Content uploaded by Patti M. Valkenburg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patti M. Valkenburg on Aug 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Patti M. Valkenburg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patti M. Valkenburg on Feb 02, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Social Media Use and Adolescents’
Self-Esteem: Heading for a Person-Specific
Media Effects Paradigm
Patti Valkenburg ,
1
Ine Beyens,
1,
J. Loes Pouwels,
1
Irene I. van Driel,
1,
&
Loes Keijsers
2
1
Amsterdam School of Communication Research ASCoR, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University
of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
2
Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland,
The Netherlands
Eighteen earlier studies have investigated the associations between social media use
(SMU) and adolescents’ self-esteem, finding weak effects and inconsistent results. A
viable hypothesis for these mixed findings is that the effect of SMU differs from ado-
lescent to adolescent. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a preregistered three-week
experience sampling study among 387 adolescents (13–15 years, 54% girls). Each ado-
lescent reported on his/her SMU and self-esteem six times per day (126 assessments
per participant; 34,930 in total). Using a person-specific, N ¼1 method of analysis
(Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling), we found that the majority of adolescents
(88%) experienced no or very small effects of SMU on self-esteem (.10 <b<.10),
whereas 4% experienced positive (.10 b.17) and 8% negative effects (.21 b
.10). Our results suggest that person-specific effects can no longer be ignored in
future media effects theories and research.
Keywords: ESM, ambulatory assessments, differential susceptibility, Instagram, Snapchat,
DSEM, idiographic analysis, N51 analysis
doi: 10.1093/joc/jqaa039
An important developmental task that adolescents need to accomplish is to acquire
self-esteem, the positive and relative stable evaluation of the self. Adolescents’ self-
esteem is an important predictor of a healthy peer attachment (Gorrese & Ruggieri,
2013), psychological well-being (Kernis, 2005), and success later in life (Orth &
Robins, 2014). In the past decade, a growing number of studies have investigated
how adolescents’ social media use (SMU) may affect their self-esteem. Adolescents
typically spend 2–3 hours per day on social media to interact with their peers and
Corresponding author: Patti Valkenburg; e-mail: p.m.valkenburg@uva.nl
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 V
CThe Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of
International Communication Association.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
1
Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
exchange feedback on their messages and postings (Valkenburg & Piotrowski,
2017). Peer interaction and feedback on the self, both bedrock features of social me-
dia, are important predictors of adolescent self-esteem (Harter, 2012). Therefore,
understanding the effects of SMU on adolescents’ self-esteem is both important and
opportune.
To our knowledge, 18 earlier studies have tried to assess the relationship between
SMU and adolescents’ general self-esteem (e.g., Woods & Scott, 2016) or their
domain-specific self-esteem (e.g., social self-concept; Blomfield Neira & Barber,
2014;Ko
sir et al., 2016;Valkenburg et al., 2006). The ages of the adolescents in-
cluded in these studies ranged from eight to 19 years. Fifteen of these studies are
cross-sectional correlational (e.g., Cingel & Olsen, 2018;Meeus et al., 2019), two are
longitudinal (Boers et al., 2019;Valkenburg et al., 2017), and one is experimental
(Thomaes et al., 2010). Some of these studies have reported positive effects of SMU
on self-esteem (e.g., Blomfield Neira & Barber, 2014), others have yielded negative
effects (e.g., Woods & Scott, 2016), and yet others have found null effects (e.g., Ko
sir
et al., 2016). It is no wonder that the two meta-analyses on the relationship of SMU
and self-esteem have identified their pooled relationships as “close to 0” (Huang,
2017, p. 351), “puzzling,” and “complicated” (Liu & Baumeister, 2016, p. 85).
While this earlier work has yielded important insights, it leaves two important
gaps that may explain these weak effects and inconsistent results. A first gap
involves the time frame in which SMU and self-esteem have been assessed in previ-
ous studies. Inherent to their design, the cross-correlational studies have measured
SMU and self-esteem concurrently, at a single point in time. The two longitudinal
studies have assessed both variables at three or four times, with one-year lags, with
the aim to establish the potential longer-term effects of SMU on self-esteem (Boers
et al., 2019;Valkenburg et al., 2017). However, both developmental (e.g., Harter,
2012) and self-esteem theories (e.g., Rosenberg, 1986) argue that, in addition to such
longer-term effects, adolescents’ self-esteem can fluctuate on a daily or even hourly
basis as a result of their positive or negative experiences. These theories consider the
momentary effects of SMU on self-esteem as the building blocks of its longer-term
effects. Investigating such momentary effects of SMU on adolescents’ self-esteem is
the first aim of this study.
A second gap in the literature that may explain the weak and inconsistent results
in earlier work is that individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of SMU
on self-esteem have hardly been taken into account. Studies that did investigate
such differences have mostly focused on gender as a moderating variable, without
finding any effect (Kelly et al., 2018;Ko
sir et al., 2016;Meeus et al., 2019;Rodgers
et al., 2020). However, these null findings may be due to the high variance in suscep-
tibility to the effects of SMU within both the boy and girl groups. After all, if differ-
ential susceptibility leads to positive effects among some girls and boys and to
negative effects among others, the moderating effect of gender at the aggregate level
would be close to zero. Therefore, the time is ripe to investigate differential suscepti-
bility to the effects of SMU at the more fine-grained level of the individual rather
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
2Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
than by including group-level moderators. Such an investigation would not only
benefit media effects theories (e.g., Valkenburg & Peter, 2013), but also self-esteem
theories that emphasize that the effects of environmental influences may differ from
person to person (e.g., Harter & Whitesell, 2003). Investigating such person-specific
susceptibility to the effects of SMU is, therefore, the second aim of this study.
To investigate the momentary effects of SMU on self-esteem (first aim), and to
assess heterogeneity in these effects (second aim), we employed an experience sam-
pling (ESM) study among 387 middle adolescents (13–15 years), whom we surveyed
six times a day for three weeks (126 measurements per person). We measured SMU
by asking adolescents on each measurement moment how much time in the past
hour they had spent on the three most popular social media platforms among
Dutch adolescents (van Driel et al., 2019): Instagram, WhatsApp, and Snapchat. We
focused on middle adolescence because this is the period of most significant fluctua-
tions in self-esteem (Harter, 2012). By employing a novel, person-specific method to
analyze our intensive longitudinal data, we were able, for the first time, to assess the
effects of SMU at the level of the individual adolescent, and to assess how these
effects differ from adolescent to adolescent.
Social Media Use and Self-Esteem Level
Personality and social psychological research into the antecedents, consequences,
and development of self-esteem has mostly focused on two aspects of self-esteem:
self-esteem level and self-esteem instability. Most of this research has focused on
self-esteem level, that is, whether it is high or low (Crocker & Brummelman, 2018).
