The Journal of Social Media in Society

Fall 2018, Vol. 7, No. 2, Page 164-176

thejsms.org

Happiness, Loneliness, and Social Media:

Perceived Intimacy Mediates the Emotional Benefits
of Platform Use

Matthew Pittman
School of Advertising & Public Relations, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 37996
[email protected], @matthewcpittman, 626-421-8043

The purpose of this study is to explore the how user and increased happiness, but once perceived
perceptions of social media might influence effects intimacy was factored in, it was a more significant
on psychological well-being. Social Presence Theory predictor than frequency of use. The more one uses
was used to examine Snapchat, Facebook, social media, the more he or she is likely to believe
Instagram, Twitter and texting. Undergraduate those platforms are a good way to connect with
students (N = 352) were given a survey to assess others (perceived intimacy), which then increases
how frequently they use social media, how intimate the likelihood that happiness and social connection
they think each platform is, and how lonely and result from their usage. Results and implications are
happy they are. Perceived intimacy was found to discussed.
mediate the ameliorating effects of social media use
on loneliness and happiness. Frequency of social Keywords: social media, loneliness, happiness,
media use initially predicted decreased loneliness well-being, intimacy

P
latforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have dramatically altered
how individuals connect to each other and the world. Are these platforms good
or bad for us? Scholars have linked social media use to both negative and
positive psychological well-being outcomes. Extant research has studied the
potential for addictive or problematic social media use overall (Andreassen, Pallesen, &
Griffiths, 2017; Błachnio, Przepiorka, Boruch, & Bałakier, 2016; Caplan, 2007; Larose,
Lin, & Eastin, 2009; Song, LaRose, Eastin, & Lin, 2004) and linked Facebook use to
negative subjective well-being (Kross et al., 2013). More specifically, posting and viewing
Facebook photos can stimulate narcissism (Alloway, Runac, Qureshi, & Kemp, 2014),
certain platforms may induce jealousy (Utz, Muscanell, & Khalid, 2015), and individuals
with low self-esteem have negative perceptions of social media (Keating, Hendy, & Can,
Page 164
 Pittman

2016). Other scholars have highlighted the various benefits of social media use such as
facilitating greater self-disclosure (Ledbetter & Mazer, 2010; Ma, Hancock, & Naaman,
2016), cultivating social support (Vitak & Ellison, 2013) and decreased loneliness (Pittman
& Reich, 2016).
There is not yet a consensus as to the emotional effects of social media. How do we
reconcile this contradicting scholarship which has alternately found that lonely people use
more (Correa, Hinsley, & de Zúñiga, 2010; Primack et al., 2017) AND less (Pittman, 2015;
Shillair, Cotten, & Tsai, 2015) social media than non-lonely individuals? Perhaps, since
different people utilize social media in different ways, scholars needs to account for some
of the individual differences and expectations users bring to their social media
experiences. This study proposes the construct of perceived intimacy as a mediator for the
positive emotional benefits of social media use. If social media are really bringing people
together, there should be a corresponding increase in the emotional well-being that
typically accompanies traditional, “offline” social support. However, this benefit may only
occur when users believe that social media can be a good way to keep in touch with others,
i.e., that they can be intimate. If indeed those who perceive social media to be intimate are
the only ones who reap the emotional and social benefits of using them, this may help
explain how social media use by itself has been linked to loneliness in ostensibly
contradictory ways (Best, Manktelow, & Taylor, 2014; Primack et al., 2017).

LITERATURE REVIEW
To understand how mediated social connectivity might afford emotional benefits
similar to traditional social connectivity, Social Presence Theory is useful in attempting to
explicate what exactly we perceive when communicating with others through digital
technology. Social Presence Theory (Gunawardena, 1995) posits that mediated
communication is perceived as “real” in the degree to which it is perceived as both
immediate and intimate. All social media now have the potential for immediacy because
digital technology affords communication and feedback with little delay. On the other
hand, intimacy is a much more subjective factor, likely existing in the “eye” of the
beholder, and it is the main focus of this study.

