4.7 Article

Do socially anxious and non-anxious individuals differ in their social media use?

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107970

关键词

Social anxiety; Social media; Social networking sites; Mental health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to examine the differences between socially anxious and non-anxious individuals on social media. The results showed that although there was no significant difference in the time spent on social media, their usage patterns were different. Less active use increased the risk of social anxiety, and offline social support was a significant correlate of social anxiety.
Numerous studies have shown that socially anxious individuals prefer technology-mediated communication over face-to-face interactions. The aim of this study was to examine possible differences between socially anxious and non-anxious individuals on social media. The online survey included 1, 174 Croatian female participants. The questionnaire contained sociodemographic data and indicators of social comparison, offline social support, time spent on social media, and type of social media use, as well as the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21), and the Self-Like and Self-Competence Scale (SLSC-R). Socially anxious individuals did not significantly differ from non-socially anxious individuals in terms of time spent on social media, but their use of social media was different. Controlling for age, social comparison, level of depressiveness and self-esteem, less active use increased the risk of belonging to the socially anxious group. Offline social support did not significantly moderate the relationship between active use of social media and social anxiety but was a significant correlate of social anxiety. Future research should examine whether online social support can encourage socially anxious users to use social media more actively, to reduce social anxiety in the long term.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据