Investigating Heterogeneity in (Social) Media Effects: Experience-Based Recommendations

Patti Valkenburg; Ine Beyens; Loes Keijsers

doi:10.15626/MP.2022.3649

Authors

Patti Valkenburg University of Amsterdam
Ine Beyens University of Amsterdam
Loes Keijsers Erasmus University, Rotterdam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2022.3649

Keywords:

social media, well-being, n=1 approach, effect heterogeneity

Abstract

We recently introduced a new, unified approach to investigate the effects of social media use on well-being. Using experience sampling methods among sizeable samples of respondents, our unified approach combines the strengths of nomothetic methods of analysis (e.g., mean comparisons, regression models), which are suited to understand group averages and generalize to populations, with idiographic methods of analysis (e.g., N=1 time series analyses), which are suitable to assess the effects of social media use on each single person (i.e., person-specific effects). Our approach challenges existing knowledge of media effects based on the nomothetic-only approach. As with many innovations, our approach has raised questions. In this article, we discuss our experience with our unified media effects approach that we have been building since 2018. We will explain what our approach exactly entails and what it requires. For example, how many observations are needed per person? Which methods did we employ to assess the meaningfulness of variation around average effects? How can we generalize our findings to our target populations? And how can our person-specific results aid policy decisions? Finally, we hope to answer questions of colleagues who are interested in replicating, extending, or building on our work.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Aalbers, G., vanden Abeele, M. M., Hendrickson, A. T., de Marez, L., & Keijsers, L. (2021). Caught in the moment: Are there person-specific associations between momentary procrastination and passively measured smartphone use? Mobile Media & Communication.

Anvari, F., & Lakens, D. (2021). Using anchor-based methods to determine the smallest effect size of interest. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96.

Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I., Keijsers, L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2020). The effect of social media on well-being differs from adolescent to adolescent. Scientific Reports, 10, 10763.

Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I., Keijsers, L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2021). Social media use and adolescents’ well-being: Developing a typology of person-specific effect patterns. Communication Research.

Bolger, N., Zee, K., Rossignac-Milon, M., & Hassin, R. (2019). Causal processes in psychology are heterogeneous. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 601–618.

Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 980–989.

Bushman, B. J., Rothstein, H. R., & Anderson, C. A. (2010). Much ado about something: Violent video game effects and a school of red herring: Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 182–187.

Conner, T. S., Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Tennen, H. (2007). Idiographic personality: The theory and practice of experience sampling. In Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 79–96). The Guilford Press.

Conner, T. S., Tennen, H., Fleeson, W., & Barrett, L. F. (2009). Experience sampling methods: A modern idiographic approach to personality research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(3), 292–313.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 174–178.

Gates, K. M., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2012). Group search algorithm recovers effective connectivity maps for individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous samples. NeuroImage, 63(1), 310–319.

Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78.

Grice, J. W., Medellin, E., Jones, I., Horvath, S., McDaniel, H., O’lansen, C., & Baker, M. (2020). Persons as effect sizes. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 443–455.

Hamaker, E. L. (2012). Why researchers should think “within-person”: A paradigmatic rationale. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 43–61). Guilford Press.

Hamaker, E. L., & Wichers, M. (2017). No time like the present: Discovering the hidden dynamics in intensive longitudinal data. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(1), 10–15.

Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2018). Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 846–876.

Jensen, M., George, M. J., Russell, M. R., & Odgers, C. L. (2019). Young adolescents’ digital technology use and mental health symptoms: Little evidence of longitudinal or daily linkages. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(6), 1416–1433.

Johannes, N., Masur, P. K., Vuorre, M., & Przybylski, A. K. (2024). How should we investigate variation in the relation between social media and well-being? Meta-Psychology, 8.

Kievit, R., Frankenhuis, W., Waldorp, L., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Simpson’s paradox in psychological science: A practical guide. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(513).

Lang, A. (2011). The shifting paradigm of mass communication research. International Communication Association.

Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2019). An idiographic approach to adolescent research: Theory, method, and application. In L. B. Hendry & M. Kloep (Eds.), Reframing adolescent research (pp. 25–38). Routledge.