The Journal of Social Media in Society, Vol. 7, No. 2

 Happiness, Loneliness, and Social Media

Granovetter (1973) defined intimacy as mutual confiding or disclosure, where both parties
can safely disclose information about themselves. Because use of certain social media has
been linked to decreased loneliness (Pittman, 2015) as well as increased happiness
(Pittman & Reich, 2016), it is assumed for this study frequency of social media use alone
will predict a decrease in loneliness and an increase in happiness. However, taking things
one step further, this study hypothesizes that, because lonely people use social media less
frequently than others, they will also perceive them to be less intimate, i.e., less useful in
connecting with other people.
H1: Loneliness predicts lower perceived intimacy of social media

On the other hand, the more frequently one uses social media, the more likely that
usage is to lead to gratifications such as social interaction, entertainment or relaxation
(Whiting & Williams, 2013). Happy individuals who use social media are even more likely
to perceive it as intimate, or at least more useful in facilitating disclosure and self-
presentation to others and the world. Therefore:
H2: Happiness predicts higher perceived intimacy of social media

Yet social media use is more complex than simple linear effects. Scholars must
reconcile findings that seem contradictory. For example, on the one hand, Primack et al.
(2017) found that young adults in the highest quartile (comparted with those in the
lowest) for social media usage were twice as likely to perceive greater social isolation. On
the other hand, (Pittman & Reich, 2016) found that college students who used Instagram
more frequently (compared with less frequent Instagram users) were less likely to be
lonely. Granted, loneliness and social isolation differ; social isolation is the felt absence of
others, whereas loneliness is the emotional distress at the discrepancy between perceived
and ideal social support. So, per the Primack et al. (2017) study, it is possible that
individuals could be using social media with great frequency, but that usage is empty and
offers them no emotional or social benefits. What makes those individuals different from
the ones in Pittman and Reich’s (2016) study where high social media usage (of image-
based platforms) was linked to greater feelings of social connection? Perhaps the image-
based platforms afforded greater intimacy and thus greater feelings of social connection.

166 | Fall 2018 thejsms.org

 Pittman

However, users will not perceive all social media platforms to be equally “intimate,” and
these individual differences may account for differing effects on emotional well-being.
Therefore, this study proposes a mediation model for explaining the ameliorating effects of
social media use on loneliness and happiness. That is, while frequency of use may initially
appear to lead to positive emotional outcomes—decreased loneliness and increased
happiness—it is actually an indirect effect through perceived intimacy. In other words, the
more one uses social media, the intimate one may perceive their usage, and that perceived
intimacy with others is actually what makes one feel better.
H3: Perceived intimacy mediates the effect of social media use on loneliness

Figure 1. Proposed mediation model for frequency of use, perceived intimacy, and loneliness.

H4: Perceived intimacy mediates the effect of social media use on happiness

Figure 2. Proposed mediation model for frequency of use, perceived intimacy, and happiness.

All these factors will be assessed to help determine their overall role in how college
students’ loneliness might influence—or be influenced by—their use of particular social
media.

