Content uploaded by Sigal Tifferet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sigal Tifferet on Jul 28, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Gender Differences in Social Support on Social Network Sites: A Meta-Analysis
Manuscript prior to peer review and publication.
For the updated paper see:
Tifferet, S. (2020). Gender Differences in Social Support on Social Network Sites: A Meta-
Analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(4), 199–209.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0516
Abstract
Social network sites (SNS) have become an increasingly popular platform for providing
and receiving social support. Traditionally, females are believed to offer more social support.
However, investigations of both the offline and online domain have revealed mixed findings.
This meta-analysis attempts to assess the presence and magnitude of gender differences in social
support on SNS. A literature review produced a sample of 30 independent studies with 17,000
participants. Results showed that females on social network sites give (d = 0.36) and receive (d =
0.14) greater social support than do males. This is the first meta-analysis to test for and
demonstrate gender differences in social support, either offline or online.
Keywords: Facebook, literature review, sex, social support, social media, meta-analysis.
Introduction
Social support has significant psychological and health consequences 1. People with low
levels of support are more likely to suffer from loneliness 2, depression 3 and health problems 2.
Social network sites (SNS) have become an increasingly popular platform for giving and
receiving social support 4,5. Thus, it is important to study social support in this new domain and
examine its predictors. Traditionally, females are believed to grant more social support to others
6,7. However, the empirical findings in both the offline 8–10 and online realms 11–13 are mixed.
This study aims to assess the presence and magnitude of gender differences in both giving and
receiving social support on SNS, using a meta-analytic assessment. To the best of my
knowledge, this is the first meta-analytic review of gender differences for either offline or online
social support.
Social support
Social support has many conceptualizations and definitions 14–17. Some characterize it as an
antecedent of health 18,19. Others classify social support together with adjacent terms, such as
social capital, social integration, and social networks 20–22. Still others delineate the various
subtypes of support that can be offered 23–25. The present study aims to summarize a wide range
of studies using Heaney and Israel’s 16 inclusive definition of social support: “aid and assistance
exchanged through social relationships and interpersonal transactions.” Similar definitions have
been commonly used in the study of social support, both offline 14,26 and online 27.
Social support is not a uniform construct; it can be classified into subtypes such as
emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal 25. It can also be classified by its level of
objectivity: Perceived support is the subjective perception, whereas enacted support comprises
actual behaviors 28,29. Last, social support is bi-directional and can be given and received 30,31.
2
Most studies have focused on the receiving side of social support, whereas fewer have addressed
the giving of support. This imbalance may be due to the established significance of receiving
social support. In this study, I seek to assess social support inclusively, and therefore, I assess
both the giving and the receiving of social support on SNS in all their forms.
Gender differences in social support
In her theory of ‘tend-and-befriend’, Taylor 6,32 claimed that in the face of stress, females
give and receive social support more than do males. She suggested that these gender differences
arise from a biological response to stress. Whereas men are likely to react to stress using the
‘fight or flight’ response, women react to stress using the tend-and-befriend response. Tending
refers to the caring for offspring, whereas befriending refers to creating and maintaining social
networks. Taylor suggested that the tend-and-befriend response was evolutionarily selected to
increase the survival chances of mothers and their offspring in times of danger.
The claim that females seek and give more social support than do males is common 1,7,33,34
and has been attributed to both biological and social foundations. However, empirical findings
are equivocal. While some studies have shown that females indeed give and receive more
support 35–38, some scholars have reported mixed results 8,10,39, whereas others report no gender
difference 40–45.
In the offline realm, many of the studies on gender differences in social support are carried
out on married couples 8,36–38,41,44,45. In this context, the bi-directional nature of social support
makes interpreting these findings challenging. For instance, in cancer patients, male patients
report receiving more spousal support than do females 38. It is unclear whether this finding is due
to men’s lower support-giving as caregivers or their higher need for support as patients. Studies
on same-sex friends exhibit similar problems. For instance, women are more likely to offer social
support to their same-sex friends than are men to their same-sex friends 35. Here, again, it is
unclear if this is due to female dominance in giving social support or in seeking it.
Social support on SNS
SNS include an extensive network of friends, acquaintances, and family, usually from both
genders. For this reason, studying social support on SNS examines a multitude of same- and
different-sex support patterns, both inside and outside the family. With the rising popularity of
social media, social support has an important role in the online realm 4,5,46,47. Users who post on
SNS expect to receive feedback and support 48, and indeed they are likely to receive it 4,49,50—
perhaps more so on Facebook than on Instagram 51,52. SNS provide support for people who are
geographically distant from their primary support group, such as international students 53 and
facilitate adaptation to stressful life events 54,55. Receiving social support on SNS is associated
with SNS satisfaction 56, enhanced life satisfaction 57, lower depression 57, happiness, and self-
esteem 58.
Gender differences in SNS
Females and males behave differently online in general 59,60, and on SNS, specifically. In
comparison with males, females upload more photos 61,62, and post more status updates 63 . Their
SNS activity notwithstanding, females tend to express more concern about their privacy than do
males and are more cautious regarding the information they share 64.
