Content uploaded by Paul Best
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Best on Nov 19, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing:
A systematic narrative review
Paul Best
a,b,
⁎, Roger Manktelow
a,c,1
, Brian Taylor
a,b,2
a
School of Sociology and Applied Social Studies, University of Ulster, United Kingdom
b
Room 21D11, Dalriada, School of Social Work, University of Ulster, Jordanstown Campus, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, United Kingdom
c
Room MD112, School of Sociology and Applied Social Studies, University of Ulster, Magee Campus, Londonderry BT48 7JL, United Kingdom
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 12 December 2013
Received in revised form 28 February 2014
Accepted 1 March 2014
Available online 11 March 2014
Keywords:
Systematic narrative review
Adolescence
Social networking
Wellbeing
Social media
Background: Much debate and polarisation exist regarding the impact ofonline social technologies on themental
wellbeing of young people.
Objective: To systematically review and synthesise current empirical research on this topic, identifying both the
beneficial and harmful effects of online communication and social media technology amongst young people.
Methods: A systematic narrative review of research published between January 2003 and April 2013, retrieved
using rigorous searching on eight bibliographic databases. Results were then subject to review usinga quality ap-
praisal tool and a narrative synthesis methodology. A theoretical framework was developed for the synthesis
using concepts from mental health and communication studies literature.
Results: Systematicsearching retrieved43 original research papers investigating or exploring the effects of online
technologies on adolescent mental well-being or related concept(s). The benefits of using online technologies
were reported as increased self-esteem, perceived social support, increased social capital, safe identity experi-
mentation and increased opportunity for self-disclosure. Harmful effects were reported as increased exposure
to harm, social isolation, depression and cyber-bullying. The majority of studies reported either mixed or no ef-
fect(s) of online social technologies on adolescent wellbeing.
Conclusions: This systematic narrative review has revealed contradictory evidence while revealing an absence of
robust causal research regarding the impact of social media on mental wellbeing of young people. Online tech-
nologies are increasingly being used for health and social care purposes, but further research is required to
give confidence that these are appropriately designed to promote the mental health care and support of young
people.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The ‘science of networks’(Watts, 2007) has evolved significantly
over the course of the last decade spurred by the popularity of online
communication through social media technology. One group to fully
embrace this new medium are young people, with some international
data suggesting that83% of those aged 18–29 years use social network-
ing sites (Duggan & Brenner, 2013). Data from the ‘EU Kids Online’sur-
vey estimates that an average 15–16 year old spends 118 min per day
online (O'Neill, Livingstone, & McLaughlin, 2011). In recognition of the
extent of this exposure one must consider the impact of online social
media technology is having on young people's psycho-social well-
being. Following an advanced systematic database search method, this
paper presents a ‘narrative review’of research relating to the effects of
social media technology (SMT) on adolescent wellbeing to provide a
much needed synthesis of current knowledge and a clear direction for
future research.
2. Context
2.1. Social media technology
Increasingly, academic research has focused on the potential bene-
fits and pitfalls of current technologies, not the least in regard to SMT.
Of particular interest are social networking sites (SNS) which are de-
fined as “websites which make it possible to form online communities
and share user created content”(Kim, Jeong, & Lee, 2010).
This technology allows for immediate, low cost, private and hidden
communication, making it difficult to monitor. Furthermore, it provides
the opportunity for both synchronous (immediate) and asynchronous
(delayed) communication (Barak, 2007; Stefanone, Lackaff, & Rosen,
Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
⁎Corresponding author at: Room 21D11, Dalriada, School of Social Work, University of
Ulster, Jordanstown Campus, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, United Kingdom.
Tel.: +44 28 90 368076.
E-mail addresses: best-p@email.ulster.ac.uk (P. Best), r.manktelow@ulster.ac.uk
(R. Manktelow), bj.taylor@ulster.ac.uk (B. Taylor).
1
Tel.: +44 28 71 675 311.
2
Tel.: +44 28 90 366 142.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001
0190-7409/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
2011). Positive mentalhealth benefits using SNS such as increases in so-
cial capital via wider social networks have been reported (Ellison,
Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), although some studies have highlighted on-
line risks such as cyber-bullying, social isolation and exploitation
(Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kraut et al., 1998; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, &
Brashears, 2006; Milani, Osualdella, & Di Blasio, 2009). Other re-
searchers have avoided this dichotomy between the positives and neg-
atives and have perceived the reality to lie “somewhere between these
two extremes”(Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, & Smallwood, 2006).
SNS however, are only one form of SMT (Moorhead et al., 2013).This
distinction is important as individual SMTs have unique features and
may influence wellbeing differently. This is illustrated when one exam-
ines the literature on personality types and online communication
whereby both introverts and extraverts may benefit from using SMTs —
yet they made choose to use different platforms e.g. introverts may
prefer chat rooms (increased anonymity) whereas extraverts may
prefer Facebook (Orchard & Fullwood, 2010; Ryan & Xenos, 2011).
2.2. Adolescence
The United Nations Population Fund estimates that there are over
1.8 billion young people aged 10–24 in the world today (UN-DESA,
2010), many of whom are facing significant new pressures and chal-
lenges due to the increasing demands of modern society (Stengård &
Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, 2010). In addition, it has been suggested
that children today require more support, training and coping skills
to prepare them for a “more complex and technologically advanced
society”(Mathur & Freeman, 2002:695–696). In the midst of such tech-
nological advances one must consider the developmental influences
these new technologies are having on young people.
The creation and maintenance of friendship networks is considered
an important and developmentally significant process during adoles-
cence (Hartup, 1996; Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield, 2012; Strasburger,
Wilson,&Jordan,2009). During this life stage the peer group often as-
sumes key importance and displaces parental relationships as the prin-
cipal source of social support for the young person (Boyd & Bee, 2012;
Coleman, 1974). Current popular SNS were launched post 2003 (Boyd
& Ellison, 2007) with the result that today's generation of adolescents
are the first cohort to have ‘grown up’with online social networking.
To date, academic attention in this area appears skewed towards
young adult populations, namely older college students (Ellison et al.,
2007; Manago et al., 2012). The apparent dearth of research relating
to the adolescent age group provided the impetus for the current
study and was used to focus on sample populations with a mean age
below 20.
2.3. Wellbeing
The term wellbeing (WB) may be viewed as an abstract and wholly
individualised concept whose meaning appears in constant flux. Conse-
quently, it is difficult to operationalize and measure. Research in this
field has divided wellbeing into two areas: (1) hedonic and (2)
eudaimonic. Hedonic theorists tend to view wellbeing in a pleasure vs.
displeasure paradigm (Ryan & Deci, 2001), with research investigating
hedonic wellbeing employing subjective well-being (SWB) as an assess-
ment measure, consisting of the components of life satisfaction, positive
affect and negative affect. Eudaimonic psychologists distinguish them-
selves from the hedonic notion of ‘happiness’and measure WB by
how one lives and fulfils one's life (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer,
2000).
