Social Media Use and Empathy: A Mini Meta-Analysis

Full text

Social Networking, 2019, 8, 147-157
https://www.scirp.org/journal/sn
ISSN Online: 2169-3323
ISSN Print: 2169-3285
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 Oct. 9, 2019 147 Social Networking
Social Media Use and Empathy: A Mini
Meta-Analysis
Shu-Sha Angie Guan1, Sophia Hain2, Jennifer Cabrera3, Andrea Rodarte1
1California State University, Northridge, USA
2University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, USA
3University of California, Irvine, USA
Abstract
Concerns about the effects of social media or social networking site (SNS)
use
on prosocial development are increasing. The aim of the current study is to
meta-analytically summarize the research to date (
k
= 5) about the relation-
ship between general SNS use and two components of empathy (
i.e.
, empath
ic
concern and perspective-taking). Random effects meta-analyses showed tha
t
SNS use was significantly and positively related to affective empathy though
only marginally related to cognitive empathy. These effects were generally
small in size and do not es
tablish causality. Future research should explore
how specific behaviors are related to different forms of empathy.
Keywords
Social Media, Empathic Concern, Perspective-Taking
1. Introduction
Understanding how individuals relate to and empathize with one another is
foundational to the scientific study of social development. Empathy, the ability
to understand the emotions of others (the cognitive component of perspec-
tive-taking) and share in them (the affective component of empathic concern), is
believed to underlie the human capacity to bond with offspring in parent-child
attachment and cooperate with group members in ways that progress societies
[1] [2]. This relational construct is believed to be the “foundation of human so-
cial experience” [3] and is linked to outcomes at the individual and societal level.
For example, adolescents with higher empathy become adults with better social
skills, higher civic engagement, and greater prosocial skills like helping [4] [5]
[6]. Additionally, countries with higher empathy have higher levels of collectiv-
How to cite this paper:
Guan, S.-S.A., Hain
,
S
., Cabrera, J. and Rodarte, A. (2019)
Social
Media Use and Empathy: A Mini Meta
-
Analysis
.
Social Networking
,
8
, 147-157.
https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2019.84010
Received:
August 19, 2019
Accepted:
October 6, 2019
Published:
October 9, 2019
Copyright © 201
9 by author(s) and
Scientific
Research Publishing Inc.
This work
is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY
4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Open Access

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 148 Social Networking
ism, subjective well-being, prosocial behaviors, and U.S. states with higher em-
pathy have reduced violent crime [7] [8].
However, there is growing concern that empathy is decreasing among recent
cohorts of adolescents and young adults while narcissism is increasing [6]. Social
media may play a role in this phenomenon. The current meta-analysis explores
the relationship between social media use in daily life and the two components
of empathy. We begin by discussing the history of social media or social net-
working sites (SNSs), linking it to the literature on empathy, outline our metho-
dological strategy, present our results, and end with a discussion of limitations
and implications. Altogether, this study will provide important insight into the
effects of media use.
1.1. Social Networking Sites
In the last two decades, technological advances and social media have made it
easier to “connect” with others. Social media is part of what researchers broadly
call “new media” or “digital media” and has several affordances that separate it
from older forms of media (e.g., television, radio, newspapers), such as pervasive-
ness, disembodiment, interactivity, and asynchronicity [9] [10] [11]. Social media
sites, or social networking sites (SNSs), are defined as Web-based services that: 1)
individuals can use to construct public or semi-public profiles within a bounded
system; 2) identify other users with whom they share a connection; and 3) view
and traverse their and others’ lists of connections [12]. Indeed, in the late 1990s,
the first recognized sites (http://sixdegrees.com, https://www.classmates.com) were
aimed at connecting friends. Later, sites like LiveJournal (1999) and Friendster
(2002) provided a means for individuals to share profiles and personal opinions.
These characteristics and affordances of today’s most popular SNSs, like
Facebook
(2004),
Twitter
(2006), and
Instagram
(2010), likely shape the values and capaci-
ties formed from time online.
1.2. Media-Empathy Paradox
Although digital media can facilitate relationship formation and maintenance,
there is recent evidence of a media-empathy paradox, the irony that a tool created
for social connection may be reducing connective capacities [13] [14]. For ex-
ample, an analysis of 72 study samples shows that survey measures of empathy
have declined nearly 40% in American young adults since 1979 and research-
ers point to social media as a culprit for cultivating increasing focus on the self
rather than on others [14]. Not only may other-oriented traits like empathy be
decreasing, but self-oriented traits like narcissism, self-esteem, and self-satisfaction
are also on the rise across a similar timespan [15] [16] [17] [18]. However, it can
be argued that higher self-esteem during emerging adulthood may be normative
or protective [19].
To reconcile the media-empathy paradox, some social media researchers have
emphasized specific online activities as an explanatory factor. For example, so-
cial digital interactions like chatting may be linked to higher empathy [20] [21];