Females also present themselves differently than males. In their profile photos, males
highlight their status 65,66, whereas females highlight family relations 65 and emotional
expressivity 65,66. Similar findings have been found in the language females use on SNS. In
comparison to males, females’ language is warmer, more positive, compassionate, cooperative,
3
and polite 67–69. I suggest that females’ inclination to warmth, expressivity, compassion, and
family relations finds expression in the increased giving of social support.
The present study
In the present study, I meta-analyze gender differences in giving and receiving social
support on SNS. Single-sample studies are limited to a single population and methodology and
are at risk for spurious results due to typically small samples. These sample characteristics are
prone to produce mixed findings in the field, which allow readers to cherry-pick findings that are
congruent with their viewpoint. Adopting a meta-analytic approach enables us to resolve existing
controversies and draw inferences from these conflicting empirical studies 70. A key feature of a
meta-analysis is its ability to quantitatively summarize the effect sizes of many studies, with
higher weightings assigned to larger samples. Due to these advantages, meta-analysis is
considered a powerful and dominant research approach 70–72.
Several single-study papers have sought to assess the gender difference in online social
support 12,73; even more have assessed this difference with no a priori gender hypothesis 74,75.
Most studies have measured receiving social support 76,77, whereas fewer have measured giving
support 78,79. Following the tend-and-befriend theory and the empirical findings on increased
female warmth and cooperativeness, I posit the following hypotheses:
H1: Females give more social support on SNS than do males.
According to the tend-and-befriend theory 6, befriending is seen as “the creation of
networks of associations that provide resources and protection for the female and her offspring
under conditions of stress.” 6. Thus, it includes both giving and receiving social support.
Following H1, and due to the reciprocal nature of social support 80,81, I also posit the following
hypothesis:
H2: Females receive more social support on SNS than do males.
Methods
Search strategy
The search covered the databases of APA PsycNet, EBSCO, Emerald, Google Scholar,
Primo, Sage, ScienceDirect, and Taylor & Francis for English-language papers, from database
inception to October 2018. Search strings included terms related to the three constructs: social
support (e.g., social support, support), gender (e.g., gender, sex, sex difference, gender
difference), and social network sites (e.g., social network site, social media, Facebook, online),
using both free text and controlled language of indexing databases (i.e., database keywords). The
search was then repeated without gender-related search strings to find secondary data. We also
screened the bibliographies of pertinent reviews. Finally, we searched the websites of relevant
journals for recently added content, including Computers in Human Behavior, and
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
Along with peer-reviewed papers, the study incorporated a dataset from the Pew Research
Center. Datasets from the Pew Research Center have been the subject of analysis in peer-
reviewed journals 82. Each of the Pew Internet and Tech datasets 83 were scanned in search of
reports of gender differences on the study variables. This search produced a single dataset 84. We
also included the results from a highly cited Swedish report by the Gothenburg Research Institute
78.
Inclusion criteria
Together, these searches yielded 1,670 papers (including many duplicates). Based on their
titles and abstracts, 237 papers were identified as potentially eligible for inclusion. These papers
4
were then fully screened for the following inclusion criteria: (a) an empirical quantitative study,
(b) published in peer-reviewed journals or at a large research center, (c) measuring gender and
social support on SNS, (d) not based on a gender-dependent sample (e.g., mothers), and (e) not
limited to a specific support group (e.g., health support groups). The last two criteria were used
to eliminate an inherent gender bias within the sample. For instance, a study on a Facebook
support group for autism included about 90% females 85; a study on a support group for surgeries
included 80% females 86. Applying the five inclusion criteria resulted in 55 eligible papers.
Of these 55 eligible papers, only 13 reported data appropriate for computing an effect size.
The remaining 42 papers did not include appropriate data. Some of the 42 reported gender-
related results using beta coefficients. This data is inappropriate since beta coefficients are partial
coefficients that may misrepresent the zero-order correlation between gender and social support
87. Other papers measured gender but did not report its relationship with social support. Thus, I
sent email requests and reminders to the authors of these 42 papers, of which 15 (36%)
responded. The final sample of the current meta-analysis thus included 28 papers reporting data
from 30 independent sample studies 11,12,84,88–96,57,97–104,73–79. See the full selection process in
Figure 1.
Coding
Several variables were coded for each of the identified studies: year of publication,
author(s), country, number of participants, and the name of the SNSs. It was also recorded
whether the finding was related to an a priori hypothesis or was reported as secondary data. For
each finding, we coded the gender effect size or descriptive statistics. Each finding was
associated with either giving or receiving social support, and the specific measure it used was
coded.
Giving social support
Several self-report measures have been used to assess the levels of social support given by
the participants. The most common research strategy was to ask the participant to report the
likelihood of him or her responding supportively to a hypothetical post 12,73,74,88. The second
most common strategy was to ask the participants to report on actual past support-giving
behaviors 79,84,89. Last, one study used self-reports to measure the importance of using Facebook
to support others 78, and another to measure the social overload created by supporting others 11.