This also holds for studies into the effects of SMU. For example, all of the 15 correla-
tional studies have investigated whether adolescents who spend more time with so-
cial media report a lower (or higher) level of self-esteem compared to their peers
who spend less time with social media (e.g., Apaolaza et al., 2013, 12–17 years;
Barthorpe et al., 2020, 13–15 years; Bourke, 2013, 12–16 years; Cingel & Olsen,
2018, 12–18 years; Kelly et al., 2018, 14 years; Morin-Major et al., 2016, 12–17 years;
O’Dea & Campbell, 2011,M
age
14; Rodgers et al., 2020,M
age
12.8; Thorisdottir
et al., 2019, 14–16 years; Valkenburg et al., 2006, 10–19 years; van Eldik et al., 2019,
9–13 years). In statistical terms, these studies have investigated the between-person
relationship of SMU and self-esteem.
The majority of studies into the between-person relationship of SMU and self-
esteem used Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale, which is the most commonly used
survey measure to assess general, trait-like levels of self-esteem. These studies asked
adolescents at one point in time to evaluate their selves in general or across a certain
period in the past (e.g., in the past year). In the current study, we also investigated
the between-person relationship between SMU and adolescents’ general levels of
self-esteem. But unlike earlier studies, we assessed their levels of SMU and self-
esteem by averaging the 126 momentary assessments of both variables across a
three-week period. Such in situ assessments generally produce data with greater
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 3
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
ecological validity because they are made in the natural flow of daily life, which
reduces recall bias (van Roekel et al., 2019). Given the inconsistent results in previ-
ous studies, the literature does not allow us to formulate a hypothesis on the
between-person association between SMU and self-esteem level. Therefore, we in-
vestigated the following research question:
(RQ1) Do adolescents who spend more time with social media report a lower or
higher level of self-esteem compared to adolescents who spend less time with social
media?
Social Media Use and Self-Esteem Fluctuations
A second strand of personality and social psychological research has focused on the
instability of self-esteem. Self-esteem instability refers to the extent to which self-
esteem fluctuates within persons (Kernis, 2005). Whereas research into the level of
self-esteem has predominantly tried to establish differences in self-esteem between
persons, work on self-esteem instability has focused on fluctuations in self-esteem
within persons. Rosenberg (1986) distinguishes between two types of within-person
self-esteem fluctuations: baseline and barometric instability. Baseline instability
refers to potential within-person changes in levels of self-esteem that occur slowly
and over an extended period of time. It has been shown, for example, that self-
esteem decreases in early adolescence after which it may slowly and steadily increase
again in later adolescence (Harter & Whitesell, 2003). Barometric fluctuations, in
contrast, reflect short-term within-person fluctuations in self-esteem as a result of
one’s everyday positive and negative experiences. Rosenberg (1986) argued that
such barometric fluctuations are particularly evident during adolescence, when ado-
lescents typically experience enhanced uncertainty about their identity (i.e., how to
define who they are and will become), intimacy (i.e., how to form and maintain
meaningful relationships), and sexuality (e.g., how to cope with sexual desire and
define their sexual orientation; Steinberg, 2011).
One of the aims of the current study is to investigate how SMU may induce
within-person fluctuations in barometric self-esteem. Two earlier social media
effects studies have focused on within-person effects, one longitudinal study (Boers
et al., 2019,M
age
17.7) and one experiment (Thomaes et al., 2010, 8–12 years).
Using Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale, Boers et al. found negative within-person
effects of SMU on baseline self-esteem. However, because the assessments of SMU
and self-esteem were one year apart, and because short-term fluctuations can hardly
be derived from designs with longer-term measurement intervals (Keijsers & van
Roekel, 2018), this study, although important, may not inform a hypothesis on the
influences of SMU on barometric self-esteem.
A within-person experiment by Thomaes et al. (2010) does confirm self-esteem
instability theories in the context of SMU. Thomaes et al. based their experiment on
Leary and Baumeister’s (2000) Sociometer theory. Like Rosenberg’s theory of
self-esteem, Sociometer theory proposes that self-esteem serves as a sociometer
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
4Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
(cf. barometer) that gauges the degree of approval and disapproval from one’s social
environment. An important proposition of Sociometer theory is that self-esteem
changes are accompanied by changes in affect (mood and emotions). Self-esteem
(and affect) goes up when people succeed or when others accept them, and it drops
when people fail or when others reject them. The results of Thomaes et al.
confirmed Sociometer theory: When preadolescents’ online social media profiles
were approved by others, their self-esteem increased, and when their online profiles
were disapproved, their self-esteem dropped.
In Thomaes et al.’s study, peer approval was experimentally manipulated so that
one group of preadolescents (8-13 years) received positive feedback and an equally
sized group received negative feedback on their online profiles. In reality, however,
peer approval and disapproval in social media interactions are typically not as neatly
balanced. In fact, studies have often reported a positivity bias in social media-based
interactions (e.g., Reinecke & Trepte, 2014;Waterloo et al., 2017), meaning that so-
cial media users tend to share and receive more positive than negative information.
This positivity bias also strongly holds for adolescent social media users. For exam-
ple, among a national sample of adolescents, only 8% “sometimes” received negative
feedback on their posts, whereas 91% “never” or “almost never” received such
feedback (Koutamanis et al., 2015). Therefore, on the basis of Sociometer theory,
the positivity bias of social media interactions, and the findings of Thomaes et al.,
we expect an overall positive within-person effect of time spent with social media on
adolescents’ self-esteem:
(H1) Overall, adolescents’ self-esteem will increase as a result of their time
spent with social media in the past hour.
Heterogeneity in the Effects of Social Media Use on Self-esteem
Most media effects theories that have been developed during and after the 1970s
agree that media effects are conditional, meaning that they do not equally hold for
all media users (for a review see Valkenburg et al., 2016). These theories have
sparked numerous media effects studies trying to uncover how certain dispositional,
environmental, and contextual variables may enhance or reduce the cognitive, affec-
tive, and behavioral effects of media. In the past decade, this media effects research
has resulted in an upsurge in meta-analyses of media effects, which not only helped
integrating the findings in this vastly growing literature, but also pointed at the
moderators that may explain differential susceptibility to media effects.
Despite their undeniable value, the effect sizes for both the main and moderating
effects of media use that these meta-analyses have yielded typically range between
r¼.10 and r¼.20 (Valkenburg et al., 2016). Although small to medium effect sizes
are common in many neighboring disciplines, some media scholars have argued
that such small media effects defy common sense because everyday experience offers
anecdotal evidence of strong media effects for some individuals (Valkenburg et al.,
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 5
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
2016). Moreover, qualitative studies have repeatedly confirmed that media users
differ greatly in their responses to (social) media (e.g., Rideout & Fox, 2018). And
studies on the emotional reactions to scary media content have reported extreme
responses for particular individuals (Cantor, 2009).
There is an apparent discrepancy between the magnitude of conditional media
effects sizes reported in quantitative studies and meta-analyses on the one hand and
the results of qualitative studies and anecdotal examples on the other. By focusing
on group-level moderator effects, meta-analyses (and the studies on which they are
based) invariably gloss over more subtle individual differences between people
(Pearce & Field, 2016). Diving deeper into these subtle individual differences, how-
ever, is only possible with research designs that are able to detect differences in
person-specific effects. Such designs require a large number of assessments per
person to derive conclusions about processes within single persons, as well as a suffi-
cient number of participants for bottom-up generalization to sub-populations
(Voelkle et al., 2012).