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 149 Social Networking
whereas the affordances of SNSs that create an emphasis on and opportunities
for controllable, malleable self-presentation may lead to promotion of self-interest,
narcissism, and fame-orientation [14] [22] [23] [24]. Similarly, a meta-analysis
of prosocial media suggests that exposure to prosocial media is linked to higher
empathic concern and prosocial behaviors [25]. However, other work on SNS
use found SNS activities were also positively linked to narcissism and loneliness
[26] [27]. To our knowledge, there have been no meta-analyses on the relation-
ship between general social media use and empathy. Overall, the link between
SNS use and empathy is still not well established or understood.
2. Method
2.1. Search Strategy
As shown in Figure 1, electronic searches for articles and abstracts were per-
formed in PsycINFO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar from 1990 to 2017 and again
in the summer of 2019 with final searches completed by August 11, 2019. The
main search strategy used combinations of keywords related to digital media
(
i.e.
, social media, social networking sites, cyberspace, online, Internet, Face-
book, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram). Media keywords were included in all
combinations with empathy keywords (
i.e.
, cognitive empathy, affective empa-
thy, sympathy, personal distress). In addition, we cross-referenced our search
with articles cited in reviews about media and prosocial outcomes [25] [28] [29].
Searches were conducted primarily by authors Hain and Cabrera. They were
then collected into an electronic folder, checked for duplicates and eligibility and
coded by Hain, Rodarte, and Guan. The final sample of studies included
k
= 5
studies that met the inclusion criteria.
Figure 1. Flowchart of search procedures.

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 150 Social Networking
2.2. Study Selection
2.2.1. Empathy
We included studies with the cognitive or affective dimensions of empathy. These
factors were assessed using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index [30], Adolescent
Measure of Empathy and Sympathy [31], Basic Empathy Scale [32], or the Ques-
tionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy [33].
2.2.2. Media Use
We included different SNSs (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) and media use activities
(e.g., texting, commenting, emailing). However, to narrow the scope and
strengthen interpretability, we only selected for relatively active but general uses
of SNSs in everyday life (
i.e.
, profile updates, chatting, instant messaging, email-
ing, posting, and commenting) as measured by frequency (e.g., Use of Facebook
Questionnaire [UFQ] from less than once a day to three or more times a day
[21]; never to very frequently [20]) or duration (e.g., not at all to more than 10
hours a day on a “typical day” [34]). That means that we excluded studies in a
specific setting such as in an educational context (e.g., assessing course discus-
sion boards [35]), only assessed specific forms of exposure (e.g., prosocial or an-
tisocial media; for a review see [25]), cyberbullying [36], or manipulated use
[37].
2.2.3. Data Extraction
A rating document was prepared, revised, and used during coding. Variables
coded included: study year, authors, country, participant composition, gender
composition, mean age, design, media use measures, empathy measures, cova-
riates, and test statistics. Hain and Rodarte coded each of the articles. If there
was a discrepancy, Guan reviewed the article and resolved the difference. We de-
rived a standardized coefficient (
β)
from regression models or fixed effects from
multilevel models [38] by multiplying the non-standardized coefficient by the
standard deviation of
x
and dividing by the standard deviation of
y
[39] and
calculated the effect size using the formula
0.05r
βλ
= +
where
λ
= 1 when
β
is nonnegative and
λ
= 0 when
β
is negative [40]. For studies
with multiple time points, the effect estimate was averaged across time points if
the correlation between time points was unknown. This conservatively assumes
a high correlation (
r
= 1) between time points rather than assuming no correla-
tion but will underestimate the precision [41]. Multiple effect estimates within a
study were also averaged across gender or SNS activities (e.g., chatting, posting)
to create a global SNS use estimate so as not to violate the independence assump-
tion of the meta-analysis.
3. Results
3.1. Meta-Analysis
The studies were meta-analyzed using fixed effects in which the mean effect size