Receiving social support
The level of social support received by the participants was primarily assessed using
perceived support scales (82%). The most popular scale was an adaptation of the
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support 105. However, 12 additional scales were also
used 106–118, and two additional studies used author-created items 84,90. Only four studies (18%)
attempted to measure enacted support using objective observational measures, such as the
number of likes received for a post 91 or the likelihood that a friend would respond to a request
for online assistance 100.
Statistical analyses
First, after examining studies’ findings, at times calculating research outcomes from the
descriptive statistics, we recorded Cohen’s d, odds ratio (OR), and Pearson’s r. For the second
stage, effect sizes were converted into Cohen’s d 119; thus, stronger social support on behalf of
females was indicated by a positive Cohen’s d value . In cases of several reported effect sizes
concerning the same topic, the average effect size was used. Third, we conducted two separate
meta-analyses: one for giving and one for receiving social support. The R software package
‘meta’ 120, using a random-effect model was employed for all analyses.
5
In order to assess the variation in true effect sizes, their heterogeneity was assessed using Q
(measure of weighted squared deviations), τ (a measure of the between-studies standard
deviation), and I2 (the proportion of variance explained by the heterogeneity of the data statistics)
72: Publication bias was estimated using the trim-and-fill adjustment method 120,121.
Results
Sample description
The dataset included 30 independent samples from 28 papers, with 17,000 participants.
Studies from eight samples reported findings on gender differences in giving social support on
SNS, studies from 21 samples reported findings on receiving it, and a study from one sample
reported both 84 (see Tables 1 and 2). From these, 16 studies (53%) used undergraduate student
samples, 12 (40%) were conducted in the United States, and 27 (90%) employed a survey
methodology.
Gender differences in social support on SNS
As hypothesized, the meta-analyses revealed that females give and receive more social
support on SNS than do males (see Table 3, Figure 2, and Figure 3). However, the effect size of
giving support was small (d = 0.36, 95% CI [0.26, 0.47]) and that of receiving support was even
smaller (d = 0.14, 95% CI [0.06, 0.22]).
Heterogeneity
For both giving support (Q (8) = 19.94, p = .01) and receiving support (Q(21) = 81.69, p
< .001), heterogeneity was statistically significant. The proportion of the observed variance
reflected by real differences in effect sizes between studies (I2) was moderate for giving support
(60%) and high (74%) for receiving it 72 (see Table 3). These results suggest that there are real
differences between the effect sizes of the various studies in the meta-analysis. These differences
may stem from study differences, such as culture, measure, or the subtype of support (emotional,
instrumental, or informational).
Publication bias
Using the trim-and-fill adjustment method 120,121, no publication bias was revealed in the
meta-analysis of giving support: no studies were added, and Cohen’s d remained identical after
the adjustment (see Table 3). However, the trim-and-fill method did suggest a possible
publication bias in the meta-analysis of receiving support: eight studies were added, and Cohen’s
d decreased (see Table 3). Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that publication bias did not
play a major role in the gender difference of receiving social support. Of the 22 studies on
receiving support, only one (5%) considered gender differences in privacy as an a priori
hypothesis 97, whereas the others reported them only as secondary results. This high rate of
secondary data was due to the pervasive nature of gender as a standard demographic variable,
reported in most studies. Since the statistical significance of the gender difference was not an a
priori hypothesis in the vast majority of studies, publication bias seems unlikely.
Discussion
In today’s digital world, much of our social support has moved from the offline to the
online domain 4. Social support is indeed one of the motives for using SNS 122. Many studies
have assessed gender differences in social support, both offline and online. However, to the best
of my knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate these differences by
performing a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses can quantitatively summarize the results of single-
6
sample studies and correct for sample size. I hypothesized that a meta-analytic study would show
that females both give and receive more social support on SNS than males.
Gender differences in giving social support
As hypothesized, the meta-analysis showed that females give more support on SNS than do
males (Cohen’s d = 0.36). The study findings are in line with other gender differences found on
SNS. First, female’ language on SNS is warmer and more compassionate than that of males 67.
This suggests that they will also support others more often. Second, compared with males,
females spend more time on SNS 78,123 and are more active in them 124. This enhanced activity
can be manifested in any SNS behavior we examine. Hence, increased social support could be
attributed to females’ larger online presence: they are more active on SNS; hence, they are more
likely to embark on any SNS behavior, including supporting others.
Gender differences in receiving social support
As hypothesized, the meta-analysis showed that females also receive more support on SNS
than do males, albeit with a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.14), and a high heterogeneity
between studies (I2 = 75%). It appears that the major gender difference in social support on SNS
is in giving support, and less so in receiving it. Here too, females’ increased SNS activity can
explain their relatively high level of perceived support. Since SNS serve as a significant source
of social support 4, individuals who are more active on them can be expected to receive more
support. Since social support is reciprocal 80,81, it is plausible that the females’ higher social
support is reciprocated back to them from their friends and family members.
Limitations and Future studies
As social support is a bi-directional construct, it is difficult to disentangle the giving and
receiving sides. Although the networks on SNS usually include friends and family members of
both genders, it is still unlikely that their proportions would be equal. As individuals tend to have
more same-sex friends than opposite-sex friends, it remains unclear whether the small female
advantage in receiving support was not an artifact of the more substantial female advantage in
giving support. Hence, females may receive more support (as compared with males) as a result
of having a higher proportion of female friends in their SNS.