Regardless of WB measure, there appears a strong link between social
support and WB. Past studies by both Argyle (1987) and DeNeve (1999)
have shown association between wellbeing and high ‘relatedness’pro-
vided by social networks (Argyle, 1987; DeNeve, 1999). A research re-
view by Nezlek (2000) also concluded that in general those who have
greater intimacy and higher quality relationships also have higher
wellbeing. The importance of social support networks is further
emphasised when one considers the psychological costs associated
with the suppression of emotions caused by limited social support
(DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; King & Pennebaker, 1998). Cohen and Ashby
Wills (1985) also found evidence of a buffering hypothesis whereby so-
cial support mitigates against the full harm of negative life events.
It can be viewed as imperative that the wellbeing consequences of
migration towards online social networking (OSN) by the developmen-
tally vulnerable adolescent population are fully investigated andunder-
stood. As there is an over-representation of adult sample populations
within current research (e.g. undergraduates), the umbrella label of
WB, under which a variety of related concept fall, allowed for the inclu-
sion of a sufficient number of studies to warrant a narrative review.
3. Materials and methods
This study reviews the evidence regarding the effects of SMT on ad-
olescent wellbeing. The methodological principles upon which this
study was developed are influenced by systematic reviewing tech-
niques (McFadden, Taylor, Campbell, & McQuilkin, 2012; Taylor,
Wylie, Dempster, & Donnelly, 2007) and include seeking transparent
and rigorous approaches to identification, quality appraisal and synthe-
sis of studies. At its simplest, systematic reviews are “designed to
provide a reliable picture of ‘current best evidence’relevant to a partic-
ular question”(MacDonald, 2003). While great emphasis is placed on
the rigour of selection and appraisal methods within such reviews, of
equal importance is the methodical quality of data synthesis (Killick &
Taylor, 2009). Campbell et al. (2003: 5) describe ‘synthesis’as “aprocess
of extracting data from individual research studies and interpreting and
representing them in a collective form”.
In most cases the final product of such reviews is the presentation of
a statistical (quantitative) or narrative (qualitative)summary of findings
(Rodgers et al., 2009). Due to the nature of the research question and re-
search designs involved within this review a statistical meta-analysis of
data was not possible so a narrative review approach to synthesise was
used. Narrative reviews may be used to explore studies that investigate:
the effects of interventions; the factors shaping the implementation of
interventions; the needs and/or preferences of particular population
groups; and the causes of particular social and/or health problem
(Popay et al., 2006). The methodology of narrative synthesis was in-
formed by the work of Popay et al. (2006: 11) who developed an ap-
proach involving four specific elements or steps: (1) developing a
theory of how the intervention works, why and for whom; (2) develop-
ing a preliminary synthesis of findings of included studies; (3) exploring
relationships in the data; and (4) assessing the robustness of the synthe-
sis. The method was further validated in work by Rodgers et al. (2009)
citing how rigorous narrative synthesis approaches added “meaning to
quantitative findings”. This framework was adopted to reduce bias and
to enhance the transparency of the review.
3.1. Search strategy
This study utilised systematic searching techniques to retrieve rele-
vant research studies pertaining to the search topic (McFadden et al.,
2012). This was defined as the ‘influence of social networking sites on
the mental wellbeing of adolescents’. Searches were performed on the fol-
lowing eight bibliographic databases: (1) Applied Social Sciences Index
and Abstracts (ASSIA); (2) Communication Abstracts; (3) Cumulative
Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL); (4) Educational Resources
Information Centre (ERIC) (5) Medline (Ovid); (6) PsycINFO; (7) Scopus
and (8) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (see Fig. 1).
All searches took place within a one week period (11th–18th
April, 2013), each involving up to 41 key words across three concept
groups and a pre-defined ‘published within’range of 1st January
2003–11th April 2013. The concept groups used to create the search
structure were: (1) online social networking; (2) mental-wellbeing
28 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
and (3) adolescent(s). Fig. 2 shows a generic search query used as part
of the systematic search process.
3.2. Selecting for relevance
Using pre-defined inclusion criteria, titles and abstracts (n = 2004)
were reviewed and selected by two members of the research team, with
any non-agreement referred to a third reviewer. Allincluded papers had
to containa focus on some form of communicative socialmedia technol-
ogy. This included blogs, message boards, interactive websites, forums,
social networking sites, video sharing platforms (e.g. YouTube) etc.
Studies which included samples above 19 years of age were only select-
ed if the mean age was 19 or below. The authors were less prescriptive
regarding younger sample populations as they will present with much
the same developmental (and generational) vulnerabilities. Grey litera-
ture and non-English language papers were excluded due to time and
cost constraints. Papers that investigated the impact of the internet
were removed unless they included variables relating to interactive on-
line communication with others. A total of 132 studies were identified
and subject to full text review. The removal of duplicate studies, theo-
retical material, descriptive case study articles and policy documents
produced a final total of 43 original studies presenting empirical
research (see Table 2). Using the Kappa statistic, inter-rater reliability
between reviewers recorded at 0.82 denoting substantial agreement
(p b0.05) (Landis & Koch, 1977).
3.3. Quality appraisal of studies
The researchers used the Downs and Black Instrument to appraise
methodological quality of quantitative studies (Downs & Black, 1998).
This tool is recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration for use with
both randomised and non-randomised trials and has been successfully
utilisedin a recent systematic review of social mediawithin health com-
munication (Downs & Black, 1998; Moorhead et al., 2013). The tool in-
volves questions regarding four key areas (reporting, external validity,
internalvalidity –bias and internal validity –confounding). The total qual-
ity score is calculated from questions under these four headings with a
maximum score of 32.
Various tools exist to aid in the appraisal of qualitative research e.g.
CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) and the Quality Framework
(CASP, 2006; Spencer, Ritchie, Lewis, & Dillon, 2003). The researchers
used both these tools to inform the quality appraisal of qualitative re-
search located within the study. It was recognised that there is less con-
sensus on quality appraisal of qualitative research (Dixon-Woods,
Fig. 1. Overview of systematic search strategy.
29P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
Booth, & Sutton, 2007). With this in mind, the merits of and caveats to
each research design were discussed within the research team until
consensus was achieved. These tools were used only to assess method-
ological quality and were not used as a means of synthesis.
3.4. Synthesis method: developing a theoretical model for analysis
Before commencing the narrative review process the authors used
the studies themselves to elicit a viable theoretical template to begin
the synthesis. Such a method of categorisation has been successfully
employed in previous work of a similar nature and scope (Killick &
Taylor, 2009). This approach was particularly important in this case as
the literature was derived from diverse fields of knowledge and the
inter-relationship between studies is less obvious than if there was
a consistent frame of reference and terminology across studies. A
thematic analysis of each study allowed for a deductive approach to
the organisation of key themes and issues. No single theory or model
providedthe necessary applicability and scope to fully categorise the lit-
erature. Consequently, a multi-dimensional framework of analysis was
developed linking theoretical models from the fields of communication,
sociology and psychology. The impact of online social networking
among adolescents and the associated nuances is felt throughout the
three social levels at macro-, meso- and micro-levels, and a framework
at these different levels was developed as described below.