An important aim of this study is to capture such person-specific susceptibilities
to the effects of SMU by employing a novel method of analysis: Dynamic Structural
Equation Modeling (DSEM). DSEM is an advanced modeling technique that is suit-
able for analyzing intensive longitudinal data, that is, data with 20 to more than 100
repeated measurements that are typically closely spaced in time (McNeish &
Hamaker, 2020). DSEM combines the strengths of multilevel analysis and Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) with N¼1 time-series analysis. N¼1 time-series analy-
sis enables researchers to establish the longitudinal (lagged) associations between
SMU and self-esteem within single persons. The multilevel part of DSEM provides
the opportunity to test whether the person-specific effect sizes of SMU on self-
esteem differ between persons. Combining the power of a large number of assess-
ments of single persons with a large sample, DSEM may help us answer the ques-
tion: For how many adolescents does SMU support their self-esteem, for how many
does it hinder their self-esteem, and for how many does it not affect their self-
esteem?
Not only media effects theories, but also self-esteem theories give reason to as-
sume person-specific effects of environmental influences on self-esteem. These theo-
ries agree that some individuals experience significant boosts (or drops) in self-
esteem when they experience minor disapproval (or approval) from their peers,
whereas the self-esteem of others may fluctuate only in case of serious self-relevant
experiences (Crocker & Brummelman, 2018). For example, a study by Harter and
Whitesell (2003) showed that 59% of adolescents were prone to self-esteem fluctua-
tions, whereas 41% were not or less prone to such fluctuations. Based on these
insights of self-esteem theories, it is likely that the effects of SMU will also differ
from adolescent to adolescent. Due to the positivity bias of social media interactions,
we expect that most adolescents will experience increases in self-esteem as a result of
their SMU in the past hour, whereas a smaller group will experience decreases in
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
6Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
self-esteem, and for another smaller group of adolescents their SMU will be unre-
lated to their self-esteem. Therefore, we hypothesize:
(H2) The effect of time spent with social media on self-esteem will vary from
adolescent to adolescent.
Method
Participants
This preregistered study is part of a larger project on the psychosocial consequences
of SMU. The present study uses data from the first three-week experience sampling
method (ESM) wave of this project that took place in December 2019. The sample
consisted of 387 early and middle adolescents (13- to 15-year-olds; 54% girls; M
age
¼14.11, SD ¼.69) from a large secondary school in the southern area of The
Netherlands. Participants were enrolled in three different levels of education: 44%
were in lower prevocational secondary education (VMBO), 31% in intermediate
general secondary education (HAVO), and 26% in academic preparatory education
(VWO). Of all participants, 96% was born in The Netherlands and self-identified as
Dutch, 2% was born in another European country, and 2% in a country outside
Europe. The sample was representative of this area in The Netherlands in terms of
educational level and ethnic background (Statistics Netherlands, 2020).
Procedure
The study was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the University of
Amsterdam. Before the start of the study parents gave written consent for their
child’s participation in the study, after they had been extensively informed about the
goals of the study. At the end of November 2019, participants took part in a baseline
session during school hours. Researchers informed participants of the aims and pro-
cedure of the study and assured them that their responses would be treated confi-
dentially. Participants were provided with detailed instructions about the ESM study
that started in the week following upon the baseline survey. They were instructed on
how to install the ESM software application (Ethica Data) on their phones, and how
to answer the different types of ESM questions. At the end of the baseline session,
participants completed an initial ESM survey on their use of different social media
platforms, which we used to personalize subsequent ESM surveys. In case of ques-
tions or problems with the installment of the software, three researchers were
present to help out.
ESM study. In the three-week ESM study, participants completed six 2-minute
surveys per day in response to notifications from their mobile phones. The first and
last ESM surveys contained 24 questions, whereas each of the other four ESM sur-
veys consisted of 23 questions. Each ESM survey assessed, among other variables
not reported in this study, participants’ self-esteem and their SMU. Participants
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 7
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
received questions about their time spent with Instagram, WhatsApp, and Snapchat
if they had indicated in the baseline session that they used these platforms more
than once per week. In case participants did not use any of these platforms more
than once a week, they were surveyed about other platforms that they did use (e.g.,
YouTube or gaming). If they did not use any other platforms either, they received
other questions to ensure that each participant received the same number of ques-
tions. In total, 375 (97%) participants received questions about WhatsApp, 345 par-
ticipants (89%) about Instagram, and 285 (73%) about Snapchat.
Sampling scheme. In total, participants received 126 ESM surveys (i.e., 21 days *
6 assessments a day) at random time points within fixed intervals. The sampling
scheme was tailored to the school’s schedule and participants’ weekday and weekend
routines to avoid that participants received notifications during class hours and
while sleeping in on the weekends. Five to ten minutes after each ESM notification,
participants received an automatic reminder. We have uploaded our entire notifica-
tion scheme with the response windows on OSF.
Monitoring plan/incentives. We regularly messaged adolescents to check
whether we could help with any technical issues and to motivate them to fill out as
many ESM surveys as possible. Adolescents received a small gadget for participating
in the baseline session, and a compensation of e0.30 for each completed ESM
survey. In addition, each day we held a lottery, in which four participants who had
completed all six ESM surveys the day before could win e25.
Compliance. We sent out 48,762 surveys (i.e., 387 126) to participants. Due
to unforeseen technical problems with the Ethica software, 862 ESM surveys did not
reach participants. As a result, 47,900 ESM surveys were received, and 34,930
surveys were completed. This led to a compliance rate of 73%, which is good in
comparison with previous ESM studies among adolescents (van Roekel et al., 2019).
On average, participants completed 90.26 ESM surveys (SD ¼23.84).
A priori power-analyses. The number of assessments was determined based on
the fact that a minimum of 50–100 assessments per participant is recommended to
conduct N¼1 time-series analyses (Voelkle et al., 2012). In order to obtain at least
50 assessments per participant, we took a conservative approach and scheduled
for a total of 126 assessments. A priori power analyses indicated that a number of
300 participants would suffice to reliably detect small effect sizes with a minimum
power of .80 and significance levels of p¼.05.
Measures
Time spent with social media. To obtain an ecologically valid ESM assessment of
time spent with social media, we asked participants at each assessment how much
time in the past hour they had spent with the three most popular platforms:
WhatsApp, Instagram, and Snapchat. For each platform, we selected the most popu-
lar activities (van Driel et al., 2019). For Instagram, we asked: How much time in
the past hour have you spent... (1) sending direct messages on Instagram? (2)
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
8Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
reading direct messages on Instagram? (3) viewing posts/stories of others on
Instagram? For WhatsApp, we asked: How much time in the past hour have you
spent... (4) sending messages on WhatsApp? (5) reading messages on WhatsApp?