Although an effort was made to collect data from all eligible papers, 28 papers (51% of the
total eligible papers) were not included in the study since their authors did not respond to the
email request for supplementing their data. This absent information adversely affected the ability
of the current study to accurately assess gender differences. It is worth noting that the
compliance rate of the authors to the email requests was quite high (15 of 42 requests; 36%), in
comparison with similar reported requests 125,126. To promote future meta-analyses, authors
should be encouraged to include a full correlation table when reporting their results.
Conclusion
Social support is one of the motives for SNS activity 78. SNS users receive social support 4,
which is associated with both SNS satisfaction 56 and life satisfaction 57. The present study
carried out a meta-analysis to summarize the mixed findings on gender differences in providing
and receiving SNS social support. The findings show that females on social network sites give
more social support to other users than do men, and to some extent, also receive more support.
This is the first meta-analysis to document gender differences in social support.
7
References
1. Taylor SE. (2011) Social support: A review. In: Friedman HS, ed. The Oxford Handbook
of Health Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–214.
2. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, et al. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors
for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015;
10:227–237.
3. Gariépy G, Honkaniemi H, Quesnel-Vallée A. Social support and protection from
depression: Systematic review of current findings in western countries. British Journal of
Psychiatry 2016; 209:284–293.
4. Liu D, Wright KB, Hu B. A meta-analysis of Social Network Site use and social support.
Computers and Education 2018; 127:201–213.
5. Meng J, Martinez L, Holmstrom A, et al. Research on social networking sites and social
support from 2004 to 2015: A narrative review and directions for future research.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2017; 20:44–51.
6. Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, et al. Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-
and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological review 2000; 107:411–429.
7. Flaherty J, Richman J. Gender differences in the perception and utilization of social
support: theoretical perspectives and an empirical test. Social science & medicine (1982)
1989; 28:1221–8.
8. Verhofstadt LL, Buysse A, Ickes W. Social support in couples: An examination of gender
differences using self-report and observational methods. Sex Roles 2007; 57:267–282.
9. Eagly AH. The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social
psychology of gender. The American psychologist 2009; 64:644–658.
10. Cheng ST, Chan ACM. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support:
Dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents. Personality and Individual
Differences 2004; 37:1359–1369.
11. Maier C, Laumer S, Eckhardt A, et al. Giving too much social support: Social overload on
social networking sites. European Journal of Information Systems 2015; 24:447–464.
12. Joiner R, Cuprinskaite J, Dapkeviciute L, et al. Gender differences in response to
Facebook status updates from same and opposite gender friends. Computers in Human
Behavior 2016; 58:407–412.
13. Rife SC, Kerns KA, Updegraff JA. Seeking support in response to social and achievement
stressors: A multivenue analysis. Personal Relationships 2016; 23:364–379.
14. Song, Son J, Lin N. (2011) Social support. In: Scott J, Carrington PJ, eds. The Sage
Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 116–128.
15. Gottlieb BH, Bergen AE. Social support concepts and measures. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research 2010; 69:511–520.
16. Heaney CA, Israel BA. (2008) Social networks and social support. In: Glanz K, Rimer
BK, K V, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 189–210.
17. House JS, Umberson D, Landis KR. Structures and processes of social support. Annual
Review of Sociology 1988; 14:293–318.
18. Cassel J. An epidemiological perspective of psychosocial factors in disease etiology.
American Journal of Public Health 1974; 64:1040–1043.
19. Cassel J. The contribution of the social environment to host resistance. American Journal
of Epidemiology 1976; 104:107–123.
8
20. Elliott M. The stress process in neighborhood context. Health & place 2000; 6:287–299.
21. Roxburgh S. “I wish we had more time to spend together...” Journal of Family Issues
2006; 27:529–553.
22. Carpiano RM. Toward a neighborhood resource-based theory of social capital for health:
Can Bourdieu and sociology help? Social Science and Medicine 2006; 62:165–175.
23. Cobb S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine 1976;
38:300–314.
24. Gottlieb BH. The development and application of a classification scheme of informal
helping behaviours. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des
sciences du comportement 1978; 10:105–115.
25. House JS. (1981) Work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
26. Berkman LF. Assessing the physical health effects of social networks and social support.
Annual review of public health 1984; 5:413–432.
27. Li K, Lin Z, Wang X. An empirical analysis of users’ privacy disclosure behaviors on
social network sites. Information and Management 2015; 52:882–891.
28. Barrera M. Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American
Journal of Community Psychology 1986; 14:413–445.
29. Haber MG, Cohen JL, Lucas T, et al. The relationship between self-reported received and
perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community
Psychology 2007; 39:133–144.
30. Tardy CH. Social support measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology
1985; 13:187–202.
31. Uehara E. Dual Exchange Theory, social networks, and informal social support. American
Journal of Sociology 1990; 96:521–557.
32. Taylor SE. Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 2006; 15:273–277.
33. Tamres LK, Janicki D, Helgeson VS. Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic
review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review
2002; 6:2–30.