3.5. Multi-level approaches
Multi-level approaches are well established within academic litera-
ture(s), particularly that of sociology and organisational research
(Rousseau, 2011). Simply put, micro level research pertains to individual
interactions and processes; macro level research is concerned with wider
structural forces and meso research, aptly taken from the Greek word
for ‘in between’involves group behaviours and processes (House,
Rousseau, & Thomas, 1995). These paradigms are often used within
both quantitative and qualitative research to inform and guide the ana-
lytical process. Kozlowski and Klein (2000: 218–220) highlight three
broad analytical models present within these approaches:
1. Single level models: relationships among variables at one level of
analysis;
2. Cross level models: describes the relationship among variables at dif-
ferent levels of analysis; and
3. Homologous multi-level models: relationships between two or more
variables hold at multiple levels of analysis.
3.5.1. Macro level: communication approaches
Woodstock (2002) contends that ‘communication’is the process
through which individuals learn about the world around them. Central
to this proposition, is the presence of communication within a context
of human interaction and social development (Adler & Rodman, 2006;
Green, Strange, & Brocks, 2002). In fact, some theorists have gone as
far as to suggest that inter-personal communication is a key facet of
identity formation (Scott, 2007), thus linking communication theory,
interpersonal networks and human development. While an uncontest-
ed account of ‘communication theory’remains to be achieved, what ap-
pears clear is that online communication is a separate phenomenon
with distinguishable characteristics that differentiate it from face to
face communication (Walther, 1992). This paper draws upon Shannon
and Weaver's (1949) Mathematical Model of Communication to con-
ceptualise this difference (see Fig. 3).
The application of this model to electronic communication has proved
particularly valuable and is well established within the communication
field. Shannon and Weaver (1949) identify three problems associated
with communication; (1) Technical Problems (How accurately can the
symbols of communication be transmitted?); (2) Semantic Problems
(How do the transmitted symbols convey meaning?); (3) Effectiveness
Problems (How effectively do the received meaning affect behaviour).
This tripartite conceptualisation may be applied to the phenomenon
of online communication. If one assumes, as mentioned earlier, that in-
dividuals learn and develop through the information they receive then
any distortion of communication channels may in fact influence and
alter behaviour and in turn affect development. This is further support-
ed by Laswell (1948) who notes thecrucial determinant of nature of the
communication medium (e.g. radio, television, or in this case, the inter-
net etc.) when sharing and receiving information (Walther, 1992).
Shannon and Weaver (1949) communication model provides thetheo-
retical framework in which to justify the classification of the literature
pertaining to this area.
(Adolescen* OR “Young People” OR Child* OR Youth OR Teen* OR Juvenile)
AND
(“Social Media” OR “Online Friends” OR “Online Social Network” OR “Online
Social Networking” OR “Online Communities” OR Facebook OR MSN OR Twitter
OR Blog OR “Chat Rooms” OR MySpace OR “Online Forum” OR “Net Generation”
OR “Digital Natives” OR “Generation Z” OR Cyberspace OR Cyberbullying OR
Cyber-bullying OR “Social Networking Sites” OR “Web 2.0”)
AND
(“Wellbeing” OR “Well-being” OR “Social Support” OR “Perceived Social Support”
OR “Mental Health” OR “Self-efficacy” OR “Life Satisfaction” OR “Self-Esteem” OR
“Social Capital”)
Fig. 2. The generic search formula.
30 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
3.5.2. Meso level: systems approaches
A useful starting point for the conceptualisation of a systems based
approach is the Aristotelian view that “the whole is more than the
sum of its parts”(von Bertalanffy, 1962; 1972). In a general sense, a sys-
tem may be defined as a “group of objects related or interacting so asto
form a unity”(Garmonsway, 1991). A network is described as a “group
of persons sharing an aim or interest and frequently communicating
with…or helping each other”(Garmonsway, 1991). Social systems
and networks involve interaction(s) and transaction(s) among a collec-
tive which may influence or alter the behaviour of individuals. Ecologi-
cal systems theory adds a humanistic feature to general system-based
theories and is concerned mainly with interactions between individuals
within a social system (Siporin, 1980). Furthermore, ecological systems
theory provides a framework in which to understand human develop-
ment within an environmental context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986,
1989; Miller, 2011). A meso level approach allows one to examine on-
line group behaviours and processes, with a particular focus on the de-
velopment and maintenance of adolescent social networks.
3.5.3. Micro level: adolescent development approaches
Followingon from communication and systems based approachesis
a focus on the impact of SMTs on the individual. Thematic analysis sug-
gested that macro/meso theories interact at this pointthrough develop-
mental issues unique to this population. Theories regarding human
development and wellbeing are a plenty within the psychological liter-
ature. In specific regard to adolescence (and although somewhat incon-
gruent), theories such as those offered by Sigmund Freud, Piaget and
Erik Erikson define human development sequentially postulating
responses to external stimuli determined by developmental stage
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Erikson's (1968) ‘Stages of Psycho-social Development’posits ado-
lescent development occurring primarily through identity formation
within the context of social relationships (Moshman, 1999). The
successful transition of each life stage in Erikson's model is presented
as a ‘crisis’(e.g. identity vs. confusion) through which one must negoti-
ate in order to progress. There is a period of instability before adolescent
identity and positive self-esteem are achieved (Erikson, 1968). It can be
seen that psychological and physiological changes cause vulnerability as
coping mechanismsare constantly redefined (Frydenberg, 2008), there-
fore challenges, stressors or threats could have exacerbated affects
(Manago et al., 2012). Erikson's model provides a theoretical framework
in which to explore issues such as self-esteem, belonging and identity
(Erikson, 1968). Additional models of adolescent development are
offered by Steinberg (2005) whereby adolescence is seen as divided
into three distinct stages (Early, Middle and Late Adolescence) each of
which poses differing vulnerabilities and risks (Steinberg, 2005).
4. Results
4.1. Methodological profile and quality of included studies
The research methodologies of studies investigating the influence of
social networking sites on the mental wellbeing of adolescents were
varied. The majority of studies (95%) had gender-mixed samples. How-
ever many studies had a higher number of female participants. Survey
research (55%) was by far the most widely employed research design,
followed by qualitative (12%), longitudinal (12%), content analysis
(11%), experimental (4%), case control (3%) and mixed method studies
Table 1
List of studies by general methodology.