For Snapchat we asked: How much time in the past hour have you spent... (6)
viewing snaps of others on Snapchat? (7) viewing stories of others on Snapchat? (8)
sending snaps on Snapchat? Response options for each of these activities were mea-
sured with a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) that ranged from 0to 60 minutes with one-
minute intervals.
Participants’ scores on these activities were summed for each of the three plat-
forms. For some assessments this summation led to time estimations exceeding
60 min. For WhatsApp this pertained to 0.85% of all 34,127 assessments, for
Instagram to 2.40% of all 31,718 assessments, and for Snapchat to 3.87% of all
26,533 assessments. As indicated in our preregistration, these scores were recoded
to 60 min. In a next step, the indicated times spent with WhatsApp, Instagram, and
Snapchat were summed to create a variable “time spent with social media.” The
summation of the three platforms again led to some estimations exceeding 60 min
(i.e., 10.64% of all 34,686 estimations). In accordance with our preregistration, these
scores were recoded to 60 min.
Self-esteem. Based on Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale, and studies estab-
lishing the validity of single-item measures of self-esteem (e.g., Robins et al., 2001),
we presented participants with the question: “How satisfied do you feel about your-
self right now?” We used a 7-point response scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to
6 (completely), with 3 (a little) as the midpoint.
Method of Analysis
As preregistered, we employed Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling (DSEM) for
intensive longitudinal data in Mplus Version 8.4. Following the recommendations
of McNeish and Hamaker (2020), we estimated a two-level autoregressive lag-1
model (AR[1] model) with self-esteem as the outcome. At the within-person level
(level 1), we specified SMU in the past hour as the time-varying covariate of
self-esteem (to investigate H1), while controlling for the autoregressive effect of self-
esteem (i.e., self-esteem predicted by lag-1 self-esteem). At the between-person level
(level 2), we included the latent mean level of self-esteem and the latent mean of
SMU in the past hour, and the correlation between these mean levels (to investigate
RQ1). Finally, we included the between-person variances around the within-person
effects of SMU on self-esteem (i.e., random effects to investigate H2).
Before estimating the model, we checked the required assumption of stationar-
ity, that is, whether the mean of the outcome did not systematically change during
the study (McNeish & Hamaker, 2020). To do so we compared a two-level fixed ef-
fect model with day of study predicting self-esteem with an intercept-only model
(i.e., a model without predictors). The assumption of stationarity was confirmed:
Day of the study explained only 0.82% of the within-person variance in self-esteem.
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 9
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
Model specifications. By default, DSEM uses Bayesian Markov Chain Monte
Carlo (MCMC) for model estimation. We followed our preregistered plan of analy-
ses and ran the DSEM model with a minimum of 5,000 iterations. Before interpret-
ing the estimates, we checked whether the model converged following the procedure
of Hamaker et al. (2018). Model convergence is considered successful when the
Potential Scale Reduction (PSR) values are very close to 1 (Gelman & Rubin, 1992),
and the trace plots for each parameter look like fat caterpillars. We interpreted
the parameters with the Bayesian credible intervals (CIs), as well as the Bayesian
p-values. The hypotheses are confirmed if the 95% CIs for the effect of SMU on self-
esteem (within-level; H1) and for the variance around this effect (between-level;
H2) do not contain 0. Further details of the analytical strategy can be found in the
preregistration of the study.
Results
Correlations and Descriptives
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations (SDs), ranges, and the within-
person, between-person, and intra-class correlations (ICCs) of time spent with
social media (SMU) and self-esteem. As the table shows, the average level of self-
esteem was high (M¼4.09, SD ¼1.12, range ¼0–6). Participants spent on average
almost 17 minutes (range 0–60 min.) with social media in the hour before each mea-
surement occasion. The between-person association of the mean level of SMU with
the mean level of self-esteem was significantly negative (r¼.14, p¼.005). The
within-person correlation was close to zero (r¼.01, p¼.028), but significant
(due to the high power of the study).
The Intra-Class Correlations (ICCs) were .45 for self-esteem and .48 for SMU,
which means that 45% of the variance in self-esteem and 48% of the variance in
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Within-Person, Between-Person, and Intra-Class
Correlations of Time Spent with Social Media (SMU) and Self-Esteem
Descriptive statistics Correlations
Range M SD Within Between Intra-Class
Self-esteem 0–6 4.09 1.12 n/a n/a .45
SMU 0–60 16.93
a
14.48 –.01
b
–.14
c
.48
Notes.
a
Mean scores reflect average number of minutes spent with social media in the past
hour.
b
Within-person association (p¼.028) between SMU and self-esteem.
c
between-person association (p¼.005) between SMU and self-esteem.
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
10 Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
SMU was explained by differences between participants (i.e., between-person vari-
ance), whereas the larger part of these variances (55% and 52%) was explained by
fluctuations within participants (i.e., within-person variance). These ICCs confirm
that our sampling scheme of six assessments a day was appropriate for assessing
within-person fluctuations in self-esteem and SMU and led to data with sufficient
within-person variance for DSEM analyses.
DSEM Results
In all the steps of the analysis strategy, we followed our preregistered plan.We
first ran a DSEM model with a minimum of 5,000 iterations (and a default maxi-
mum of 50,000 iterations) and one-hour time intervals (TINTERVAL ¼1). This
model did not converge: The Potential Scale Reduction (PSR) convergence crite-
rion reached 1.354, which is not close enough to 1. As recommended by McNeish
and Hamaker (2020),inanextstep,weimprovedthemodelsetupbyincreasing
thetimeintervalfrom1to2hours(TINTERVAL¼2). This model converged
well and before the 5,000 iterations. The PSR for this model was 1.006. Visual in-
spection of the trace plots confirmed that convergence was successful. Finally, we
also ran a model with 10,000 iterations to exclude the possibility that the PSR
value of 5,000 iterations was close to 1 by chance (Schultzberg & Muthe´n, 2018).
This model reached a PSR of 1.002, and its results did not deviate from the model
with 5,000 iterations.
Investigating Research Question and Hypotheses
To answer our research question (RQ1), we investigated the between-person associ-
ation between SMU and self-esteem. The DSEM analyses revealed a significantly
negative association of .147 between SMU and participants’ level of self-esteem,
meaning that participants who spent more time with social media across the three
weeks had a lower average level of self-esteem compared to participants who spent
less time with social media across this period (Table 2).
Our first hypothesis (H1) predicted an overall positive within-person effect of
SMU on self-esteem. This within-person effect represents the average changes in
self-esteem (i.e., self-esteem controlled for self-esteem at t1) as a result of SMU in
the previous hour. This hypothesis did not receive support. Despite the high power
of the study, the within-person effect was nonsignificant (b¼.009), meaning that,
on average, participants’ self-esteem did not increase nor decrease as a result of their
SMU in the previous hour (Table 2).