34. Barbee AP, Cunningham MR, Winstead BA, et al. Effects of gender role expectations on
the social support process. Journal of Social Issues 1993; 49:175–190.
35. Zhou B, Heather D, Cesare A Di, et al. Ask and you might receive: The actor–partner
interdependence model approach to estimating cultural and gender variations in social
support. European Journal of Social Psychology 2017; 47:412–428.
36. Pelchat D, Lefebvre H, Levert M-J. Gender differences and similarities in the experience
of parenting a child with a health problem: current state of knowledge. Journal of child
health care 2007; 11:112–131.
37. Tifferet S, Manor O, Constantini S, et al. Sex differences in parental reaction to pediatric
illness. Journal of Child Health Care 2011; 15:118–125.
38. Pedersen AF, Olesen F, Hansen RP, et al. Social support, gender and patient delay. British
Journal of Cancer 2011; 104:1249–1255.
39. Cutrona CE, Shaffer PA, Wesner KA, et al. Optimally matching support and perceived
spousal sensitivity. Journal of Family Psychology 2007; 21:754–758.
40. Vermeulen M, Mustard C. Gender differences in job strain, social support at work, and
psychological distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2000; 5:428–440.
41. Neff LA, Karney BR. Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or
9
responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005; 88:79–90.
42. Andrews B, Brewin CR, Rose S. Gender, social support, and PTSD in victims of violent
crime. Journal of Traumatic Stress 2003; 16:421–427.
43. Gillespie BJ, Lever J, Frederick D, et al. Close adult friendships, gender, and the life
cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2015; 32:709–736.
44. Pasch LA, Bradbury TN, Davila J. Gender, negative affectivity, and observed social
support behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relationships 1997; 4:361–378.
45. Acitelli LK, Antonucci TC. Gender differences in the link between marital support and
satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994; 67:688–
698.
46. Doty JL, Dworkin J. Online social support for parents: A critical review. Marriage and
Family Review 2014; 50:174–198.
47. Biehl SA, Kahn JH. Causal Effects of Language on the Exchange of Social Support in an
Online Community. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2016; 19:446–
452.
48. Li P, Chang L, Chua THH, et al. “Likes” as KPI: An examination of teenage girls’
perspective on peer feedback on Instagram and its influence on coping response.
Telematics and Informatics 2018; 35:1994–2005.
49. Lee E-J, Cho E. When Using Facebook to Avoid Isolation Reduces Perceived Social
Support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2017; 21:cyber.2016.0602.
50. Wohn DY, Carr CT, Hayes RA. How Affective Is a “Like”?: The Effect of Paralinguistic
Digital Affordances on Perceived Social Support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking 2016; 19:562–566.
51. Frison E, Eggermont S. Browsing, Posting, and Liking on Instagram: The Reciprocal
Relationships Between Different Types of Instagram Use and Adolescents’ Depressed
Mood. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2017; 20:603–609.
52. Wong D, Amon KL, Keep M. Desire to Belong Affects Instagram Behavior and Perceived
Social Support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2019; 22:465–471.
53. Park N, Noh H. Effects of mobile instant messenger use on acculturative stress among
international students in South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 82:34–43.
54. Utz S, Maaß CH. Understanding the relationship between Facebook use and adaptation to
financial hardship: Evidence from a longitudinal panel study. Computers in Human
Behavior 2018; 89:221–229.
55. Fang L, Chao CC, Ha L. College students’ positive strategic SNS involvement and stress
coping in the United States and China. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
2017; 46:518–536.
56. Lo J. Exploring the buffer effect of receiving social support on lonely and emotionally
unstable social networking users. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 90:103–116.
57. Zhang R. The stress-buffering effect of self-disclosure on Facebook: An examination of
stressful life events, social support, and mental health among college students. Computers
in Human Behavior 2017; 75:527–537.
58. Zell AL, Moeller L. Are you happy for me … on Facebook? The potential importance of
“likes” and comments. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 78:26–33.
59. Ratan RA, Fordham JA, Leith AP, et al. Women Keep it Real: Avatar Gender Choice in
League of Legends. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2019; 22:254–
257.
10
60. Todd PR, Melancon J. Gender Differences in Perceptions of Trolling in Livestream Video
Broadcasting. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2019; 22:472–476.
61. Dhir A, Pallesen S, Torsheim T, et al. Do age and gender differences exist in selfie-related
behaviours? Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 63:549–555.
62. Muscanell NL, Guadagno RE. Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and personality
differences in social networking use. Computers in Human Behavior 2012; 28:107–112.
63. Junco R. Inequalities in Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior 2013; 29:2328–
2336.
64. Tifferet S. Gender differences in privacy tendencies on social network sites: A meta-
analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 2019; 93:1–12.
65. Tifferet S, Vilnai-Yavetz I. Gender differences in Facebook self-presentation: An
international randomized study. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 35:388–399.
66. Tifferet S, Vilnai-Yavetz I. Self-presentation in LinkedIn portraits: Common features,
gender, and occupational differences. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 80:33–48.
67. Park G, Yaden DB, Schwartz HA, et al. Women are warmer but no less assertive than
men: Gender and language on Facebook. PLoS ONE 2016; 11:1–27.
