Well-Being Implications of Digital Social Multitasking in Adolescent Friendship: A Latent Profile Analysis

Abstract

Adolescents' phone use during face-to-face interactions (i.e., digital social multitasking [DSMT]) has gained increasing attention because of its prevalence as well as implications for well-being. However, most studies have focused on only one dimension of the behavior and relied on variable-centered approaches. Informed by the DSMT framework, we adopted a person-centered approach to identify different groups of adolescents based on their levels, perceptions, and motives of phone use during face-to-face interactions with friends. We also examined how these groups differed in five well-being variables (loneliness, depressive symptoms, digital stress, friendship quality, and satisfaction of basic psychological needs). A total of 517 adolescents (M_age = 14.83, standard deviation [SD] = 1.93; 50 percent female) completed an online survey. Three profiles were identified: the Intentional (low levels, quite positive perceptions, motivated for clear goals), the Embracers (high levels, highly positive perceptions, strong motives), and the Unimpressed (low levels, low positive perceptions, low motives). The Embracers scored the highest on both positive and negative indicators of well-being, whereas the Unimpressed scored the lowest on all well-being scales. The Intentional appeared to be the most adaptive group. Implications are discussed.

Introduction

Adolescents' phone use during face-to-face interactions has gained increasing attention.^1–3 However, most studies have focused on only one dimension of the behavior and relied on variable-centered approaches. These limitations hinder one from seeing the holistic picture of the behavior and how different groups of adolescents may navigate mobile communication differently. To address these limitations, we drew on the digital social multitasking (DSMT) framework⁴ and adopted a person-centered approach. We answered two research questions: (a) What different groups might emerge, given adolescents' levels of engagement, perceptions, and motives of DSMT in friendship, and (b) how might these DSMT-based groups differ in their well-being?

DSMT and well-being

DSMT refers to multitasking on a digital device during a social interaction.⁴ Phone use in a face-to-face conversation is an example. Under this framework, scholars should consider both the scenarios in which oneself is a multitasker and when the communication partner is a multitasker.⁴ Important DSMT variables include the engagement level, negative and positive perceptions, and motives of DSMT.^1,5,6

Researchers have studied the associations between DSMT and psychosocial well-being.^1–4,7–9 Perceptions of DSMT, especially negative ones, have been studied most extensively. DSMT can make the multitasker feel distracted and the communication partner feel ignored. These negative perceptions, also known as technoference (technology as an interference)⁷ and phubbing (phone use as a snub),¹⁰ are associated with poor well-being in various relationships,^2,3,10,11 including friendships.^4,12 Conversely, positive perceptions (e.g., seeing DSMT as an activity bringing joy, efficiency, and convenience) are associated with better well-being.¹ The well-being implications of DSMT level are mixed, with one study showing a direct association with poor friendship quality¹ and others suggesting that perception, rather than the level, is related to well-being.^4,13 Motives have been studied much less. Adolescents are motivated to perform DSMT to access information, enhance social connections, and manage boredom,⁶ but it remains unclear how these motives relate to adolescents' well-being.

The need for a person-centered approach

Current research on young people's use of digital media relies on variable-centered approaches. While these approaches are parsimonious and easily interpretable, they fail to describe specific patterns unique to different subgroups within the sample.¹⁴ This limitation is concerning given how much group-level variability has been reported in youth's digital technology use.^15,16 Furthermore, it may be the constellation of various media behaviors, rather than a specific behavior, that relates to the outcomes of interest (e.g., it is the combination of high frequency and duration of social media use, rather than frequency or duration per se, that exposes youth to a higher risk of drinking problems).¹⁷

Scholars have thus started using person-centered approaches, such as latent profile analysis (LPA), to examine how people who differ in their technology behaviors may report different behavioral or well-being outcomes.^15,17,18 We proposed identifying different groups of multitaskers based on their levels, perceptions, and motives of DSMT and exploring the differences in their well-being.