Our second hypothesis (H2), which predicted that the within-person effect of
SMU on changes in self-esteem would differ from participant to participant, did re-
ceive support (Table 2: random effect ¼0.006, p¼.000). This random effect means
that there was significant variance between participants in the extent to which their
SMU in the previous hour predicted changes in their self-esteem.
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 11
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the person-specific standardized effect sizes
for the effect of SMU on changes in self-esteem. These effect sizes ranged from b¼
.21 to b¼þ.17 across participants. As the bar graph shows, the majority of par-
ticipants (88%) experienced no or very small positive or negative effects of their
SMU (i.e., .10 <b<.10) on changes in self-esteem, whereas a small group of par-
ticipants (4%) experienced positive (.10 b.17), and another small group (8%)
experienced negative effects (.21 b-.10) of SMU on changes in self-esteem.
Figure 2 presents the N¼1 time-series plots of three participants, one who experi-
enced a positive, one who experienced a negative, and one who experienced a null-
effect of SMU on self-esteem.
Exploratory Analyses
In addition to our preregistered hypotheses, we ran four exploratory analyses. In a
first step, we investigated potential platform differences. Because earlier studies into
Table 2 DSEM Results of the Between-Person Associations and Within-Person Effects of
Time Spent with Social Media (SMU) and Self-Esteem (S-E)
bbP95% CI
Between-Person associations
SMU & S-E (RQ1) .239 .147 .003 [.243, .043]
SMU & b
a
.004 .035 .354 [.213, .149]
S-E & b
b
.026 .298 .000 [.447, .144]
Within-Person effects
SMU !S-E (H1; b).008 .009 .088 [.024, .005]
S-E (t1) !S-E (t) .222 .221 .000 [.208, .236]
r
2
p95% CI
Random effect
SMU !S-E (H2)
0.006 .000 [0.004, 0.008]
c
Other variances
SMU (between-person) 2.117 .000 [1.840, 2.458]
SMU (within-person) 2.300 .000 [2.267, 2.335]
S-E (between-person) 1.255 .000 [1.088, 1.459]
S-E (within-person, residual) 1.274 .000 [1.254, 1.293]
Notes:
a
The relationship between SMU and brbreflects the extent to which the within-person
effect of momentary SMU on momentary S-E depends on the average level of adoles-
cents’ SMU;
b
The relationship between S-E and bb reflects the extent to which the within-person ef-
fect of momentary SMU on momentary S-E depends on adolescents’ average level of S-E;
c
The 95% Credible Interval of the variance around the effect of SMU on S-E indicates
that the within-person effect of SMU on S-E differed among participants. b’s are unstan-
dardized; bb’s are standardized using the STDYX Standardization in Mplus; p-values are
one-tailed Bayesian p-values (McNeish & Hamaker, 2020).
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
12 Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
the relationship between SMU and self-esteem did not investigate differential effects
of different platforms, we summed adolescents’ use of Instagram, Snapchat, and
WhatsApp to create our SMU measure. To explore potential platforms differences,
we reran our analyses separately for each of the three platforms. Our results did not
show significant differences in the between-person relationships and within-person
effects of the use of these platforms on self-esteem (see Supplement 1).
In a second step, we ran a multilevel model without controlling for self-esteem
at the previous assessment. Given that DSEM models are rather stringent and that
sizeable differences in effect sizes between lagged and non-lagged media effects have
been reported (Adachi & Willoughby, 2015), we wanted to get insight into these dif-
ferences. All other model specifications of the multilevel model were identical to the
initial DSEM model. The associations between SMU and self-esteem in the multile-
vel model ranged from b¼.34 to b¼þ.33. Consistent with the DSEM model,
the average within-person association of SMU and self-esteem was close to zero (b
¼.007, p¼.162, CI ¼[0.022, 0.007] compared to b¼.009 in the DSEM
model).
In a third step, we explored whether the person-specific within-person effects of
SMU on self-esteem (i.e., the bs) differed for adolescents with different mean levels
of SMU or different mean levels of self-esteem. As Table 2 shows, the cross-level in-
teraction of participants’ mean levels of SMU with the b’s was non-significant, indi-
cating that adolescents with higher mean levels of SMU did not experience a more
negative (or positive) within-person effect of SMU on their self-esteem than their
peers with lower SMU. The cross-level interaction of self-esteem and the bs did re-
veal that the within-person effect of SMU on self-esteem depended on adolescents’
mean level of self-esteem: Adolescents with lower average levels of self-esteem had a
more positive within-person effect of SMU on self-esteem than adolescents with
higher average levels of self-esteem, and vice versa.
Figure 1 Range of the Standardized Person-Specific Effects of SMU on in Self-Esteem.
Note. The vertical black line represents the mean of the person-specific effects (b¼.009).
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 13
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
In a final step, we investigated a between-person hypothesis of one of the anony-
mous reviewers, who suggested to check whether adolescents with moderate SMU
would experience higher trait levels of self-esteem than those with low and high
SMU. We investigated this potential inverted U-shaped relationship between SMU
and self-esteem by following the two-step hierarchical regression analysis used by
Cingel and Olsen (2018). At step 1 of this regression analysis, we found a negative
linear relationship between SMU and self-esteem (b¼.145, p¼.005; R
2
¼.021,
see also Table 1). At step 2, we found no significant curvilinear relationship between
Figure 2 Three N ¼1 time-series plots picturing the effects of SMU on self-esteem (S-E).
Note. The x-axes represent the measurement moments (range 1–126). The y-axes represent
the co-fluctuations in SMU (blue lines, range 0–60 minutes/10) and S-E (yellow lines, range
0–6). The top plot belongs to a participant who experienced a positive effect of SMU on S-E
(b¼.174). The SMU and S-E of this participant regularly co-fluctuated (e.g., around mo-
ment 40 and around moment 41). The middle plot is from a participant who experienced a
negative effect (bb ¼.196): When the SMU of this participant increased, his/her S-E
dropped (e.g., around moment 56), and vice versa (e.g., around moment 21). The bottom
plot is from a participant who experienced no effects (b¼.013): At some moments, the S-E
of this participant increased after his/her SMU increased (e.g., around moment 45), at other-
moments her/his S-E dropped after his/her SMU went up (e.g., moment 72), resulting in a
net effect close to zero.
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
14 Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
SMU and self-esteem, because the added squared SMU term did not result in a sig-
nificant change in the explained variance (DR
2
¼.001, DF(1, 380) ¼.516, p¼.473).
Sensitivity Analysis
As preregistered, we conducted a validation check to examine whether participants’
answers were trustworthy according to the following criteria: (1) inconsistency of
participants’ within-person response patterns, (2) outliers, (3) unserious responses
(e.g., gross comments) to the open question in the ESM study. Based on these crite-
ria, we considered the responses of eight participants as potentially untrustworthy,
because they violated criterion 1 and 2 (n¼4) or criterion 1 and 3 (n¼4). As a sen-
sitivity analysis, we reran the DSEM analysis without these eight participants. The
results of both the between-person and within-person associations did not deviate
from those of the full sample.