68. Thelwall M, Wilkinson D, Uppal S. Data mining emotion in social network
communication: Gender differences in MySpace. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 2010; 61:190–199.
69. Courtney Walton S, Rice RE. Mediated disclosure on Twitter: The roles of gender and
identity in boundary impermeability, valence, disclosure, and stage. Computers in Human
Behavior 2013; 29:1465–1474.
70. Paré G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, et al. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A
typology of literature reviews. Information and Management 2015; 52:183–199.
71. Aguinis H, Pierce CA, Bosco FA, et al. Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-
analysis. Organizational Research Methods 2011; 14:306–331.
72. Borenstein M, Hedges L V., Higgins JPT, et al. (2009) Introduction to Meta-Analysis.
West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
73. High AC, Oeldorf-Hirsch A, Bellur S. Misery rarely gets company: The influence of
emotional bandwidth on supportive communication on Facebook. Computers in Human
Behavior 2014; 34:79–88.
74. Vogel EA, Rose JP, Crane C. “Transformation Tuesday”: Temporal context and post
valence influence the provision of social support on social media. Journal of Social
Psychology 2018; 158:446–459.
75. Frison E, Bastin M, Bijttebier P, et al. Helpful or harmful? The different relationships
between private Facebook interactions and adolescents’ depressive symptoms. Media
Psychology 2019; 22:244–272.
76. High AC, Buehler EM. Receiving supportive communication from Facebook friends: A
model of social ties and supportive communication in social metwork sites. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships 2019; 36:719–740.
77. Lin MP, Wu JYW, You J, et al. Association between online and offline social support and
internet addiction in a representative sample of senior high school students in Taiwan: The
mediating role of self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 84:1–7.
78. Denti L, Barbopoulos I, Nilsson I, et al. (2012) Sweden’s largest Facebook study.
Gothenburg Research Institute.
79. Thelwall M, Vis F. Gender and image sharing on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat
11
and WhatsApp in the UK. Aslib Journal of Information Management 2017; 69:702–720.
80. Buunk BP, Schaufeli WB. Reciprocity in interpersonal relationships: An evolutionary
perspective on its importance for health and well-being. European Review of Social
Psychology 1999; 10:259–291.
81. Anotonucci TC, Jackso JS. (1990) The Role of Reciprocity in Social Support. In: Sarason
IG, Sarason BR, Pierce GR, eds. Social support: An international view. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 173–198.
82. Mesch GS, Beker G. Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information
associated with the disclosure of personal information online. Human Communication
Research 2010; 36:570–592.
83. Pew Research Center. Datasets | Pew Research
Center.http://www.pewinternet.org/datasets/ (accessed Mar.12 2018).
84. Pew Research Center. (2014) Workers and Parents [Data
file].http://www.pewinternet.org/dataset/september-2014-workers-and-parents/.
85. Mustafa HR, Short M, Fan S. Social support exchanges in Facebook social support group.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015; 185:346–351.
86. Davis MA, Anthony DL, Pauls SD. Seeking and receiving social support on Facebook for
surgery. Social Science and Medicine 2015; 131:40–47.
87. Becker BJ, Wu M-J. The synthesis of regression slopes in meta-analysis. Statistical
Science 2008; 22:414–429.
88. Joiner R, Stewart C, Beaney C, et al. Publically different, privately the same: Gender
differences and similarities in response to Facebook status updates. Computers in Human
Behavior 2014; 39:165–169.
89. Machackova H, Dedkova L, Sevcikova A, et al. Bystanders’ supportive and passive
responses to cyberaggression. Journal of School Violence 2018; 17:99–110.
90. Aten K, DiRenzo M, Shatnawi D. Gender and professional e-networks: Implications of
gender heterophily on job search facilitation and outcomes. Computers in Human
Behavior 2017; 72:470–478.
91. Blight MG, Jagiello K, Ruppel EK. “Same stuff different day:” A mixed-method study of
support seeking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 53:366–373.
92. Frison E, Eggermont S. Exploring the relationships between different types of Facebook
use, perceived online social support, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Social Science
Computer Review 2016; 34:153–171.
93. Haslam DM, Tee A, Baker S. The use of social media as a mechanism of social support in
parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies 2017; 26:2026–2037.
94. Li Y, Wang X, Lin X, et al. Seeking and sharing health information on social media: A net
valence model and cross-cultural comparison. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 2018; 126:28–40.
95. Manago AM, Taylor T, Greenfield PM. Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college
students’ facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being.
Developmental Psychology 2012; 48:369–380.
96. Mazzoni E, Baiocco L, Cannata D, et al. Is internet the cherry on top or a crutch? Offline
social support as moderator of the outcomes of online social support on Problematic
Internet Use. Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 56:369–374.
97. Misra N, Dangi S, Patel S. Gender differences in usage of Social Networking Sites and
perceived online social support on psychological well being of youth. The International
12
Journal of Indian Psychology 2015; 3.
98. Olson D a, Liu J, Shultz KS. The influence of Facebook usage on perceptions of social
support, personal efficacy, and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Psychology
2012; 12:133–145.