The Journal of Social Media in Society, Vol. 7, No. 2

 Happiness, Loneliness, and Social Media

METHODS
Participants in this study were undergraduates (N = 352) at a large state
institution in the Pacific Northwest. After Institutional Review Board approval was
obtained, participants were recruited from four large survey courses and incentivized with
extra credit and/or candy. Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24 using
Hayes’ (2012) PROCESS (model 4) macro.
Loneliness. Russell’s (1996) 20-item revision of the UCLA loneliness scale was used
to measure chronic loneliness (e.g., “How often do you feel that you lack companionship?”
[1 = Never, 4 = Always]; α = .726), Mlonely = 2.08, SDlonely = .47.
Happiness. Lyubomirsky and Lepper’s (1999) four-item subjective happiness scale
was used to measure chronic happiness (e.g., “In general, I consider myself… [1 = not a
very happy person, 7 = a very happy person]; α = .806). Mhappy = 4.84, SDhappy = 1.12.
Perceived Intimacy. For perceived intimacy, the participants selected from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Likert scale for three statements: “<social media
application> is a good way to stay in touch with people,” “Using <social media application>
helps me feel more connected to others,” and “When I use <social media application> I feel
close to people.” These statements were adapted from Pittman and Reich’s (2016) study
that used Social Presence theory (Gunawardena, 1995) to examine perceived intimacy in
social media; α(Twitter) = .895, α(Instagram) = .879, α(Snapchat) = .864, α(Texting) = .886,
α(Facebook) = .862).
Frequency of Use. A scale was adopted from Ledbetter and Mazer's (2013) study on
Facebook communication to assess how often the participant used each platform he or she
indicated having an account with: “In average week, how often do you use _____?”
Participants responded on a seven-point Likert-type scale with response options ranging
from 1 (Very Infrequently, fewer than 5 minutes per day) to 8 (Very Frequently, more than
two hours per day), Mfrequency = 3.45, SDfrequency = 1.54 Finally, an open-ended response
question was asked for each platform: “What is the primary reason you use _____?”

168 | Fall 2018 thejsms.org

 Pittman

RESULTS
A total of 373 responses were collected, but some responses (N = 19) were discarded
for being incomplete. The remaining responses were analyzed with a final sample size of
352 students (Mage = 20.78, SDage = 1.50; 75.4% female).
H1 stated that loneliness would predict a decrease in perceived intimacy for all
social media. Perceived intimacy of social media overall (MSMint = 4.94, SDSMint = .923) was
the average of a participant’s perceived intimacy score for each platform (1 = not very
intimate and 7 = very intimate) he or she used. A linear regression was calculated to
predict perceived intimacy of social media based on loneliness, controlling for demographic
variables. A significant regression equation was found (F (1, 350) = 32.865, p < .001, with
an R2 of .086. Participants’ predicted perceived intimacy is equal to 6.115 – .589
(Loneliness). Perceived intimacy decreased .589 for each interval on the loneliness scale (1
to 4). In other words, as loneliness increases, one is less likely to believe social media are
intimate.
Similarly, H2 stated that happiness would predict an increase in perceived intimacy
for all social media. A linear regression was calculated to predict perceived intimacy of
social media based on happiness, controlling for demographic variables. A significant
regression equation was found (F (1, 350) = 13.954, p < .001, with an R2 of .038.
Participants’ predicted perceived intimacy is equal to 4.115 + .163 (Happiness). Perceived
intimacy decreased .163 for each interval on the happiness scale (1 to 7). In other words,
as happiness increases, one is more likely to believe social media are intimate.
H3 stated that perceived intimacy mediates the effect of social media use on
loneliness. Frequency of social media use (MSMuse = 3.95, SDSMuse= .1.51) is the average of
how frequently used each platform (1 = fewer than 5 min/day, 8 = more than 2 hours/day).
Regression analysis was used to investigate the hypothesis that perceived intimacy
mediates the mitigating effects of social media use on loneliness. Results indicated that
social media use was a significant predictor of perceived intimacy (of social media), b =
.171, SE = .031, p < .001, and that perceived intimacy was in turn a significant predictor
of loneliness, b = -.130, SE = .027, p < .001. These results support the mediational
hypothesis. After controlling for the mediator (perceived intimacy), the effect of social
media loneliness decreased, b = -.041, SE = .016, p = .013. Approximately 8% of the

The Journal of Social Media in Society, Vol. 7, No. 2

 Happiness, Loneliness, and Social Media

variance in loneliness was accounted for by the predictors (R2 = .080). The indirect effect
was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 5000 samples (Shrout & Bolger,
2002). There was a significant indirect effect of social media use on happiness through
perceived intimacy, b = -.022, SE = .006, CI = -.035, -.012. The mediator (perceived
intimacy) could account for roughly a third of the total effect on loneliness, PM = .351.
Figure 3 illustrates these results.