Discussion
The two existing meta-analyses on the relationship of SMU and self-esteem assessed
the effects of their included empirical studies as weak and their results as mixed
(Huang, 2017;Liu & Baumeister, 2016). The between-person associations reported
in empirical studies on SMU and self-esteem ranged from þ.22 (Apaolaza et al.,
2013)to.28 (Rodgers et al., 2020). In the current study, the between-person asso-
ciation between SMU and self-esteem fits within this range: We found a negative re-
lationship of r¼.15 between SMU and self-esteem (RQ1), meaning that
adolescents who spent more time on social media across a period of three weeks
reported a lower level of self-esteem than adolescents who spent less time on social
media. This negative relationship pertained to the summed usage of Instagram,
Snapchat, and WhatsApp, but did not differ for the usage of each of the separate
platforms.
In addition, although we hypothesized a positive overall within-person effect of
SMU on self-esteem (H1), we found a null effect. However, this overall null effect
must be interpreted in light of the supportive results for our second hypothesis
(H2), which predicted that the effect of SMU on self-esteem would differ from ado-
lescent to adolescent. We found that the majority of participants (88%) experienced
no or very small positive or negative effects of SMU on changes in self-esteem (.10
<b<.10), whereas one small group (4%) experienced positive effects (.10 b
.17), and another small group (8%) negative effects of SMU (.21 b.10) on
self-esteem.
The person-specific effect sizes reported in the current study pertain to SMU
effects on changes in self-esteem (i.e., self-esteem controlled for previous levels of
self-esteem). As Adachi and Willoughby (2015, p. 117) argue, such effect sizes are
often “dramatically” smaller than those for outcomes that are not controlled for
their previous levels. Indeed, when we checked this assumption of Adachi &
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 15
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
Willoughby, the associations between SMU and self-esteem not controlled for its
previous levels resulted in a considerably wider range of effect sizes (b¼.34 to
b¼þ.33) than those that did control for previous levels (b¼.21tob¼þ.17).
To account for a potential undervaluation of effect sizes in autoregressive models,
Adachi and Willoughby (2015, p. 127) proposed “a more liberal cut-off for small
effects in autoregressive models (e.g., small ¼.05).” In this study, we followed our
preregistration and interpreted effect sizes ranging from .10 <b<þ.10 as non-
existent to very small. However, if we would apply the guideline proposed by
Adachi and Willoughby (2015) to our results, the distribution of effect sizes would
lead to 21% negative susceptibles, 16% positive susceptibles, and 63% non-
susceptibles.
Our results showed that the effects of SMU on self-esteem are unique for each
individual adolescent, which may, in turn, explain why the two meta-analyses evalu-
ated the effects of their included studies as weak and their results as inconsistent.
First, our results suggest that these effects were weak because they were diluted
across a heterogeneous sample of adolescents with different susceptibilities to the
effects of SMU. This suggestion is supported by comparing our overall within-
person effect (b¼.01, ns) with the full range of person-specific effects, which
ranged from moderately negative to moderately positive. Second, the effects
reported in earlier studies may have been inconsistent because these studies may, by
chance, have slightly oversampled either “positive susceptibles” or “negative sus-
ceptibles.” After all, if a sample is somewhat biased towards positive susceptibles,
the results would yield a moderately positive overall effect. Conversely, if a sample is
somewhat biased towards negative susceptibles the results would report a moder-
ately negative overall effect.
It may seem reassuring at first sight that the far majority of participants in our
study did not experience sizeable negative effects of SMU on their self-esteem.
However, as illustrated in the bottom N¼1 time-series plot in Figure 2, for some
participants, their non-significant within-person effect may result from strong social
media-induced ups and downs in self-esteem, which cancelled each other out across
time, resulting in a net null effect. However, as the two upper time-series plots in
Figure 2 show, not only the non-susceptibles, but also the positive and negative sus-
ceptibles sometimes experienced effects in the opposite direction: The positive sus-
ceptibles occasionally experienced negative effects, while the negative susceptibles
occasionally experienced positive effects.
Although DSEM models enable researchers to demonstrate how within-person
effects of SMU differ across persons, they do not (yet) allow us to statistically evalu-
ate the presence of both positive and negative effects within one and the same per-
son (Hamaker, 2020, personal communication). A possibility to analyze the
combination of positive and negative effects within persons may soon be offered by
even more advanced modeling strategies than DSEM, which are currently undergo-
ing a rapid development. Among those promising developments are regime
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
16 Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
switching models (Lu et al., 2019), which provide the opportunity to establish the
co-occurrence of both positive and negative effects of SMU within single persons.
Explanatory Hypotheses and Avenues for Future Research
Although our study allowed us to reveal the prevalence of positive susceptibles, neg-
ative susceptibles, and non-susceptibles among participants, it did not investigate
why and when some adolescents are more susceptible to SMU than others. Our ex-
ploratory results did show that adolescents with a lower mean level of self-esteem,
experienced a more positive within-person effect of SMU on self-esteem than ado-
lescents with a higher mean level of self-esteem. This latter result may point to a so-
cial compensation effect (Kraut et al., 1998), indicating that adolescents who are low
in self-esteem may successfully seek out social media to enhance their self-esteem.
Our DSEM analysis did not reveal differences in the within-person effects of SMU
on self-esteem among adolescents with high and low SMU, suggesting that the posi-
tive effects among some adolescents cannot be attributed to modest SMU, whereas
the negative effects among other adolescents cannot be attributed to excessive SMU.
An important next step is to further explain why adolescents differ in their sus-
ceptibility to SMU. A first explanation may be that adolescents differ in the valence
(the positivity or negativity) of their experiences while spending time on social me-
dia. It is, for example, possible that the positive susceptibles experience mainly posi-
tive content on social media, whereas the negative susceptibles experience mainly
negative content. In this study, we focused on time as a predictor of momentary ups
and downs in self-esteem. However, most self-esteem theories emphasize that it is
the valence rather than the duration of social experiences that results in self-esteem
fluctuations. It is assumed that self-esteem goes up when we succeed or when others
accept us, and drops when we fail or when others reject us (Leary & Baumeister,
2000). Future research should, therefore, extend our study by investigating to what
extent the valence of experiences on social media accounts for differences in suscep-
tibility to the effects of SMU above and beyond adolescents’ time spent on social
media.
A second explanation as to why adolescents differ in their susceptibility to the
effects of SMU may lie in person-specific susceptibilities to the positivity bias in SM.
Our first hypothesis was based on the idea that the sharing of positively biased infor-
mation would elicit reciprocal positive feedback from fellow users, which, in turn,
would lead to overall improvements in self-esteem. However, our results suggest
that, for some adolescents, this positivity bias may lead to decreases in self-esteem,
for example, because of their tendency to compare themselves to other social media
users who they perceive as more beautiful or successful. This tendency towards so-
cial comparison may lead to envy (e.g., Appel et al., 2016) and decreases in self-
esteem (Vogel et al., 2014).
