Focus on Self-Presentation on Social Media across Sociodemographic Variables, Lifestyles, and Personalities: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation on social media such as feedback-seeking and strategic self-presentation may represent risk factors for experiencing negative mental health effects of social media use. The aim of this exploratory study was to assess how adolescents differ in upward social comparison and aspects of self-presentation on social media and whether these differences are linked to sociodemographic variables, lifestyle, or personality. The study was based on cross-sectional data from the "LifeOnSoMe" study performed in Bergen, Norway, including 2023 senior high school pupils (response rate 54%, mean age 17.4, 44% boys). Nine potentially relevant items were assessed using factor analysis, and latent class analysis was used to identify latent classes with distinct patterns of responses across seven retained items. The retained items converged into one factor, called "focus on self-presentation". We identified three groups of adolescents with a low, intermediate, and high focus on self-presentation. Associations between identified latent classes and covariates were assessed using regression analyses. Being a girl, higher extraversion, lower emotional stability, more frequent alcohol consumption, and having tried tobacco were associated with membership in the high-focus group. These results suggest some characteristics that are associated with a higher focus on self-presentation and that could inform targeted interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".