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 151 Social Networking
(
i.e.
, correlation) was weighted by sample size. Study characteristics are provided
in Table 1. We converted correlations into Fisher’s
z
for analysis and converted
back to Pearson’s
r
for interpretation. Heterogeneity index analysis (
Q
) was run
to assess the amount of variability across studies. For affective empathy,
Q
=
36.61, and cognitive empathy,
Q
= 31.75, were both above the critical value for a
χ
2
(4) = 9.488 when
α
= 0.05 and we conclude that the studies were not homo-
genous and include random effects analyses.
Aggregated effect sizes are shown in Figure 2. Overall, social networking use
was positively related to affective empathy,
Mr
= 0.07,
95% CI [0.04, 0.10],
Z
=
4.00,
p
< 0.01. Additionally, social networking use was positively related to cog-
nitive empathy,
Mr
= 0.05,
95% CI [0.02, 0.08],
Z
= 3.03,
p
= 0.002. Given the
heterogeneity of studies, random effects were also tested and showed that SNS
Figure 2. Meta-analysis of relationship between global social media use to affective and
cognitive empathy.
Table 1. Study characteristics and effect size estimates.
Study
N
% Female
Ethnicities
Age
Region
Outcome
r SE
Media Type
Alloway
et al.
(2014) 410 75%
73.6% White, 9% African
American, 6.7% Hispanic,
5.2% Asian
18 - 50 USA EC
PT
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
FB Chat, Photo,
Video, Link
Carrier
et al.
(2015) 1390 58%
46.3% Hispanic, 21.6%
Caucasian, 14.7% Black,
12.9% Asian, 4.5% Other
M
age = 23.39;
SD
= 3.11 USA EC
PT
−0.04
−0.06
0.03
0.03 General Use
Errasti
et al.
(2017) 503 45.9% N/A 14 - 17 Spain EC
PT
0.17
0.11
0.04
0.04
FB & Twitter
Frequency
Powell & Roberts
(2017) 100 50% N/A 18 - 58 UK EC
PT
0.28
0.29
0.10
0.10
Duration of
Digital
Interactions
Vossen &
Valkenburg (2016) 942 50.4% N/A 10 - 14 Netherlands EC
PT
0.17
0.15
0.03
0.03
Social Media
Frequency
Note: EC = empathic concern and PT = perspective-taking.

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 152 Social Networking
use was positively related to affective empathy,
Mr
= 0.11,
95% CI [0.01, 0.21],
Z
= 2.14,
p
= 0.032. However, SNS use was only marginally related to cognitive
empathy,
Mr
= 0.09,
95% CI [0.00, 0.18],
Z
= 1.91,
p
= 0.056. These effects are all
small in size (Cohen, 1988). Regression analyses to test the effect of percentage
of gender and average age of a study on effect size were not significant, though
these analyses are likely under-powered given
k
= 5.
3.2. Publication Bias
We found no evidence of publication bias for the affective empathy effect sizes
based on Egger’s test,
k
= 5, regression intercept = 3.72, 95% CI [−3.63, 11.08],
p
= 0.394. Additionally, the effect sizes for cognitive empathy showed no signifi-
cant publication bias on Egger’s test,
k
= 5, regression intercept = 4.07, 95% CI
[−2.46, 10.47],
p
= 0.311.
4. Discussion
Despite the decreases in empathy coupled with increases in media use at the so-
cietal level [13], individual social media use in terms of frequency or time spent
per day appears to be related to higher levels of empathy, particularly affective
empathy. Even though the associations were small, they trended positive. How-
ever, there may be some online behaviors that cultivate empathy (e.g., sharing
emotions, expressing support [21]) more than others (e.g., updating profile photos
[20]). In combination with emerging longitudinal evidence that social media use
at one time point is predictive of higher levels of cognitive and affective empathy
one year later among adolescents [42] and experimental work that shows that
interdependent Facebook use can promote relational orientation [37], this study
contributes to the growing literature on how social media can facilitate positive
psychosocial development.
Although promising, there are limitations of the current meta-analysis to con-
sider. This study aimed to look only at global measures of social media use in
everyday life and, because of this inclusion parameter, includes a small sample of
studies and effect sizes. This likely limits the generalizability of the results and
our ability to detect differences by moderators (gender, age). Also, the results are
correlational and do not establish causality. Previous research suggests that indi-
viduals who are prosocial offline are often prosocial online [29]. Despite our at-
tempts to narrow the scope, there remained variability in the measures of media
use and study parameters as indicated by the heterogeneity index. Given the
wide range of online activities, future studies should explore how specific beha-
viors are related to different forms of empathy (e.g., helping strangers vs. family
or friends [25]). Additionally, the social media landscape is constantly evolving
and this study captures media use as assessed by recent studies in one moment
in time. Cultural psychologists suggest that changes in technology use, as part of
larger shifting sociodemographic and ecological changes, can shape cultural val-
ues and learning environments in ways that directly affect human development
across time [43].

