents’ affective well-being. New Media Soc. 2018; 20 (10):3597–3623. doi: 10.1177/1461444818755634. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Lee HY, Jamieson JP, Reis HT, Beevers CG, Josephs RA, Mullarkey MC, et al. Getting fewer “Likes” than others on social media elicits emotional distress among victimized adolescents. 2020;91(6):2141-59.10.1111/cdev.13422 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
65. Manago AM, Ward LM, Lemm KM, Reed L, Seabrook R. Facebook involvement, objectified body consciousness, body shame, and sexual assertiveness in college women and men. Sex Roles J Res. 2015; 72 (1–2):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0441-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Lo Coco G, Salerno L, Giordano C, Di Blasi M, Rodgers RF. Understanding the smartphone generation: is problematic smartphone use associated with low body esteem among adolescent girls and boys? Curr Psychol. 2022; 41 (5):3173–3184. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00847-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Chua THH, Chang L. Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls’ engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Comput Hum Behav. 2016; 55 :190–197. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Best P, Manktelow R, Taylor BJ. Social work and social media: online help-seeking and the mental well-being of adolescent males. Br J Soc Work. 2016; 46 (1):257–276. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcu130. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Weinstein E. Adolescents' differential responses to social media browsing: Exploring causes and consequences for intervention. Comput Hum Behav. 2017; 76 :396–405. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.038. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
70. Moretta T, Buodo G. Problematic internet use and loneliness: How complex is the relationship? A short literature review. Curr Addict Rep. 2020; 7 :125–136. doi: 10.1007/s40429-020-00305-z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
71. Doucette H, Collibee C, Hood E, Gittins Stone DI, DeJesus B, Rizzo CJ. Perpetration of electronic intrusiveness among adolescent females: associations with in-person dating violence. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36(11–12):Np6581-np601. 10.1177/0886260518815725 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
72. Zhang XX, Rost DH, Wang JL, Reynolds KJ. Active and passive social networking sites usage and negative emotions: a reciprocal relationship? J Soc Clin Psychol. 2020; 39 (3):195–213. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2020.39.3.195. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Wu Y, Wang X, Hong S, Hong M, Pei M, Su Y. The relationship between social short-form videos and youth’s well-being: it depends on usage types and content categories. Psychol Pop Media. 2021.10.1037/ppm0000292
74. Yau JC, Reich SM, Lee T-Y. Coping with stress through texting: an experimental study. J Adolesc Health. 2021; 68 (3):565–571. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
75. Thorisdottir IE, Sigurvinsdottir R, Asgeirsdottir BB, Allegrante JP, Sigfusdottir ID. Active and passive social media use and symptoms of anxiety and depressed mood among Icelandic adolescents. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019; 22 (8):535–542. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2019.0079. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
76. Oberst U, Wegmann E, Stodt B, Brand M, Chamarro A. Negative consequences from heavy social networking in adolescents: the mediating role of fear of missing out. J Adolesc. 2017; 55 :51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
77. O’Reilly M, Dogra N, Whiteman N, Hughes J, Eruyar S, Reilly P. Is social media bad for mental health and wellbeing? Exploring the perspectives of adolescents. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018; 23 (4):601–613. doi: 10.1177/1359104518775154. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
78. Marin-Lopez I, Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Hunter SC, Llorent VJ. Relations among online emotional content use, social and emotional competencies and cyberbullying. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020; 108 :9. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104647. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
79. Al-Saggaf Y, Nielsen S. Self-disclosure on Facebook among female users and its relationship to feelings of loneliness. Comput Hum Behav. 2014; 36 :460–468. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
80. Xie WJ, Kang CY. See you, see me: teenagers’ self-disclosure and regret of posting on social network site. Comput Hum Behav. 2015; 52 :398–407. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.059. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
81. Charmaraman L, Richer AM, Ben-Joseph EP, Klerman EB. Quantity, content, and context matter: associations among social technology use and sleep habits in early adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2021; 69 (1):162–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.09.035. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
82. Ballarotto G, Volpi B, Tambelli R. Adolescent attachment to parents and peers and the use of Instagram: the mediation role of psychopathological risk. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18 (8):13. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18083965. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
83. Lutz C, Ranzini G, Meckel M. STRESS 2.0: Social media overload among Swiss teenagers. In: Robinson L, Cotten SR, Schulz J, editors. Communication and information technologies annual: doing and being digital: mediated childhoods. 8 2014. p. 3–24.
84. Blomfieldneira CJ, Barber BL. Social networking site use: linked to adolescents’ social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood. Aust J Psychol. 2014; 66 (1):56–64. doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12034. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
85. Cohen A, Ekwueme PO, Sacotte KA, Bajwa L, Gilpin S, Heard-Garris N. "Melanincholy": A Qualitative Exploration of Youth Media Use, Vicarious Racism, and Perceptions of Health. J Adolesc Health. 2021; 69 (2):288–293. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.12.128. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
86. Franchina V, Vanden Abeele M, van Rooij AJ, Lo Coco G, De Marez L. Fear of missing out as a predictor of problematic social media use and phubbing behavior among flemish adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15 (10):18. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102319. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
87. Wartberg L, Thomasius R, Paschke K. The relevance of emotion regulation, procrastination, and perceived stress for problematic social media use in a representative sample of children and adolescents. Comput Hum Behav. 2021; 121 :106788. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106788. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
88. Drach RD, Orloff NC, Hormes JM. The emotion regulatory function of online social networking: preliminary experimental evidence. Addict Behav. 2021; 112 :7. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106559. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
89. Spada MM, Marino C. Metacognitions and emotion regulation as predictors of problematic internet use in adolescents. Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2017; 14 :59–63. [Google Scholar]
90. Hamilton JL, Do QB, Choukas-Bradley S, Ladouceur CD, Silk JS. Where it hurts the most: peer interactions on social media and in person are differentially associated with emotional reactivity and sustained affect among adolescent girls. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathology. 2021; 49 (2):155–167. doi: 10.1007/s10802-020-00725-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
91. Unal-Aydin P, Obuca F, Aydin O, Spada MM. The role of metacognitions and emotion recognition in problematic SNS use among adolescents. J Affect Disord. 2021; 282 :1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.103. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
92. Vermeulen A, Vandebosch H, Heirman W. #Smiling, #venting, or both? Adolescents’ social sharing of emotions on social media. Comput Hum Behav. 2018; 84 :211–219. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.022. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
93. Waterloo SF, Baumgartner SE, Peter J, Valkenburg PM. Norms of online expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New Media & Society. 2018; 20 (5):1813–1831. doi: 10.1177/1461444817707349. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
94. Nowland R, Necka EA, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness and social internet use: pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017; 13 (1):70–87. doi: 10.1177/1745691617713052. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
95. Neubaum G, Kramer NC. My friends right next to me: a laboratory investigation on predictors and consequences of experiencing social closeness on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2015; 18 (8):443–449. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0613. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