Quantitative = 32 Qualitative = 9 Mixed/other
Gross (2004) Tichon and Shapiro (2003) Valaitis (2005)
Donchi and Moore (2004) Thomas (2006) Nicholas (2010)
Valkenburg et al. (2006) Williams and Merten (2008)
Van den Ejinden et al (2008) Cerna & Smahel (2009)
Hwang et al. (2009) Siriaraya et al. (2011)
Ko and Kuo (2009) Duggan et al. (2012)
Maarten et al. (2009) Davis (2012)
Gross (2009) Parris et al. (2012)
Lee (2009) Cash et al. (2 013)
Baker and White (2010)
Wilson et al. (2010)
Tomai et al. (2010)
Leung (2011)
Vandoninck et al. (2011)
O'Dea and Campbell (2011a)
O'Dea and Campbell (2011b)
Pantic et al. (2012)
Devine & Lloyd (2012)
Fioravanti et al. (2012)
Jelenchick et al. (2013)
Koles and Nagy (2012)
Huang and Leung (2012)
Sarriera et al. (2012)
Ahn (2012)
Fanti et al. (2012)
Machmutow et al. (2012)
Quinn and OldMeadow (2013)
Vandoninck et al. (2013)
Apaolaza et al. (2013)
Sticca et al. (2013)
Pea et al. (2012)
Dolev-Cohen and Barak (2013)
Table 2
Mental well-being and related concepts by study.
Study Wellbeing issue or related concept investigated
Tichon and Shapiro (2003) Social support
Gross (2004) Social isolation/social anxiety
Donchi and Moore (2004) Self-esteem/loneliness
Valaitis (2005) Social participation/risk/increased reflection
Valkenburg et al. (2006) Self-esteem/wellbeing
Thomas (2006) Identity formation/development
Williams and Merten (2008) ‘Risk behaviours’
Van den Ejinden (2008) Loneliness
Hwang et al. (2009) Depressive mood
Ko and Kuo (2009) Subjective well-being
Maarten et al. (2009) Depression and anxiety
Gross (2009) Social exclusion
Cerna and Smahel (2009) Social support
Lee (2009) Healthy social relationships(parental and peer)
Baker and White (2010) Self-esteem measure
Wilson et al. (2010) Self-esteem/personality
Tomai et al. (2010) Social capital
Nicholas (2010) Online mental health support
Leung (2011) Loneliness/social support
Vandoninck et al. (2011) ‘Psycho-so cial fac tors’
O'Dea and Campbell (2011a) Self-esteem/social support
O'Dea and Campbell (2011b) ‘Peer support’
Siriaraya et al. (2011) ‘Emotional support’
Pantic et al. (2012) Depression
Duggan et al. (2012) Non-suicidal self-harm
Devine and Lloyd (2012) Psychological WB
Fioravanti et al. (2012) Self-esteem
Jelenchick (2012) Depression
Koles and Nagy (2012) ‘Emotional support’
Huang and Leung (2012) Self-esteem/loneliness
Pea et al. (2012) Social wellbeing
Sarriera et al. (2012) Personal wellbeing
Ahn (2012) Social capital
Fanti et al. (2012) Bullying/social support
Dolev-Cohen and Barak (2012) Emotional state/personality
Davis (2012) Identity/friendship
Parris et al. (2012) Cyber-bullying
Machmutow et al. (2012) Cyber-bullying
Quinn and OldMeadow (2013) ‘Belonging’
Vandoninck et al. (2013) Self-efficacy
Apaolaza et al. (2013) Self-esteem/loneliness
Cash et al. (2013) Suicide disclosure
Sticca et al. (2013) Cyber-bullying/self-esteem
31P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
(3%). The quantitative studies (n = 32) evaluated using the Downs and
Black Instrument had scores ranging from 8 (O'Dea & Campbell, 2011a,
2011b)to20(Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013). These low scores reflected
the weak nature of research designs retrieved within the study in rela-
tion to the research question (Table 1).
4.2. Communication-based approaches
Research in this category fell into five broad areas: (1) intensity of
online communicative practices; (2) preference for onlinecommunica-
tion; (3) online disclosure processes and motivations; (4) behaviour
change through online communications; and (5) differences associated
with online and offline communications. The rise of the internet and so-
cial networking sites has seen the rapid growth of readily available and
accessible information on the social habits of individuals. Qualitative
content analysis of publicly available profile pages, message boards
and blogs has been readily employed within this area (Cash, Thelwall,
Peck, Ferrell, & Bridge, 2013; Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Duggan, Heath,
Lewis, & Baxter, 2011; Siriaraya, Tang, Ang, Pfeil, & Zaphiris, 2011;
Williams & Merten, 2013). Such studies suggest a ‘treasure trove’of
information available online regarding the communication patterns
and social lives of adolescents. The literature suggests that teens are
more willing to disclose personal information online and, in general,
displayed more emotionally empathic online communication than
adults (Cash et al., 2013; Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Duggan et al., 2011;
Ko & Kuo, 2009; Siriaraya et al., 2011; Tichon & Shapiro, 2003). As a re-
sult, a growing body of evidence is emerging examining the potential
role of supportive virtual environments for young people (Cerna &
Smahel, 2009; Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Nicholas,
2010; Siriaraya et al., 2011; Tichon & Shapiro, 2003).
Considerable evidence suggests a negative relationship between on-
line communication practices and wellbeing (Devine & Lloyd, 2012;
Fioravanti, Dèttore, & Casale, 2012; Hwang, Cheong, & Feeley, 2009;
Koles & Nagy, 2012; O'Dea & Campbell, 2011a, 2011b; Pantic et al.,
2012; van den Eijnden, Meerkerk, Vermulst, Spijkerman, & Engels,
2008). Evidence of a ‘rich-get-richer’phenomenon is provided whereby
young people whose offline friendship quality is perceived as ‘high’had
greater benefits from online communicative activities those who did
not possess high quality friendships (Davis, 2012; Ko & Kuo, 2009;
Selfhout et al., 2009). Perhaps reflecting the division of opinion in this
field a number of studies reported positive affect between online com-
munication and wellbeing, namely; increased social support, reduced
social anxiety, increased self-esteem and reduced social isolation
(Davis, 2012; Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013; Gross, 2009; Ko & Kuo,
2009; Maarten et al., 2009; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten,2006). More-
over, three papers highlighted the possible mental health promotion
benefits of online communication (Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Frydenberg,
2008; Valaitis, 2005) and interestingly, two studies reported little or
no association between online communication and depression among
adolescents (Gross, 2004; Jelenchick, Eickhoff, & Moreno, 2013).
4.3. Social network and system based approaches
A number of studies examined the WB implications of SMT through
the lens of interpersonal relationship formation, online friendships,
social capital and social support (see below). These studies were
categorised under the umbrella of social network and system based
approaches and their underpinnings allowed an examination of the
impact of OSN on social network deve lopment and the possible implica-
tions for individual wellbeing.
An emerging theme within the literature was online friendship (or
related concept) (Apaolaza et al, 2013; Davis 2012; Dolev-Cohen &
Barak, 2013; Donchi & Moore, 2004; Fanti, Demetriou, & Hawa, 2012;
Hwang et al., 2009; Maarten et al., 2009; ; Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2012;
Tichon & Shapiro, 2003). However, a precise definition of what consti-
tutes an ‘online friend’was somewhat illusive. Some suggest that online
friends are merely an extension of offline relationships (Ahn, 2012;
Gross, 2004; Thomas, 2006), perhaps minimalizing any differentiating
factors, making separate definition(s) problematic. The purported ben-
efits of online friendships were identified as the following: increased
perceived social support; opportunity for emotional relief; increased so-
cial integration; opportunity for identity experimentation and extended
‘bridging’social capital (i.e. wider social connections outside local net-
works, see Putnam, 2000)(Ahn, 2012; Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013; Ko
& Kuo, 2009; Leung, 2011; Sarriera, Abs, Casas, & Bedin, 2012).