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 153 Social Networking
It is also important to note that all of the studies included, and much of media
research in general, have been conducted in industrialized, individualistic coun-
tries like the United States. This limited our ability to detect cultural differences.
On the one hand, the most popular SNSs are often developed in Western cul-
tures and can reflect the highly individualistic values of their developers and us-
ers [37] [44]. On the other hand, the Internet is a “global village” of individuals
from various nationalities and cultural backgrounds with nearly 60% of the on-
line population residing outside of the U.S. [44]. These diverse offline cultural
values can be reflected in the online [45]-[52]. Additionally, there may be values
and goals specific to the SNS context outside of the values that users bring with
them [53]. Previous meta-analyses suggest that the effects of media use may be
stronger in non-Western countries [26]. Future research should explore how cul-
tural values in the online and offline interact in shaping development.
Although limited, this meta-analysis provides useful insights into the me-
dia-empathy paradox [13]. Additionally, it may be informative in better under-
standing growing generations of adolescents and young adults who have become
the first generations to have grown up fully immersed in digital media (
i.e.
, “dig-
ital natives”) having been born around or after the 1990s when the Internet was
first commercially launched. This may mean that psychosocial development for
these “digital natives” differs from prior generations of “digital immigrants” [9].
For example, greater face-to-face communication with family members, close
friends, and acquaintances was associated with higher levels of psychological
well-being (e.g., life meaning, relationship quality) for older adults age 35 - 54
but not for young adults age 18 - 34 [54]. As technology transforms society, so-
cial relationships, and media landscapes, it will become ever important to track
how these changes affect individuals and their development.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.
References
[1] Davis, M. (1994) Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Wm. C. Brown Com-
munications, Inc., Dubuque.
[2] de Waal, F.B. (2010) The Evolution of Empathy. In: Keltner, D., Marsh, J. and
Smith, J.A., Eds.,
The Compassionate Instinct
:
The Science of Human Goodness
, W.
W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, 16-25.
[3] Masten, C.L., Morelli, S.A. and Eisenberger, N.I. (2011) An fMRI Investigation of Em-
pathy for “Social Pain” and Subsequent Prosocial Behavior.
Neuroimage
, 55, 381-388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.060
[4] Allemand, M., Steiger, A.E. and Fend, H.A. (2015) Empathy Development in Adoles-
cence Predicts Social Competencies in Adulthood.
Journal of Personality
, 83, 229-241.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12098
[5] Eisenberg, N. and Miller, P.A. (1987) The Relation of Empathy to Prosocial and Re-
lated Behaviors.
Psychological Bulletin
, 101, 91.