Figure 3. Results of H3: Effects of use frequency on loneliness mediated through perceived intimacy

H4 stated that perceived intimacy mediates the effect of social media use on
happiness. Regression analysis was used to investigate the hypothesis that perceived
intimacy mediates the mitigating effects of social media use on loneliness. Once again,
social media use was a significant predictor of perceived intimacy (of social media), b =
.171, SE = .031, p < .001, and that perceived intimacy was in turn a significant predictor
of happiness, b = .225, SE = .065, p < .001. These results support the mediational
hypothesis. Social media use was no longer a significant predictor of happiness after
controlling for the mediator, perceived intimacy, b = -.020, SE = .040, p = .620, consistent
with full mediation. Approximately 9% of the variance in loneliness was accounted for by
the predictors (R2 = .086). The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation
approach with 5000 samples1 (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). There was a significant indirect
effect of social media use on happiness through perceived intimacy, b = .039, SE = .012, CI

170 | Fall 2018 thejsms.org

 Pittman

= .017, .067. The mediator (perceived intimacy) could account for roughly 2/3 of the total
effect on happiness, PM = .660 (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Results of H4: Effects of use frequency on happiness mediated through perceived intimacy

DISCUSSION
In attempting to clarify the relationships between social media use and
psychological well-being, several conclusions can be drawn from this study. First and
foremost, this study supports extant research that suggests social media may have some
emotional benefits. Loneliness itself is an indication of a lack of desired social support
(Perlman & Peplau, 1981), and H1 was based on the assumption that people who lack this
social support are less likely to be using social media, particularly in any way that
facilities intimacy. If they were having emotionally satisfying encounters with others via
social media, they might not be as lonely. This was confirmed: the lonelier an individual is,
the more he or she thinks social media are not a good way to connect with others.
Even though some people may receive social benefits from using social media, an
individual’s belief that social media are not intimate appear to reduce these benefits. The
support of H1 (loneliness predicts decreased in perceived intimacy of social media)
confirms this power of belief. People who use social media and feel meaningful connection
with others (low loneliness) perceive that social media are actually intimate and thus a
good way to stay in touch; people who use social media and do not feel meaningful
connection with others (high loneliness) perceive that social media are not intimate. It is
this latter group of individuals for whom social media use may be problematic. They
appear to be less likely to use social media in ways that can potentially ameliorate

The Journal of Social Media in Society, Vol. 7, No. 2

 Happiness, Loneliness, and Social Media

loneliness. This may be similar to the feedback loops scholars have found with avoidance
of social contact and loneliness (Cacioppo, 1998) perception of social threats (Rokach &
Neto, 2000). Once someone believes social media are not a good way to connect with
others, it appears as though that belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Similarly, H2 dealt with this concept but from an opposite (positive) perspective.
Happiness is not quite the antithesis of loneliness, but it is expected that happy
individuals are not lonely, and vice versa. The two were indeed negatively correlated in
this study, r = -.572, p < .001. Therefore, H2 proposed that emotionally happy individuals
would think of social media as more intimate, since they are likely to have satisfying social
networks and also likely (as college students in particular) to use social media in
maintaining those relationships. This was confirmed: the happier an individual is, the
more he or she is likely to think social media are a good way to connect with others.
H3 and H4 extends these findings, proposing that perceived intimacy would
supersede social media use itself as a predictor of loneliness and happiness, respectively.
For H3, frequency of social media use was a significant (negative) predictor of loneliness,
but once perceived intimacy was entered as a mediator, those frequency effects were
diminished, and intimacy was now the stronger predictor. This indicates partial
mediation, because frequency still had some direct effect on loneliness.
H4 found a more robust mediation of intimacy with happiness. Frequency of social
media use was a significant predictor of happiness, but once perceived intimacy was
entered as a mediator, those frequency effects went away completely. This indicates full
mediation, because any influence frequency of use has on happiness was revealed to be an
indirect effect through perceived intimacy. That is, the more frequently one uses social
media, the more likely he or she is to perceive using them as being intimate, and that
perception is what contributes to happiness.
The power of perception here is paramount. Loneliness is already linked to many
problematic factors, such as inhibition in self-disclosure (Solano, Batten, & Parish, 1982)
and hindering development of social skills (Jones, Hobbs, & Hockenbury, 1982), that
inhibit one’s ability to fight it. Social media offer easy and accessible means for connecting
with others, so for lonely individuals to not utilize that potential intimacy is a missed
opportunity to receive the emotional support that humans desperately need. As social