Social support offered through social networking sites, blogs, and
specialist forums etc. provided a number of specific benefits such as
increased emotional support, self-disclosure, reduced social anxiety
and belongingness (Duggan et al., 2011; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Quinn &
Oldmeadow, 2012; Siriaraya et al., 2011; Tichon & Shapiro, 2003;
Valaitis, 2005; Williams & Merten, 2013). However, one study of online
self-harm websites highlighted the lack of ‘trigger warnings’within in-
formal support forums/websites compared to their professional coun-
terparts, indicating increased risk associated with the use of the
former (Duggan et al., 2011). Moreover, some informal websites were
also found to promote negative attitudes, actively discouraging profes-
sional help seeking (Cerna & Smahel, 2009).
Two studies compared wellbeing through communicative online
activities with non-communicative activities, finding communicative
online activities positively associated with increases in wellbeing
(Hwang et al., 2009; Maarten et al., 2009). Social networking sites
have been linked with community formation and increased belonging-
ness among adolescents (Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2012). Social capital
benefits, in particular bridging capital, are also evident within the liter-
ature, indicating a link between online networking and offline gains
(Ahn, 2012; Tomai et al., 2010). Interestingly, one study also found evi-
dence of increasing bonding capital as online usage increased (Tomai
et al., 2010).
4.4. Adolescent development approaches
Eight studies used measures of self-esteem in relation to SMT
(Apaolaza, Hartmann, Medina, Barrutia, & Echebarria, 2013; Baker &
White, 2011; Fioravanti et al., 2012; Gross, 2009; Huang & Leung,
2012; O'Dea & Campbell, 2011a, 2011b; Valkenburg et al, 2006;
Wilson, Fornasier, & White, 2010). Three reported associations between
SMT, blogging and low self-esteem (Fioravanti et al., 2012; Huang &
Leung, 2012; Maarten et al., 2009). Conversely, positive self-esteem as-
sociations were found between online communicative activities such as
online chatting with peers or strangers or receiving support when dis-
tressed (Donchi & Moore, 2004; Gross, 2009; Valkenburg & Peter,
2006). Self-esteem was examined as a predicting factor of levels of so-
cial networking site usage in two studies but neither reported a signifi-
cant relationship (Baker & White, 2011; Wilson et al., 2010).
Mixed results were reported in studies examining depression and
SMTs (Jelenchick et al., 2013; Pantic et al., 2012; Van den Eijnden et al,
2008; Vandoninck et al., 2011). For example, instant messenger has
Fig. 3. Shannon and Weaver (1949) mathematical model of communication.
32 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
been linked with increased depression in one study (Van den Eijnden,
2008) yet equally other evidence suggested no such relationship
(Jelenchick et al., 2013). One large scale Taiwanese study found in-
creased depressive mood among adolescents who used the internet to
socialise and make friends, but no significant association was found be-
tween the amount of time spent online and depression (Vandoninck,
d'Haenens, De Cock, & Donoso, 2011). More generally, a number of
studies in North America have found negative associations between
‘social wellbeing’and interpersonal interaction online (Pea et al., 2012).
Five studies collected data on loneliness or related concepts (e.g. social
isolation) and SMT (Apaolaza et al., 2013; Donchi & Moore, 2004; Gross,
2004; Huang & Leung, 2012; Leung, 2011). In some cases loneliness de-
creased following OSN (Gross, 2009; Jelenchick et al., 2013). However,
in one study this association was only significant for females (Apaolaza
et al., 2013). Online social interaction has also been shown to support
identity experimentation and found to be a more gratifying experience
for lonely adolescents (Leung, 2011). Indeed further evidence from a
Chinese study on bulletin board systems suggests a preference for OSN
amonglonelyadolescents(Jelenchick et al., 2013). Related to this were
two further studies which investigated feelings of belongingness (Quinn
& Oldmeadow, 2012) and social exclusion (Thomas, 2006) amongst
online users. Both reported positive effects between OSN and increased
belongingness and reduced isolation.
4.5. Cyber-bullying (CB)
While cyber-bullying (CB) is emerging as a separate field of research
in its own right, it was consideredfor the purposes of this review that CB
is a relevant mental well-being issue occurring exclusively via social
media and other online interactive technologies. CB is described as a
“wilful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers…
and other electronic devices”(Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Four papers
were recovered which focused on CB (Fanti et al., 2012; Machmutow,
Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012; Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2012;
Sticca, Ruggieri, Alsaker, & Perren, 2012)howeverallvarieddramatical-
ly in nature and scope. Collectively, their findings suggest that offline
social support may buffer the negative impact of CB (Parris et al.,
2012); that time spent online may increase risk of CB (Machmutow
et al., 2012); that CB (victimisation and offending) may be predicted
using Psychopathic Trait measures (Sticca et al., 2012) and that victims
often adopt three main attitudes strategies to reduce the impact of CB —
reactive coping (responding after the event); preventative coping
(protection measures e.g. stay offline) and/or acceptance (Parris et al.,
2012).
5. Discussion
This study seeks to build upon thehigh quality methodology of stud-
ies such as Moorhead et al. (2013) and takes the topic of social media
usage a step further by focusing on a more precise domain within the
field of adolescent health and development. As part of a narrative re-
view method, a theoretical model to assist with preliminary analysis
was developed. Following on, the final two stages were to (1) explore
relationships within the data and (2) assess the robustness of the
synthesis (Popay et al., 2006).
5.1. Exploring relationships: benefits vs. limitations of online social
networking
Perhaps surprising, given the growing academic and public concern,
the majority of included papers reported either mixed or no effect(s) of
social media on adolescent wellbeing (Baker & White, 2011; Cash et al.,
2013; Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Fanti et al., 2012; Gross, 2004; Jelenchick
et al., 2013; Lee, 2009; Leung, 2011; Parris et al., 2012; Sarriera et al.,
2012; Sticca et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2010; Valkenburg & Peter,
2006; Vandoninck, d'Haenens, & Roe, 2013; Vandoninck et al., 2012;
Williams & Merten, 2013). These included studies which found no
association(s) between SMTs and wellbeing concepts (e.g. depression)
as well as those who uncovered both increased opportunities and
increased risks for wellbeing from OSN (Jelenchick et al., 2013;
Valkenburg & Peter, 2006; Vandoninck et al., 2013).