99. Park J, Lee DS, Shablack H, et al. When perceptions defy reality: The relationships
between depression and actual and perceived Facebook social support. Journal of
Affective Disorders 2016; 200:37–44.
100. Stefanone MA, Kwon KH, Lackaff D. Exploring the relationship between perceptions of
social capital and enacted support online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
2012; 17:451–466.
101. Ul-Malik A, Rafiq N. Exploring the relationship of personality, loneliness, and online
social support with interned addiction and procrastination. Pakistan Journal of
Psychological Research 2016; 31:93–117.
102. Utz S, Breuer J. The relationship between use of social network sites, online social
support, and well-being: Results from a six-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Media
Psychology 2017; 29:115–125.
103. Wright KB, Rosenberg J, Egbert N, et al. Communication competence, social support, and
depression among college students: A model of facebook and face-to-face support
network influence. Journal of Health Communication 2013; 18:41–57.
104. Zhang N, Campo S, Yang J, et al. Effects of social support about physical activity on
social networking sites: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. Health
Communication 2015; 30:1277–1285.
105. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, et al. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support. Journal of Personality Assessment 1988; 52:30–41.
106. Li X, Chen W, Popiel P. What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook? the implications
of Facebook interaction for perceived, receiving, and giving social support. Computers in
Human Behavior 2015; 51:106–113.
107. Goldsmith DJ, McDermott VM, Alexander SC. Helpful, supportive and sensitive:
Measuring the evaluation of enacted social support in personal relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships 2000; 17:369–391.
108. Dunkel-Schetter C, Feinstein L, Call J. (1986) UCLA social support inventory
(Unpublished manuscript). Los Angeles.
109. Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Shearin EN, et al. A brief measure of social support: Practical
and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1987; 4:497–
510.
110. Chogahara M. A multidimensional scale for assessing positive and negative social
influences on physical activity in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 1999; 54B:S356–S367.
111. Xu Y, Burleson BR. Effects of sex, culture, and support type on perceptions of spousal
social support: An assessment of the “Support Gap” hypothesis in early marriage. Human
Communication Research 2001; 27:535–566.
112. Hajli MN. The role of social support on relationship quality and social commerce.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2014; 87:17–27.
113. Yeh Y-C, Ko H-C, Wu JY-W, et al. Gender differences in relationships of actual and
virtual social support to internet addiction mediated through depressive symptoms among
college students in Taiwan. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2008; 11:485–487.
13
114. Cohen S, Hoberman HM. Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change
stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1983; 13:99–125.
115. Wang ES-T, Wang MC-H. Social support and social interaction ties on internet addiction:
Integrating online and offline contexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking 2013; 16:843–849.
116. Barrera M, Sandler IN, Ramsay TB. Preliminary development of a scale of social support:
Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology 1981; 9:435–
447.
117. Cutrona CE, Russell DW. The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress.
Advances in personnal relationships 1987; 1:37–67.
118. Moody EJ. Internet use and its relationship to loneliness. CyberPsychology & Behavior
2001; 4:393–401.
119. Lenhard W, Lenhard A. (2014) Calculation of Effect
Sizes.https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html (accessed Mar.12 2018).
120. Schwarzer G. (2019) Package “meta.” 2019.
121. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and
adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56:455–463.
122. Kim Y, Sohn D, Choi SM. Cultural difference in motivations for using social network
sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in
Human Behavior 2011; 27:365–372.
123. Madden M, Lenhart A, Cortesi S. (2013) Teens, social media, and
privacy.http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/.
124. Greenwood S, Perrin A, Duggan M. (2016) Social Media Update
2016.http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/14/2016/11/10132827/PI_2016.11.11_Social-Media-
Update_FINAL.pdf.
125. Vines TH, Albert AYK, Andrew RL, et al. The availability of research data declines
rapidly with article age. Current Biology 2014; 24:94–97.
126. Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, et al. The poor availability of psychological research
data for reanalysis. American Psychologist 2006; 61:726–728.
14
Table 1
Meta-analysis study characteristics: Giving support.
Study
Country
SNS
A priori
hypothesis
Measure
Email
response
n
d
Denti et al., 2012
SWE
FB
No
Importance of using FB to show
encouragement and let others know I care
1,011
0.43
High, Oeldorf-Hirsch & Bellur, 2014
USA
FB
Yes
Willingness to provide emotional support (Xu
& Burleson, 2001)
Yes
84
0.27
Joiner et al., 2016
GBR
FB
Yes
Likelihood of responding supportively to a
hypothetical post
522
0.54
Joiner et al., 2014
GBR
FB
Yes
Likelihood of responding supportively to a
hypothetical post
600
0.33
Macháčková, Dedkova, Sevcikova,
& Cerna, 2018
CZE
G
Yes
Supporting cybervictims (Macháčková et al.,
2013)
441
0.51
Maier, Laumer, Eckhardt, & Weitzel,
2015
DEU
FB
Yes
Social overload from supporting others
571
0.10
Pew Research Center, 2014
USA
G
No
Maternal response to posts
241
0.38
Thelwall & Vis, 2017
GBR
FB, IN
Yes
Likelihood of liking posts and photos
Yes
288
0.20
Vogel, Rose, & Crane, 2018
USA
FB
No
Providing social support to hypothetical posts
Yes
289
0.45
Note. CZE = Czech Republic; DEU = Germany; FB = Facebook; G = General; GBR = United Kingdom; IN = Instagram; SWE = Sweden; USA = United States
of America. Positive d values indicate females providing greater support.