172 | Fall 2018 thejsms.org

 Pittman

creatures, we need this connection with others, and there are physical dangers when we do
not have it (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Peplau, 1982). Yet for
the people who believe social media are a good way to connect with others, that belief
becomes reality in the sense that they receive real psychological benefits.
Social Presence theory offers us a perspective into what factors might help make
digital technologies such as social media seem “real” to users. The potential for immediacy
and apparent intimacy of social media mean that (at least for college students) using them
appears to offer at least some of the psychological benefits that typically accompany
traditional, “offline” relationships. These benefits are not trivial, and if social media can
truly contribute to emotional support people who use them, then people need to be made
aware of this connective potential.

CONCLUSION
Whether or not someone perceives social media to be intimate is actually a better
predictor of loneliness and happiness than frequency of use. This study suggests a
condition or caveat of the emotional benefits of social media: they do appear to have
potential for reducing loneliness and increasing happiness, but only in the degree to which
their use is perceived as intimate. Most social media were designed to facilitate some kind
of social connection, and the users who “feel” that connection are more likely to reap the
psychological benefits of their use. This likely varies by individual and platform, but still
provides an additional nuance to existing literature on social media and loneliness (Park
et al., 2015; Pittman, 2015; Pittman & Reich, 2016).
This study was limited by only including college students, and future studies should
examine other demographics, particularly for older adults for whom social media are not
as essential to daily life. Similarly, this study was cross-sectional in nature and only
captured users’ responses at a single moment, and future studies should include
longitudinal data that captures users’ emotions and social media engagement over a
period of time.

The Journal of Social Media in Society, Vol. 7, No. 2

 Happiness, Loneliness, and Social Media

References
Alloway, T., Runac, R., Qureshi, M., & Kemp, G. (2014). Is Facebook Linked to
Selfishness? Investigating the Relationships among Social Media Use, Empathy, and
Narcissism. Social Networking, 3(3), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2014.33020
Andreassen, C. S., Pallesen, S., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). The relationship between
addictive use of social media, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large
national survey. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 287–293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.03.006
Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and
adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services
Review, 41, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001
Błachnio, A., Przepiorka, A., Boruch, W., & Bałakier, E. (2016). Self-presentation styles,
privacy, and loneliness as predictors of Facebook use in young people. Personality and
Individual Differences, 94, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.051
Cacioppo, J. (1998). Autonomic, neuroendocrine, and immune responses to psychological
stress: The reactivity hypothesisa. Annals of the New …. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09605.x/full
Cacioppo, J., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social
connection. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w8pWZ2AGI4MC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq
=cacioppo+and+patrick+2008&ots=lEcI4AqaZY&sig=NuoKcVsqjOzjiZO2cO15vjgKuK
o
Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic Internet
use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior : The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and
Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 10(2), 234–42.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9963
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The
intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(2), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Gunawardena, C. (1995a). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and
collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational.
Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/index.cfm/files/paper_15156.pdf?fuseaction=Reader.Dow
nloadFullText&paper_id=15156
Gunawardena, C. (1995b). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and
collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational.
Retrieved from
https://www.editlib.org/index.cfm/files/paper_15156.pdf?fuseaction=Reader.Download
FullText&paper_id=15156
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White Paper, 1–39.
https://doi.org/978-1-60918-230-4
Heinrich, L., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature
review. Clinical Psychology Review. Retrieved from