5.2. Benefits of online social networking
Following the review process, 13 of the 43 studies were deemed to
report beneficial outcomes regarding SMT and communication. By and
large, these benefits were indirect and fuelled by perceptions regarding
perceived social support. For example, increased social networking
opportunities raise self-esteem and ‘belongingness’which may then in-
directly impact upon feelings of wellbeing. However, it is worth caution-
ing that perceived online social support may be providing a false sense
of security. To balance this concern, considerable evidence suggested
that direct emotional and empathetic support via online networks can
contribute to lowering barriers to self-disclosure (Ko & Kuo, 2009),
through increased anonymity and reduced non-verbal inhibitors, thus
promoting the help-seeking process. In turn, self-disclosing and associ-
ated positive feedback can enhance perceptions of community integra-
tion (Ko & Kuo, 2009)andsocialsupport(Davis, 2012; Quinn &
Oldmeadow, 2013). These processes may provide a more direct explan-
atory link between SMT and increased wellbeing. Moreover, it is likely
that repressing emotions through non-disclosure will have a negative
impact upon wellbeing (Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013). Online disclosure
can benefit stigmatised groups facilitating and encouraging their con-
tact with mental health resources. This technology may also appeal to
young males as a more fashionable alternative to traditional forms of
help seeking.
5.3. Caveats to online social networking
A variety of negative outcomes between SMT and wellbeing are
present within the literature. Informed by the theoretical model one
could suggest that, by and large, these studies view online communica-
tion as a weaker form of interaction —the cost of which could be in-
creased risk of depression and/or social isolation. There was evidence
of links between preferences for social interaction,friendship formation
online and decreases in wellbeing; however little if any association was
found between the number of online friends and lower wellbeing.
One large scale study suggests that merely having a social network-
ing profile may decrease psychological wellbeing; however this negative
relationship was reported only for girls (Devine & Lloyd, 2012). An im-
portant link within the body of research reviewed is the association be-
tween increased intensity of usage i.e. time spent online and increased
risk of exposure to online harm, particularly pertinent to risk of CB. CB
has been associated with increased depression and is therefore a real
risk to adolescent wellbeing. In spite of these possibilities, little direct
or indirect associations were found between time spent online and neg-
ative wellbeing, save for one Serbian study (Pantic et al., 2012). Research
is thus moving away from variables relating to intensity of use, and is
shifting towards the impact of different and discrete online activities.
5.4. Future directions
The findings from this review indicate that SMTs allow adolescents
to increase the size and composition of their social networks substan-
tially. This may be either beneficial (e.g. increased social capital, social
support etc.) or harmful through increased exposure to triggering or
abusive content or the promotion of negative coping strategies
(Duggan et al., 2011).
One key factor associated with wellbeing outcomes, was the use of on-
line technologies for communicative rather than non-communicative
purposes (Vandoninck et al., 2011). SMTs which promote communicative
activities were shown to provide more wellbeing benefits; however this
33P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
must be tempered with the fact that such activities may also increase ex-
posure to harm. Consequently, strategies to support the wellbeing of
young people who use SMTs may wish to focus on the following
areas: (1) the particular SMT being used; (2) the communicative and
non-communicative activities that are taking place and (3) the social
capital available to that individual to manage the potentially negative
experiences that may arise. In regard to the latter, one must consider
the wider social network as an important factor as they providethe con-
text to which negative encounters are experienced. Again, the actual
SMT being used is of great importance as different SMTs provide differ-
ent social networking contexts (e.g. Facebook vs. Askfm). Future re-
search may wish to explore these issues in more depth as well as
consider the differing motivations (e.g. personality types) behind social
media usage and the subsequent wellbeing implications.
6. Robustness and limitations of the synthesis
In terms of overall methodological quality, there was an over-
representation of cross-sectional survey based research, recognised as
a weaker research design in relation to the research question, for
which experimental designs are notably stronger. In the face of such ev-
idence, one is unable to distinguish various mitigating factors such as
gender, socio-economic status, geographical locality etc. on adolescent
OSN and wellbeing much less the impact of online friendships or specif-
ic online activities. Moreover, a disparity exists between both inductive
and deductive approaches within the evidence base, therefore a greater
number of mixed method designs would be welcomed within the liter-
ature. As the quality of included studies will undoubtedlyimpact on the
reliability of the synthesis drawn from it, one must highlight this limita-
tion. Popay et al. (2006) intimate that this restriction can be avoided if
steps are taken to critically review the methodological quality of each
study and thus ensure appropriate ‘weighting’. Using a validated instru-
ment such as Downs and Black (1998) enables researchers to strength-
en synthesis reliability. The systematic search of online databases has
proved a useful formula for locating research on the topic; however,
future research may wish to expandthe range of databases further to in-
clude more specialist communication focused databases.
7. Conclusion and future directions
This review has classified research findings in terms of the influence
of social media on adolescent wellbeing.However, it must be recognised
that technology acts merely as a facilitator of human interaction and is
value-free, neither promoting the good nor the bad. Retrieved within
this review was a wealth of contradictory evidence suggesting both
harmful and beneficial aspects of SMTs. However, one must point to a
lack of evidence exacting the specific direction of the relationship be-
tween SMT and wellbeing. Be that as it may, a growing body of evidence
is suggesting that SMT and WB experience(s) (either positive or nega-
tive) are premised upon specific online activity rather than variables
such as, the ‘amount of time’or ‘number of online friends’.This
would suggest that early education of children and adolescents on the
various pitfalls of SMTs may enable them to avoid more ‘harmful’activ-
ities e.g. talking to strangers and thus reduce harmful experience(s).
Of further interest is the ability of SMTs to foster self-disclosure
through increased social network size and composition. This may
prove valuable to health and social care professionals attempting to ac-
cess traditionally hard-to-reach populations such as, young males or
those experiencing mental ill-health. Future studies may wish to in-
clude the benefits of both informal and formal means of online support.
Little or no association was found between the number of online friends
and WB, perhaps suggesting more indirect effect(s) or a current indis-
tinguishable ‘merging’between online and offline social networks.
Further research would therefore do well to investigate the impact of
online friendships on issues such as online help-seeking, exposure to
harm, cyber-bullying etc.
References
Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2006). Understanding human communication (9th ed.). New
York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ahn, J. (2012). The effect of social network sites on adolescents' social and academic
development: Current theories and controversies. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology,62(8), 1435–1445.
Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Medina, E., Barrutia, J., & Echebarria, C. (2013). The relation-
ship between socializingon the Spanish onlinenetworking site Tuenti and teenagers'
subjective wellbeing: The roles of self-esteem and loneliness. Computers in Human
Behavior,29,4.
Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. London: Methuen.
Baker, R. K., & White, K. M. (2010). In their own words: Why teenagers don't use so-
cial networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,14(6),
395–398.
Barak, A. (2007). Emotional support and suicide prevention through the Internet: A field
project report. Computers in Human Behavior,23(2), 971–984. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2005.08.001.
Boyd, D. R., & Bee, H. L. (2012). Lifespandevelopment (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and
Bacon.
Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholar-
ship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,13(1), 210–230. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press0-674-22457-4.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). The ecology of the family as a context for human develop-
ment. Developmental Psychology,22,723–742.