Table 2
Meta-analysis study characteristics: Receiving support
Study
Countr
y
SNS
A priori
Hypothesis
Measure
Email
Response
n
d
Aten, DiRenzo & Shatnawi,
2017
USA
LI
No
Direct assistance by network friends
Yes
366
0.22
Blight, Jagiello, & Ruppel,
2015
USA
FB
No
Measurement of Enacted Social Support
(Goldsmith et al., 2000) and number of likes
105
0.10
Frison & Eggermont, 2016
BEL
FB
No
Adaptation of the Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet,
& Farley, 1988)
910
-0.07
15
Frison, Bastin, Bijttebier, &
Eggermont, 2019
BEL
FB
No
Adaptation of the Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al., 1988)
1,840
0.07
Haslam, Tee, & Baker, 2017
AUS
G
No
Adaptation of the Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al., 1988)
353
0.30
High & Buehler, 2019
USA
FB
No
Informational, emotional, and esteem support,
adapted from Xu & Burleson (2001)
Yes
549
0.10
Li, Wang, Lin, & Hajli, 2018
(Study 1)
CHN
G
No
Emotional and informational support based on
Hajli (2014)
Yes
156
0.16
Li, Wang, Lin, & Hajli, 2018
(Study 2)
ITA
G
No
Emotional and informational support based on
Hajli (2014)
Yes
137
0.40
Lin et al., 2018
TWN
G
No
Revised Social Support Scale (Yeh et al., 2008)
Yes
1,922
0.30
Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield,
2012
USA
FB
No
Adaptation of the Interpersonal Support
Evaluation List (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983)
Yes
85
0.14
Mazzoni, Baiocco, Cannata, &
Dimas, 2016
ITA
G
No
Online Social Support Scale (Wang & Wang,
2013)
Yes
819
0.11
Misra, Dangi, & Patel, 2015
IND
G
Yes
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support Assessment (Zimet, Powell, Werkman &
Berkoff, 1990)
100
0.40
Olson, Liu, & Shultz, 2012
USA
FB
No
Adaptation of the Inventory of Social Supportive
Behaviors (ISSB; Barrera, Sandler, & Ramsay,
1981)
Yes
178
-0.07
Park, et al., 2016 (Study 1)
USA
FB
No
Abbreviated version of the Social Provision Scale
(SPS; Cutrona & Russell, 1987) and actual
support
Yes
61
0.42
Park, et al., 2016 (Study 2)
USA
FB
No
Abbreviated version of the Social Provision Scale
(SPS; Cutrona & Russell, 1987) and actual
support
Yes
42
-0.10
Pew Research Center, 2014
USA
G
No
General and parenting support for mothers
240
0.47
Stefanone, Kwon and Lackaff,
2012
USA
FB
No
Assistance in an online task
49
0.39
Ul-Malik and Rafiq, 2016
PAK
G
No
Online social support (Moody, 2001)
Yes
301
0.04
Utz and Breuer, 2017
NLD
G
No
Adaptation of the UCLA Social Support
Inventory (Dunkel-Schetter, Feinstein, & Call,
1986)
Yes
3,367
-0.06
Wright, et al., 2013
USA
FB
No
Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ; Sarason,
Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987)
361
0.26
Zhang, et al., 2015
USA
G
No
Adaptation of The Social Influence on Physical
Activity Questionnaire (Chogahara, 1999)
Yes
439
-0.15
16
Zhang, 2017
HKG
FB
No
Frequency of receiving social support (Li, Chen,
& Popiel, 2015)
Yes
573
0.24
Note. AUS = Australia; BEL = Belgium; CHN = China; FB = Facebook; G = General; HKG = Hong Kong; IND = India; ITA = Italy; LI = LinkedIn; NLD =
Netherlands; PAK = Pakistan; TWN = Taiwan; USA = United States of America. Positive d values indicate female receiving greater support.
Table 3
Meta-analyses testing gender differences in social support on SNS
Variable
Effect size
Heterogeneity
T&F
k
N
d
LL
UL
τ
Q
df
p
I2
k
d
Giving Support
9
4,047
0.36
0.26
0.47
0.14
19.94
8
0.01
60%
0
0.36
Receiving Support
22
12,953
0.14
0.06
0.22
0.02
81.69
21
< 0.001
74%
8
0.04
Note. d = Cohen’s d (positive d values show greater female support); I2 = percentage of variance beyond sampling error; k = number
of samples, LL = 95% CI for Cohen’s d lower limit; N = combined sample size; Q = chi-square test for homogeneity of observed
validities; T&F k = number of effect sizes imputed by trim-and-fill analysis; T&F d = trim-and-fill estimate of Cohen’s d (positive d
values show greater female support); UL = 95% CI for Cohen’s d upper limit; τ = between-studies standard deviation.
17
18
19