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 154 Social Networking
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
[6] Twenge, J.M. (2013) The Evidence for Generation Me and against Generation We.
Emerging Adulthood
, 1, 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812466548
[7] Bach, R.A., Defever, A.M., Chopik, W.J. and Konrath, S.H. (2017) Geographic Var-
iation in Empathy: A State-Level Analysis.
Journal of Research in Personality
, 68,
124-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.12.007
[8] Chopik, W.J., O’Brien, E. and Konrath, S.H. (2017) Differences in Empathic Con-
cern and Perspective Taking across 63 Countries.
Journal of Cross
-
Cultural Psy-
chology
, 48, 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673910
[9] Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1.
On the Horizon
, 9,
1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
[10] Subrahmanyam, K. and Smahel, D. (2010) Digital Youth: The Role of Media in De-
velopment. Springer Science & Business Media, Bloomington.
[11] Valkenburg, P.M. (2017) Understanding Self-Effects in Social Media.
Human Com-
munication Research
, 43, 477-490. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12113
[12] Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007) Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship.
Journal of Computer
-
Mediated Communication
, 13, 210-230.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
[13] Konrath, S. (2012) The Empathy Paradox: Increasing Disconnection in the Age of
Increasing Connection. In: Luppicini, R., Ed.,
Handbook of Research on Technoself
:
Identify in a Technological Society
, IGI Global, Hershey, 204-228.
[14] Konrath, S.H., O’Brien, E.H. and Hsing, C. (2011) Changes in Dispositional Empa-
thy in American College Students over Time: A Meta-Analysis.
Personality and So-
cial Psychology Review
, 15, 180-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377395
[15] Gentile, B., Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2010) Birth Cohort Differences in
Self-Esteem, 1988-2008: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis.
Review of General Psy-
chology
, 14, 261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019919
[16] Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2008) Increases in Positive Self-Views among High
School Students: Birth-Cohort Changes in Anticipated Performance, Self-Satisfaction,
Self-Liking, and Self-Competence.
Psychological Science
, 19, 1082-1086.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02204.x
[17] Twenge, J.M. and Foster, J.D. (2010) Birth Cohort Increases in Narcissistic Perso-
nality Traits among American College Students, 1982-2009.
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
, 1, 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609355719
[18] Twenge, J.M., Konrath, S., Foster, J.D., Keith Campbell, W. and Bushman, B.J. (2008)
Egos Inflating over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic Per-
sonality Inventory.
Journal of Personality
, 76, 875-902.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x
[19] Arnett, J.J. (2013) The Evidence for Generation We and against Generation Me.
Emerging Adulthood
, 1, 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812466842
[20] Alloway, T., Runac, R., Qureshi, M. and Kemp, G. (2014) Is Facebook Linked to Sel-
fishness? Investigating the Relationships among Social Media Use, Empathy, and
Narcissism.
Social Networking
, 3, 150. https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2014.33020
[21] Errasti, J., Amigo, I. and Villadangos, M. (2017) Emotional Uses of Facebook and
Twitter: Its Relation with Empathy, Narcissism, and Self-Esteem in Adolescence.
Psychological Reports
, 120, 997-1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117713496
[22] Valkenburg, P.M. and Peter, J. (2011) Online Communication among Adolescents:
An Integrated Model of Its Attraction, Opportunities, and Risks.
Journal of Adoles-

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 155 Social Networking
cent Health
, 48, 121-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020
[23] Uhls, Y.T. and Greenfield, P.M. (2011) The Rise of Fame: An Historical Content Anal-
ysis.
Cyberpsychology
:
Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace
, 5, Article 1.
[24] Uhls, Y.T., Zgourou, E. and Greenfield, P.M. (2014) 21st Century Media, Fame, and
Other Future Aspirations: A National Survey of 9 - 15 Year Olds.
Cyberpsychology
:
Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace
, 8, Article 5.
https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-4-5
[25] Coyne, S.M., Padilla-Walker, L.M., Holmgren, H.G., Davis, E.J., Collier, K.M.,
Memmott-Elison, M.K. and Hawkins, A.J. (2018) A Meta-Analysis of Prosocial Me-
dia on Prosocial Behavior, Aggression, and Empathic Concern: A Multidimensional
Approach.
Developmental Psychology
, 54, 331. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000412
[26] Liu, D. and Baumeister, R.F. (2016) Social Networking Online and Personality of
Self-Worth: A Meta-Analysis.
Journal of Research in Personality
, 64, 79-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.024
[27] Song, H., Zmyslinski-Seelig, A., Kim, J., Drent, A., Victor, A., Omori, K. and Allen,
M. (2014) Does Facebook Make You Lonely? A Meta Analysis.
Computers in Hu-
man Behavior
, 36, 446-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011
[28] James, C., Davis, K., Charmaraman, L., Konrath, S., Slovak, P., Weinstein, E. and
Yarosh, L. (2017) Digital Life and Youth Well-Being, Social Connectedness, Empa-
thy, and Narcissism.
Pediatrics
, 140, S71-S75.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758F
[29] Reich, S.M. (2017) Connecting Offline Social Competence to Online Peer Interac-
tions.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
, 6, 291.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000111
[30] Davis, M.H. (1983) Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a
Multidimensional Approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
, 44, 113.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
[31] Vossen, H.G., Piotrowski, J.T. and Valkenburg, P.M. (2015) Development of the
Adolescent Measure of Empathy and Sympathy (AMES).
Personality and Individual
Differences
, 74, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.040
[32] Jolliffe, D. and Farrington, D.P. (2006) Development and Validation of the Basic
Empathy Scale.
Journal of Adolescence
, 29, 589-611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
[33] Reniers, R.L., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N.M. and Völlm, B.A. (2011) The
QCAE: A Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy.
Journal of Personality
Assessment
, 93, 84-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484
[34] Carrier, L.M., Spradlin, A., Bunce, J.P. and Rosen, L.D. (2015) Virtual Empathy: Posi-
tive and Negative Impacts of Going Online upon Empathy in Young Adults.
Com-
puters in Human Behavior
, 52, 39-48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.026
[35] Chadwick, S. and Ralston, E. (2010) Perspective-Taking in Structured and Unstruc-
tured Online Discussions.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in High-
er Education
, 22, 1-11.
[36] Ang, R.P. and Goh, D.H. (2010) Cyberbullying among Adolescents: The Role of Af-
fective and Cognitive Empathy, and Gender.
Child Psychiatry & Human Develop-
ment
, 41, 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3
[37] Hong, S. and Na, J. (2018) How Facebook Is Perceived and Used by People across
Cultures: The Implications of Cultural Differences in the Use of Facebook.
Social
Psychological and Personality Science
, 9, 435-443.