Bronfenb renner, U. (1989) . Ecological systems theory.In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child
development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 185–246). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Bryant, J.A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A.M. K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and
adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,11(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00028.x.
Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M., et al. (2003). Evaluating
meta-ethnography: A synthesis ofqualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes
anddiabetescare.Social Science and Medicine,56,671–684.
Cash, S., Thelwall, M., Peck, S., Ferrell, J., & Bridge, J. (2013). Adolescent suicide statements
on MySpace. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,16,166–174.
CASP (2006). Qualitative research: Appraisal tool. 10 questions to help you make sense of
qualitative research (pp. 1–4). Oxford: Public Health Resource Unit (Available from:
www.phru.nhs.uk/Doc_Links/Qualitative_Appraisal_Tool.pdf).
Cerna, A., & Smahel, D. (2009). Self-injury in adolescence: Blog as a mean of community
formation. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie,53(5), 492–504.
Cohen, S., & Ashby Wills, T. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin,92(2), 310–357.
Coleman, J. (1974). Relationships in adolescence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Davis, K. (2012). Friendship 2.0: Adolescents'experiences of belonging and self-disclosure
online. Journal of Adolescence,35(6), 1527–1536.
DeNeve, K. M. (1999). Happy as an extraverted clam? The role of personality for subjec-
tive well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science,8,141–144. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1359105308093860.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 per-
sonality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin,124,197–229. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197.
Devine, P., & Lloyd, K. (2012). Internet use and psychological well-being among 10-year-
old and 11-year-old children. Child Care in Practice,18(1), 5–22.
Dixon-Woods, M., Booth, A., & Sutton, A. J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative research: A re-
view of published reports. Qualitative Research,7,375–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1468794107078517.
Dolev-Cohen, M., & Barak, A. (2013). Adolescents' use of Instant Messaging as a means of
emotional relief. Computers in Human Behavior,29(1), 58–63.
Donchi, L., & Moore, S. (2004). It's a boy thing: The role of the Internet in young people's
psychological wellbeing. Behaviour Change,21(2), 76–89.
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment
of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of
health care interventions. Journal of Ep idemiology & Community Health.http://dx.
doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377.
Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users. Pew Internet Re-
search Centre's Internet and American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Reports/
2013/Socia l-media-users.aspx).
Duggan, J. M., Heath, N. L., Lewis, S. P., & Baxter, A. (2012). An examination of the scope
and natureof non-suicidal self-injuryonline activities:Implications for school mental
health professionals. School Men tal Health,4,56–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12310-011-9065-6.
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:”Social
capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 1143–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.
00367.x/CrossRef link.
Erikson, Erik H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, A. G., & Hawa, V. V. (2012). A longitudinal study of cyberbullying:
Examining risk and protective factors. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
9(2), 168–181.
Fioravanti, G., Dèttore, D., & Casale, S. (2012). Adolescent Internet addiction: Testing the
association between self-esteem, the perception of internet attributes, and prefer-
ence for online social interactions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
15(6), 318–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0358.
34 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
Frydenberg, E. (2008). Adolescent coping: Advances in theory, research and practice. New
York: Routledge.
Garmonsway, G. N. (19 91). The Pengui n Concise English dictionary. Harmondswo rth,
Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Green, M. C., Strange, J. J., & Brocks, T. C. (2002). Narrative impact: Social and cognitive
foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 287–314.
Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent internet use: What weexpect, what teens report. Journalof
Applied Developmental Psychology,25(6), 633–649.
Gross, E. F. (2009). Logging on, bouncing back: An experiential investigation of online
communication following social exclusion. Developmental Psychology,45,1787–1793.
Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental signif-
icance. Child Development,67,1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.326.
Hinduja,S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying,cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide
Research,14(3), 206–221.
House, R., Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas, M. (1995). MESO: An integration of macro and
micro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings, & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior,17.(pp.71–114). Greenwich, CT: JA.
Huang, H. Y., & Leung, L. (2012). Gratification-opportunities, self-esteem, and loneliness
in determining usage preference of BBS and blog among teenagers in C hina.
Atlantic Journal of Communication,20(3), 141–157.
Hwang, J. M.,Cheong, P. H., & Feeley,T. H. (2009). Being youngand feeling blue in Taiwan:
Examining adolescent depressive mood and online and offline activities. New Media
&Society,11(7), 1101–1121.
Jelenchick, L. A., Eickhoff, J. C., & Moreno, M.A. (2013). “Facebook depression?”Social net-
working site use and depression in older adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health,
52(1), 128–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.008.
Juvonen,J., & Gross, E. F. (2008).Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health,78(9), 496–505. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.
1746-1561.2008.00335.x.
Killick, C., & Taylor, B. J. (2009). Professional decision making on elder abuse: Systematic
narrativereview. Journal of ElderAbuse and Neglect,21,211–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/08946560902997421.
Kim, W., Jeong, O., & Lee, S. (2010). On social web sites. Information Systems,35(2),
215–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bm.2012.120.
King, L. A., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1998). What's so great about feeling good? Psychological
Inquiry,9,53–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.617.
Ko, & Kuo (2009). Can blogging enhance subjective well-being through self-disclosure?
Cyberpsychology & Behavior,12(1), 75–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.016.
Koles, B., & Nagy, P. (2012). Facebook usage patterns and school attitudes. Multicultural
Education and Technology Journal,6(1), 4–17.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. L. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J.
Kowlowski(Eds.), Multileveltheory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psycho-
logical well-being? American Psychologist,53,1017–1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.53.9.
Landis, J. R.,& Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics,33,159–174.
Laswell, M. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson
(Ed.), The communicationof ideas. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.
Lee, S. J. (2009). Online communication and adolescent social ties: Who benefits more
from Internet use? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,14(3), 509–531.
Leung, L. (2011). Loneliness, social support, and preference for online social interaction:
The mediating effects of identity experimentation online among children and adoles-
cents. Chinese Journal of Communication,4(4).
MacDonald,G. (2003). Using systematic reviews to improve social care. London: Social Care
Institute for Excellence.
Machmutow, K., Perren, S., Sticca, F., & Alsaker, F. D. (2012). Peer victimisation and de-
pressive symptoms: Can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of
cybervictimisation? Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties,17(3), 403–420.
Manago, A.M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P.M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy
of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-
being. Developmental Psychology,48(2), 69–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026338.
Mathur, V.K., & Freeman, D.G. (2002). A theoretical model of adolescent suicideand some
evidence from US data. Health Economics,11,695–708.
McFadden, P., Taylor, B. J., Campbell, A., & McQuilkin, J. (2012). Systematically identifying rel-
evant research: Case study on child protection social workers' resilience. Research on
Social Work Practice,22(6), 626–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731512453209.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America.
American Sociological Review,71(3), 353–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
000312240607100301.
Milani, L., Osualdella, D., & Di Blasio, P. (2009). Quality of interpersonal relationships and
problematic Internet use in adolescence. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,12, 681–684.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0071.