174 | Fall 2018 thejsms.org

 Pittman

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735806000444
Jones, W., Hobbs, S., & Hockenbury, D. (1982). Loneliness and social skill deficits. Journal
of Personality and …. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/42/4/682/
Keating, R. T., Hendy, H. M., & Can, S. H. (2016). Demographic and psychosocial
variables associated with good and bad perceptions of social media use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 57, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.002
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., … Ybarra, O. (2013).
Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults. PLoS ONE,
8(8), e69841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841
Larose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2009). Unregulated Internet Usage : Addiction ,
Habit , or Deficient Self-Regulation ?, (March 2014), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0503
Ledbetter, A., & Mazer, J. (2010). Attitudes toward online social connection and self-
disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and relational closeness.
Communication …. Retrieved from
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/09/0093650210365537.abstract
Ledbetter, A., & Mazer, J. (2013). Do online communication attitudes mitigate the
association between Facebook use and relational interdependence? An extension of
media multiplexity theory. New Media & Society. Retrieved from
http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/03/1461444813495159.abstract
Ma, X., Hancock, J., & Naaman, M. (2016). Anonymity, Intimacy and Self-Disclosure in
Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems - CHI ’16 (pp. 3857–3869). New York, New York, USA: ACM
Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858414
Olien, J. (2013). Dangers of loneliness: Social isolation is deadlier than obesity. Retrieved
November 10, 2015, from
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/08/dangers_
of_loneliness_social_isolation_is_deadlier_than_obesity.html
Park, S., Kim, I., Lee, S. W., Yoo, J., Jeong, B., & Cha, M. (2015). Manifestation of
Depression and Loneliness on Social Networks. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW
’15 (pp. 557–570). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675139
Peplau, L. (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy.
Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=peplau+perlman+1982&btnG=&as_sdt=1
%2C38&as_sdtp=#1
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. Personal
Relationships. Retrieved from
http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Peplau_Lab/Publications_files/Perlman %26 Peplau
81.pdf
Pittman, M. (2015). Creating, consuming, and connecting: Examining the relationship
between social media engagement and loneliness. The Journal of Social Media in
Society. Retrieved from
http://www.thejsms.org/tsmri/index.php/TSMRI/article/view/92
Pittman, M., & Reich, B. (2016). Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture

The Journal of Social Media in Society, Vol. 7, No. 2

 Happiness, Loneliness, and Social Media

may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words. Computers in Human Behavior,
62, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.084
Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Sidani, J. E., Whaite, E. O., Lin, L. yi, Rosen, D., … Miller, E.
(2017). Social Media Use and Perceived Social Isolation Among Young Adults in the
U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 53(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.010
Rokach, A., & Neto, F. (2000). Coping with loneliness in adolescence: A cross-cultural
study. Social Behavior and Personality: An …. Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2000/00000028/00000004/art00003
Shillair, R., Cotten, S. R., & Tsai, H. S. (2015). Not So Lonely Surfers : Computer Comfort ,
Internet Use and Life Satisfaction in Older Adults. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, 47(3), 193–206.
Shrout, P., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e930/616bee242ec451b76f9998d81778042ad449.pdf
Solano, C., Batten, P., & Parish, E. (1982). Loneliness and patterns of self-disclosure.
Journal of Personality and …. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/43/3/524/
Song, I., LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Lin, C. a. (2004). Internet gratifications and internet
addiction: on the uses and abuses of new media. Cyberpsychology & Behavior : The
Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 7(4),
384–394. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.384
Tu, C. (2000). On-line learning migration: from social learning theory to social presence
theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084804599900991
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat Elicits More Jealousy than
Facebook: A Comparison of Snapchat and Facebook Use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 18(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0479
Vitak, J., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). “There”s a network out there you might as well tap’:
Exploring the benefits of and barriers to exchanging informational and support-based
resources on Facebook. New Media & Society, 15(2), 243–259.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812451566

Funding and Acknowledgements

The author declares no funding sources or conflicts of interest.

176 | Fall 2018 thejsms.org