Who is most at risk for body esteem problems after being on social media? A differential susceptibility approach with adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research indicates a negative association between adolescent social media use and body esteem. However, the factors that increase differential susceptibility to adverse outcomes remain underexplored. This study employs the Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model and Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) to examine individual differences (n = 1) in the impact of social media on body esteem and body positivity. The sample consisted of 183 adolescents aged 12-17 who completed a series of short questionnaires up to four times a day over a 17-day period. Findings indicate that time spent on social media alone was not associated with body esteem. There was substantial variability in the impact of social media on body esteem, with 47% experiencing neutral effects, 36% experiencing negative effects, and 17% experiencing positive effects. Similar results were found for body positivity. Additionally, being female, exhibiting problematic media use behaviors, and having perfectionist tendencies predicted membership in the negative body esteem and body positivity groups. Furthermore, adolescents reporting higher eating disorder symptoms were more likely to experience decreased body positivity after using social media. Collectively, these results support taking a differential view to social media effects on adolescents which may inform educators, parents, and policymakers as they help guide adolescents and their use of social media.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".