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 156 Social Networking
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617711227
[38] Powell, P.A. and Roberts, J. (2017) Situational Determinants of Cognitive, Affective,
and Compassionate Empathy in Naturalistic Digital Interactions.
Computers in Hu-
man Behavior
, 68, 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.024
[39] Lorah, J. (2018) Effect Size Measures for Multilevel Models: Definition, Interpreta-
tion, and TIMSS Example.
Large
-
Scale Assessments in Education
, 6, 8.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
[40] Peterson, R.A. and Brown, S.P. (2005) On the Use of Beta Coefficients in Meta-Analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology
, 90, 175.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
[41] Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P. and Rothstein, H.R. (2009) Introduction
to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
[42] Vossen, H.G. and Valkenburg, P.M. (2016) Do Social Media Foster or Curtail Adoles-
cents’ Empathy? A Longitudinal Study.
Computers in Human Behavior
, 63, 118-124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.040
[43] Greenfield, P.M. (2009) Linking Social Change and Developmental Change: Shifting
Pathways of Human Development.
Developmental Psychology
, 45, 401.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014726
[44] Singh, N., Zhao, H. and Hu, X. (2005) Analyzing the Cultural Content of Web Sites:
A Cross-National Comparison of China, India, Japan, and US.
International Mar-
keting Review
, 22, 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510593241
[45] Boz, N. and Guan, S.S.A. (2017) “Your Profile Is So Rad”: Self-Presentation Strate-
gies in Turkish Adolescents.
The European Journal of Communication Research
, 42,
23-46.
[46] Chen, W. (2010) Internet-Usage Patterns of Immigrants in the Process of Intercul-
tural Adaptation.
Cyberpsychology
:
Behavior
,
and Social Networking
, 13, 387-399.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0249
[47] Jackson, L.A. and Wang, J.L. (2013) Cultural Dif0000ferences in Social Networking
Site Use: A Comparative Study of China and the United States.
Computers in Hu-
man Behavior
, 29, 910-921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.024
[48] Na, J., Kosinski, M. and Stillwell, D.J. (2015) When a New Tool Is Introduced in
Different Cultural Contexts: Individualism-Collectivism and Social Network on Fa-
cebook.
Journal of Cross
-
Cultural Psychology
, 46, 355-370.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114563932
[49] Mazur, E. and Li, Y. (2016) Identity and Self-Presentation on Social Networking
Web Sites: A Comparison of Online Profiles of Chinese and American Emerging
Adults.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
, 5, 101.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000054
[50] Qiu, L., Lin, H. and Leung, A.K.Y. (2013) Cultural Differences and Switching of
In-Group Sharing Behavior between an American (Facebook) and a Chinese (Re-
nren) Social Networking Site.
Journal of Cross
-
Cultural Psychology
, 44, 106-121.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111434597
[51] Xu, J., Yang, T., Cong, T. and Zeng, Y. (2015) Use of Social Networking Sites among
Chinese and American Researchers: A Comparative Study.
Journal of Scholarly Pub-
lishing
, 47, 60-76. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.1.03
[52] Xu, Y. and Zhang, W. (2017) New Media’s Impact on China from a Culture Pers-
pective. In:
New Media and Chinese Society
, Springer, Singapore, 95-119.

S.-S. A. Guan et al.
DOI:
10.4236/sn.2019.84010 157 Social Networking
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6710-5_6
[53] Meyrowitz, J. (1986) No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social
Behavior. Oxford University Press, New York.
[54] Chan, M. (2014) Multimodal Connectedness and Quality of Life: Examining the In-
fluences of Technology Adoption and Interpersonal Communication on Well-Being
across the Life Span.
Journal of Computer
-
Mediated Communication
, 20, 3-18.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12089