Until now, studies investigating the positive feedback hypothesis have mostly fo-
cused on the positive effects of feedback on self-esteem (e.g., Valkenburg et al.,
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 17
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
2017), whereas studies examining the social comparison hypothesis have mainly fo-
cused on the negative effects of social comparison on self-esteem (e.g., Vogel et al.,
2014). However, both the positive feedback hypothesis and the social comparison
hypothesis are more complex than they may seem at first sight. First, although most
adolescents receive positive feedback while using social media, a minority frequently
receives negative feedback (Koutamanis et al., 2015), and may experience resulting
decreases in self-esteem. Likewise, although social comparison may lead to envy, it
may also lead to inspiration (e.g., Meier & Scha¨fer, 2018), and resulting increases in
self-esteem. Future research should attempt to reconcile these explanatory hypothe-
ses by investigating who is particularly susceptible to positive and/or negative feed-
back, and who is particularly susceptible to the positive (e.g., inspiration) and/or
negative (e.g., envy) effects of social comparison on social media.
Another possible explanation for differences in person-specific effects of SMU
on self-esteem may lie in differences in the specific contingencies on which adoles-
cents’ self-esteem is based. Self-esteem contingency theory (Crocker &
Brummelman, 2018) recognizes that people differ in the areas of life that serve as
the basis of their self-esteem (Jordan & Zeigler-Hill, 2013). For example, for some
adolescents their physical appearance may serve as the basis of their self-esteem,
whereas others may base their self-esteem on peer approval. Different contexts may
also activate different self-esteem contingencies (Crocker & Brummelman, 2018).
On the soccer field, athletic ability is valued, which may activate the athletic ability
contingency in this context. On social media, physical appearance and peer approval
may be relevant, so that these contingencies may particularly be triggered in the so-
cial media context. It is conceivable that adolescents who base their self-esteem on
appearance or peer approval may be more susceptible to the effects of SMU than
adolescents who base their self-esteem less on these contingencies, and this is, there-
fore, another important avenue for future research.
Stimulating Positive and Mitigating Negative Effects
Our results suggest that for the majority of adolescents the momentary effects of
SMU are small or negligible. As discussed though, all adolescents—whether they are
positive susceptibles, negative susceptibles, or non-susceptibles—may occasionally
experience social media-induced drops in self-esteem. Social media have become a
fixture in adolescents’ social life, and the use of these media may thus result in nega-
tive experiences among all adolescents. Therefore, not only the negative susceptibles,
but all adolescents need their parents or educators to help them prevent, or cope
with, these potentially negative experiences. Parents and educators can play a vital
role in enhancing the positive effects of SMU and combatting the negative ones.
Helping adolescents prevent or process negative feedback and explaining that the
social media world may not be as beautiful as it often appears, are important ingre-
dients of media-specific parenting as well as school-based media literacy programs.
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
18 Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
Although this study was designed to contribute to (social) media effects theories
and research, our analytical approach may also have social benefits. After all, N¼1
time-series plots could not only be helpful for theory building, but also for person-
specific advice to adolescents. These plots give a comprehensive snapshot of each
adolescent’s experiences and responses across more or less prolonged time periods.
Such information could greatly help tailoring prevention and intervention strategies
to different adolescents. After all, only if we know which adolescents are more or
less susceptible to the negative and positive effects of social media, are we able to
adequately target prevention and intervention strategies at these adolescents.
Towards a Personalized Media Effects Paradigm
Insights into person-specific susceptibilities to certain environmental influences is
burgeoning in several disciplines. For example, in medicine, personalized medicine
is on the rise. In education, personalized learning is booming. And in developmental
psychology, differential susceptibility theories are among the most prominent theo-
ries to explain heterogeneity in child development. Although N¼1 or idiographic
research is now progressively embraced in multiple disciplines, spurred by recent
methodological developments, it has a long history behind it. In fact, in the first two
decades of the 20th century, scholars such as Piaget, Pavlov, and Thorndike often
conducted case-by-case research to develop and test their theories bottom up (i.e.,
from the individual to the population; Robinson, 2011). However, in the 1930s, idio-
graphic research soon lost ground to nomothetic approaches, certainly after Francis
Galton attached the term nomothetic to the aggregated group-based methodology
that is still common in quantitative research (Robinson, 2011). However, due to
technological advancements, it has become feasible to collect masses of intensive
longitudinal data from masses of individuals on the uses and effects of social media
(e.g., through ESM, tracking). Moreover, rapid developments in data mining and
statistical methods now also enable researchers to analyze highly complex N¼1
data, and by doing so, to develop and investigate media effects and other communi-
cation theories bottom-up rather than top-down (i.e., from the population to the in-
dividual). We hope that this study may be a very first step to a personalized media
effects paradigm.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this
article.
Funding
This study was funded by an NWO Spinoza Prize and a Gravitation grant
(NWO Grant 024.001.003; Consortium on Individual Development) awarded to
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 19
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
Patti Valkenburg by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). Additional funding
was received from a VIDI grant (NWO VIDI Grant 452.17.011) awarded to
Loes Keijsers.
References
Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2015). Interpreting effect sizes when controlling for stability
effects in longitudinal autoregressive models: Implications for psychological science.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology,12(1), 116–128.
Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Medina, E., Barrutia, J. M., & Echebarria, C. (2013). The rela-
tionship between socializing on the Spanish online networking site Tuenti and teenagers’
subjective wellbeing: The roles of self-esteem and loneliness. Computers in Human
Behavior,29(4), 1282–1289.
Appel, H., Gerlach, A. L., & Crusius, J. (2016). The interplay between Facebook use, social
comparison, envy, and depression. Current Opinion in Psychology,9, 44–49.
Barthorpe, A., Winstone, L., Mars, B., & Moran, P. (2020). Is social media screen time really
associated with poor adolescent mental health? A time use diary study. Journal of
Affective Disorders,274, 864–870.
Blomfield Neira, C. J., & Barber, B. L. (2014). Social networking site use: Linked to adoles-
cents’ social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood. Australian Journal of
Psychology,66(1), 56–64.
Boers, E., Afzali, M. H., Newton, N., & Conrod, P. (2019). Association of screen time and de-
pression in adolescence. Jama Pediatrics,173(9), 853–859.
Bourke, N. (2013). Online social networking and well-being in adolescents. [Bachelor’s thesis,
Dublin Business School]. Dublin.
Cantor, J. (2009). Fright reactions to mass media. In J. Bryant& D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media
effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 287–303). Erlbaum.
Cingel, D. P., & Olsen, M. K. (2018). Getting over the hump: Examining curvilinear relation-
ships between adolescent self-esteem and Facebook use. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media,62(2), 215–231.
Crocker, J., & Brummelman, E. (2018). The self: Dynamics of persons and their situations. In
K. Deaux& M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology
(pp. 265–287). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190224837.013.11.
Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple
sequences. Statistical Science,7(4), 457–511.
Gorrese, A., & Ruggieri, R. (2013). Peer attachment and self-esteem: A meta-analytic review.
Personality and Individual Differences,55(5), 559–568.