Miller, P. H. (2011). Theories of developmental psychology (5th ed.). New York: Worth
Publishers.
Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013). Anew
dimension of health care: Systematic review of the uses, benefits and limitations of so-
cial media for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research,15(4), e85.
Moshman, D. (1999). Adolescent psychological development: Rationality, morality and iden-
tity. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nezlek, J. B. (2000 ). Themotivational and cognitive dynamics of day-to-day social life. In J.
P. Forgas, K.Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational
aspects of interpersonal behaviour (pp. 92–111). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Nicholas,J.(2010).The role of internet technology and social branding in improving the
mental health and wellbeing of young people. Perspectives in Public Health,130,86–90.
O'Neill, B., Livingstone, S., & McLaughlin, S. (2011). Final recommendations for policy,
methodology and research. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.
O'Dea, B., & Campbell, A. (2011). Healthy connections: Online social networks and their
potential for peer support. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics,168,133–140.
O'Dea, B., & Campbell, A. (2011). Online social networking amongst teens: Friend or foe?
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics,167,133–138.
Orchard, L. J., & Fullwood, C. (2010).Current perspectives on personality and Internet use.
Social Science Computer R eview,28(2), 155–169.
Pantic, I., Damjanovic, A., Todorovic, J., Topalovic, D., BojovicJovic, D., Ristic, S., et al.
(2012). Association between online social networking and depression in high school
students: Behavioral physiology viewpoint. Psychiatria Danubina,24(1), 90–93.
Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2012). High school students' perceptions of
coping with cyberbullying. Youth & Society,44(2), 284–306.
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., et al. (2012). Media use,
face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to
12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology,48(2), 327–336.
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L.,Rogers, M., et al. (2006). Guidance
on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods Program
(Retrieved March 21st, 2013 from http://cpd.con ted.ox.ac.uk/healthsciences/
courses/short_courses/qsr/NSguidanceV1-JNoyes.pdf).
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Quinn, S. V., & Oldmeadow, J. A. (2013). Is the iGeneration a ‘We’generation?: Social net-
working use and belonging in 9–13 year olds. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology,31(1), 136–142.
Rodgers, M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Roberts, H., Britten, N., et al. (2009). Test-
ing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic re-
views: Effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm own ership and
function. Evaluation,15(1), 49–73.
Rousseau, D.M. (2011). Reinforcing the micro/macro bridge: Organizational thinking and
pluralistic vehicles. Journal of Management,37,429–442.
Ryan, R. M.,& Deci, E. L. (2001). Onhappiness and humanpotentials: A reviewof research
on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,52, 141–166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? (2011). An investigation into the rela-
tionship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage.
Computers in Human Behavior,27,1658–1664.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.
4.719 (PMID: 16508343).
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing: A positive health agenda for the
new millennium. Personality and Social Psychology Review,4,30–44. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_4.
Sarriera, J. C., Abs, D., Casas, F., & Bedin, L. M. (2012). Relations between media, perceived
social support and personal well-being in adolescence. Social Indicators Research,
106(3), 545–561.
Scott, C. R. (2007). Communication and social identity theory:Existing and potential con-
nections in organisational identification research. Journal of Communication Studies,
58(2), 123–138.
Selfhout, Maarten H.W., Branje, Susan J.T., Delsing, M., terBogt, Tom F. M., & Wim (2009).
Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived
friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence,32(4), 819–833.
Shannon,C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical modelof communication. :University
of Illinois Press.
Siporin,M. (1980). Ecologicalsystems theory in social work.Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare,7(4), 507–532.
Siriaraya, P., Tang, C., Ang, S., Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2011). A comparison of empathic
communication pattern for teenagers and older people in online support communi-
ties. Behaviour & Information Technology,30(5), 617–628.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluatio n: A
framework for assessing research evidence [monograph online]. London: Cabinet Office
(Available from: www.gsr.gov.uk/evaluating_policy/era_papers/qual_eval.asp).
Stefanone, M.A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2011). Contingencies of self-worth and social-
networking-site behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,14,
41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01585.x.
Steinberg, L. (20 05). Cognitive and affective developme nt in adolescence. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences,9,69–74.
Stengård, E., & Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, K. (2010). Mental health promotion in young
people —An investment for the future. : Publications of WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Sticca, Ruggieri, S., Alsaker, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Longitudinal risk facto rs for
cyberbullying in adolescence. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology,
23,52–67.
Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. (2009). Children, adolescents, and the media
(2nd ed.). CA, Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Taylor, B., Wylie, E., Dempster, M., & Donnelly, M. (2007). Systematically retrieving re-
search: A case study evaluating seven databases. Research on Social Work Practice,
17(6), 697–706.
Thomas, A. (2006). “MSN was the next big thing after beanie babies”: Children's virtual
experiences as an interface to their everyday lives. For: E-Learning,3(2), 126–143.
Tichon, J., & Shapiro, M. (2 003). The process of sharing social supp ort in cyberspace.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior,6(2), 161–170.
Tomai, M., Rosa, V., Mebane, M. E., D'Acunti, A., Benedetti, M., & Francescato, D. (2010).
Virtual communities in schools as tools to promote social capital with high school
students. Computers & Education,54,265–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2009.08.009.
35
P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
Population division UN-DESA world population prospects: 2010 revision. Accessed On-
line July 27th 2013. Available at. http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/
factsheets/One%20pager%20on%20youth%20demographics%20GF.pdf
Valaitis, R. (2005). Computers and the Internet: Tools for youth empowerment. Journal of
Medical Internet Research,7(5), 43–52.
Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their re-
lationship to adolescents' well-being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior,9(5), 584–590.
van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M, Meerkerk, G. J.,Vermulst, A. A., Spijkerman, R., & Engels, R. C. M.
E (2008). Online communication, compulsive internet use, and psychosocial well-
being among adolescents: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,44(3),
655–665.
Vandoninck, S., d'Haenens, L., De Cock, R., & Donoso, V. (2011). Social networking sites
and contact risks among Flemish youth. Journal of Child Research,19(1), 69–85.
Vandoninck, S., d'Haenens, L., & Roe, K. (2013). Online risks: Coping strategies of less re-
silient children and teenagers across Europe. Journal of Children and Media,7(1),
60–78.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1962). General system theory —Acriticalreview.General Systems,7,
1–20.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of
Management Journal,15(4), 407–426.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Computer mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and
hyper-personal communication. Communication Research,23,3–43.
Watts, D. J. (2007). The ‘new’science of networks. Annual Review Sociology,30,243–270.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.020404.104342.
Williams, A. L., & Merten, M. J. (2008). A review of online social networking profiles by
adolescents. Implications for future research and intervention, Adolescence,32(170),
253–273.
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults'
use of socialnetworking sites.Cyberpsychology,Behavior and Social Networking,13(2),
173–177.
Woodstock, L. (2002). Public journalism's talking cure. Journalism,3(1), 37–55.
36 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36