Liu, D., Baumeister, R. F., Yang, C.-C., & Hu, B. (2019). Digital communication media use and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24, 259–274.

McGuire, W. J. (1986). The myth of massive media impact: Savagings and salvagings. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior (pp. 173–257). Academic Press.

McNeish, D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2020). A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. Psychological Methods, 25(5), 610–635.

Meier, A., & Reinecke, L. (2021). Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review. Communication Research, 48(8), 1182–1209.

Molenaar, P. C. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2(4), 201–218.

Molenaar, P. C., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 112–117.

Nesselroade, J. R. (1991). The warp and the woof of the developmental fabric. In R. M. Downs, L. S. Liben, & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Visions of aesthetics, the environment & development: The legacy of Joachim F. Wohlwill (pp. 213–240). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nesselroade, J. R., & Molenaar, P. C. (2010). Emphasizing intraindividual variability in the study of development over the life span. In W. F. Overton (Ed.), The handbook of life-span development, vol. 1: Cognition, biology, methods. Wiley.

Odgers, C. L., & Jensen, M. R. (2020). Annual research review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age: Facts, fears, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(3), 336–348.

Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 173–182.

Pearce, L. J., & Field, A. P. (2016). The impact of “scary” TV and film on children’s internalizing emotions: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 98–121.

Pouwels, J. L., Valkenburg, P. M., Beyens, I., van Driel, I., & Keijsers, L. (2021). Social media use and friendship closeness in adolescents’ daily lives: An experience sampling study. Developmental Psychology, 57(2), 309–323.

Robinson, O. C. (2011). The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 13(2), 32–39.

Rose, L. T., Rouhani, P., & Fischer, K. W. (2013). The science of the individual. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(3), 152–158.

Siebers, T., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2022). Social media and distraction: An experience sampling study among adolescents. Media Psychology, 25(3), 343–366.

Siebers, T., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2023). Explaining variation in adolescents’ social media-related distraction: The role of social connectivity and disconnectivity factors. Current Psychology, 42, 29955–29968.

Valkenburg, P. M., Beyens, I., Janssen, L. H. C., Bij de Vaate, N., & van der Wal, A. (2023). Person-specific media effects. In P. Neijens & T. Araujo (Eds.), Communication research into the digital society: Fundamental insights from the Amsterdam School of Communication Research. Amsterdam University Press.

Valkenburg, P. M., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I., & Keijsers, L. (2021). Social media and adolescents’ self-esteem: Heading for a person-specific media effects paradigm. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 56–78.

Valkenburg, P. M., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I., & Keijsers, L. (2022). Social media browsing and adolescent well-being: Challenging the “passive social media use hypothesis”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(1).

Valkenburg, P. M., Meier, A., & Beyens, I. (2022). Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 58–68.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243.

Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 315–338.

Valkenburg, P. M., Pouwels, J. L., Beyens, I., van Driel, I., & Keijsers, L. (2021). Adolescents’ experiences on social media and their self-esteem: A person-specific susceptibility perspective. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(2).

van der Wal, A., Valkenburg, P. M., & Van Driel, I. (2023). In their own words: How adolescents differ in their social media use and how it affects them.

van Driel, I., Pouwels, J. L., Beyens, I., Keijsers, L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2019). Posting, scrolling, chatting, and snapping: Youth (14-15) and social media in 2019.

van Roekel, E., Keijsers, L., & Chung, J. M. (2019). A review of current ambulatory assessment studies in adolescent samples and practical recommendations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(3), 560–577.

Verbeij, T., Pouwels, J. L., Beyens, I., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2022). Experience sampling self-reports of social media use have comparable predictive validity to digital trace measures. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 7611.

Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 274–302.

Voelkle, M. C., Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., & Lindenberger, U. (2014). Toward a unified framework for the study of between-person and within-person structures: Building a bridge between two research paradigms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(3), 193–213.

Yin, X.-Q., De Vries, D. A., Gentile, D. A., & Wang, J.-L. (2019). Cultural background and measurement of usage moderate the association between social networking sites (SNSs) usage and mental health: A meta-analysis. Social Science Computer Review, 37(5), 631–648.