Hamaker, E. L., Asparouhov, T., Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., & Muthe´n, B. (2018). At the fron-
tiers of modeling intensive longitudinal data: Dynamic structural equation models for the
affective measurements from the COGITO study. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
53(6), 820–841.
Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations.
Guilford.
Harter, S., & Whitesell, N. R. (2003). Beyond the debate: Why some adolescents report stable
self-worth over time and situation, whereas others report changes in self-worth. Journal
of Personality,71(6), 1027–1058.
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
20 Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
Huang, C. (2017). Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: A meta-a-
nalysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,20(6), 346–354.
Jordan, C. H., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2013). Fragile self-esteem. In V. Zeigler-Hill (Ed.),
Self-esteem (pp. 80–98). Psychology Press.
Keijsers, L., & van Roekel, E. (2018). Longitudinal methods in adolescent psychology:
Where could we go from here? And should we? In L. B. Hendry& M. Kloep (Eds.),
Reframing adolescent research. Routledge.
Kelly, Y., Zilanawala, A., Booker, C., & Sacker, A. (2018). Social media use and adolescent
mental health: Findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. EClinicalMedicine,6,
59–68.
Kernis, M. H. (2005). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of stability of
self-esteem in psychological functioning. Journal of Personality,73(6), 1569–1605.
Ko
sir, K., Horvat, M., Aram, U., Jurinec, N., & Tement, S. (2016). Does being on Facebook
make me (feel) accepted in the classroom? The relationships between early adolescents’
Facebook usage, classroom peer acceptance and self-concept. Computers in Human
Behavior,62, 375–384.
Koutamanis, M., Vossen, H. G. M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Adolescents’ comments in
social media: Why do adolescents receive negative feedback and who is most at risk?
Computers in Human Behavior,53, 486–494.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological
well-being? American Psychologist,53(9), 1017–1031.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer
theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,32, 1–62.
Liu, D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Social networking online and personality of self-worth:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality,64, 79–89.
Lu, Z.-H., Chow, S.-M., Ram, N., & Cole, P. M. (2019). Zero-inflated regime-switching
stochastic differential equation models for highly unbalanced multivariate, multi-subject
time-series data. Psychometrika,84(2), 611–645.
McNeish, D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2020). A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation
models for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. Psychological Methods,25(5), 610–635.
Meeus, A., Beullens, K., & Eggermont, S. (2019). Like me (please?): Connecting online
self-presentation to pre- and early adolescents’ self-esteem. New Media & Society,21,
2386–2403.
Meier, A., & Scha¨fer, S. (2018). The positive side of social comparison on social network sites:
How envy can drive inspiration on Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking,21(7), 411–417.
Morin-Major, J. K., Marin, M.-F., Durand, N., Wan, N., Juster, R.-P., & Lupien, S. J. (2016).
Facebook behaviors associated with diurnal cortisol in adolescents: Is befriending stress-
ful? Psychoneuroendocrinology,63, 238–246.
O’Dea, B., & Campbell, A. (2011). Online social networking amongst teens: Friend or foe.
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics,167, 133–138.
Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2014). The development of self-esteem. Current Directions in
Psychological Science,23(5), 381–387.
Pearce, L. J., & Field, A. P. (2016). The impact of “scary” TV and film on children’s internaliz-
ing emotions: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research,42(1), 98–121.
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 21
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
Reinecke, L., & Trepte, S. (2014). Authenticity and well-being on social network sites:
A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias
in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior,30, 95–102.
Rideout, V., & Fox, S. (2018). Digital health practices, social media use, and mental well-being
among teens and young adults in the US. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem:
Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,27(2), 151–161.
Robinson, O. C. (2011). The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of
contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology,13(2), 32–39.
Rodgers, R. F., Slater, A., Gordon, C. S., McLean, S. A., Jarman, H. K., & Paxton, S. J. (2020).
A biopsychosocial model of social media use and body image concerns, disordered eating,
and muscle-building behaviors among adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence,49(2), 399–409.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
10.1515/9781400876136.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept and psychological well-being in adolescence. In R. L.
Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 205–246). Academic Press.
Schultzberg, M., & Muthe´n, B. (2018). Number of subjects and time points needed for multi-
level time-series analysis: A simulation study of dynamic structural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,25(4), 495–515.
Statistics Netherlands. (2020). Kerncijfers wijken en buurten 2020 [StatLine]. https://www.
cbs.nl/nl-nl/maatwerk/2020/29/kerncijfers-wijken-en-buurten-2020
Steinberg, L. (2011). Adolescence (Vol. 9). McGraw-Hill.
Thomaes, S., Reijntjes, A., Orobio de Castro, B., Bushman, B. J., Poorthuis, A., & Telch, M. J.
(2010). I like me if you like me: On the interpersonal modulation and regulation of prea-
dolescents’ state self-esteem. Child Development,81(3), 811–825.
Thorisdottir, I. E., Sigurvinsdottir, R., Asgeirsdottir, B. B., Allegrante, J. P., & Sigfusdottir, I.
D. (2019). Active and passive social media use and symptoms of anxiety and depressed
mood among Icelandic adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
22(8), 535–542.
Valkenburg, P. M., Koutamanis, M., & Vossen, H. G. M. (2017). The concurrent and longitu-
dinal relationships between adolescents’ use of social network sites and their social self-es-
teem. Computers in Human Behavior,76, 35–41.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model.
Journal of Communication,63(2), 221–243.
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their rela-
tionship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
9(5), 584–590.
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research.
Annual Review of Psychology,67, 315–338.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth.
Yale University Press.
van Driel, I. I, Pouwels, J. L, Beyens, I, Keijsers, L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2019). Posting, scroll-
ing, chatting, and Snapping: Youth (14-15) and social media in 2019. https://www.project-
awesome.nl/images/Posting-scrolling-chatting-and-snapping.pdf
Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem P. Valkenburg et al.
22 Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
van Eldik, A., Kneer, J., & Jansz, J. (2019). Urban & online: Social media use among adoles-
cents and sense of belonging to a super-diverse city. Media and Communication,7(2),
242–253.
van Roekel, E., Keijsers, L., & Chung, J. M. (2019). A review of current ambulatory assessment
studies in adolescent samples and practical recommendations. Journal of Research on
Adolescence,29(3), 560–577.
Voelkle, M. C., Oud, J. H. L., von Oertzen, T., & Lindenberger, U. (2012). Maximum likeli-
hood dynamic factor modeling for arbitrary N and T using SEM. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,19(3), 329–350.
Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media,
and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture,3(4), 206–222.
Waterloo, S. F., Baumgartner, S. E., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2017). Norms of online
expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New
Media & Society,20(5), 1813–1831.
Woods, H. C., & Scott, H. (2016). #Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is associated
with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low self-esteem. Journal of Adolescence,
51, 41–49.
P. Valkenburg et al. Social Media Use and Adolescents’ Self-Esteem
Journal of Communication 00 (2020) 1–23 23
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joc/jqaa039/6124731 by guest on 01 February 2021