Current study

We focused on DSMT in friendship because friendship is an important relational context for adolescents¹⁹ and DSMT appears common in adolescent peer interaction.²⁰ For the level and perceptions, we attended to both the scenarios in which the adolescents themselves and their friends were the multitasker. For motives, because it is difficult for adolescents to know why their friends perform DSMT, we focused on adolescents' own motives. Finally, informed by existing literature,^1–4,7–9 we included three negative well-being indicators (loneliness, depressive symptoms, digital stress) and two positive ones (friendship quality, satisfaction of basic psychological needs).

RQ1: Given adolescents' levels, perceptions, and motives of DSMT in friendship, what different groups would emerge?

RQ2: How would these DSMT-based groups differ in their psychosocial well-being?

Methods

Participants and procedure

Participants were recruited through the Qualtrics research panels. A total of 517 adolescents (M_age = 14.83, standard deviation [SD] = 1.93) completed an online survey (Table 1). Participants had to pass two of the three attention checks embedded in the survey. Parents electronically consented, after which adolescents assented before accessing the IRB-approved survey. There were no missing data.

Table 1.

Sample Demographic Characteristics

Demographics	n	%
Age
12	78	15.1
13	78	15.1
14	79	15.3
15	76	14.7
16	78	15.1
17	79	15.3
18	49	9.5
Gender
Female	259	50.1
Male	258	49.9
Race/ethnicity
Asian/Asian American	29	5.6
Black/African American	69	13.3
Latine/Hispanic/Mexican American	88	17.0
Native American/Alaska Native	6	1.2
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	1	0.2
White/European American	358	69.2
Other	6	1.2

Measures

See Table 2 for scale descriptive statistics and correlations.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Scale Correlations

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.	14.	15.
DSMT features
1. Sf DSMT level	1
2. Fd DSMT level	0.76^***	1
3. Neg Per Sf DSMT	0.16^***	0.18^***	1
4. Neg Per Fd DSMT	0.06	0.08	0.60^***	1
5. Pos Per Sf DSMT	0.44^***	0.41^***	0.10^*	−0.01	1
6. Pos Per Fd DSMT	0.38^***	0.36^***	0.06	−0.01	0.72^***	1
7. Info	0.23^***	0.26^***	0.09^*	0.11^**	0.43^***	0.40^***	1
8. Connection	0.26^***	0.26^***	−0.02	−0.00	0.51^***	0.43^***	0.59^***	1
9. Boredom	0.26^***	0.31^***	0.18^***	0.15^***	0.30^***	0.27^***	0.45^***	0.51^***	1
10. Habit	0.37^***	0.40^***	0.27^***	0.23^***	0.37^***	0.28^***	0.38^***	0.44^***	0.55^***	1
Well-being
11. Loneliness	0.15^***	0.19^***	0.50^***	0.54^***	0.05	0.10^*	0.16^***	−0.01	0.21^***	0.24^***	1
12. Depression	0.22^***	0.26^***	0.49^***	0.46^***	0.13^**	0.16^***	0.17^***	0.01	0.23^***	0.33^***	0.78^***	1
13. Digital stress	0.33^***	0.36^***	0.52^***	0.53^***	0.21^***	0.25^***	0.34^***	0.14^**	0.33^***	0.48^***	0.64^***	0.70^***	1
14. Fdship quality	0.11^*	0.16^***	−0.10^*	−0.12^**	0.44^***	0.48^***	0.30^***	0.46^***	0.34^***	0.16^***	−0.08	−0.00	0.04	1
15. Need satisfaction	0.29^***	0.31^***	0.02	−0.06	0.53^***	0.51^***	0.51^***	0.58^***	0.39^***	0.29^***	−0.07	−0.09^*	0.10^*	0.40^***	1
Scale Likert Point	4	4	4	4	4	4	5	5	5	5	4	4	5	5	5
Mean	2.77	2.73	2.58	2.57	3.36	3.30	4.00	4.28	4.07	3.78	2.32	2.33	2.97	4.36	4.09
SD	0.96	0.92	0.67	0.75	0.51	0.57	0.77	0.67	0.76	0.97	0.81	0.94	1.16	0.65	0.69

For the level and perceptions, we attended to both the scenarios in which the adolescents themselves and their friends were the multitasker (variables 1–6 in the table). For motives, because it is difficult for adolescents to know why their friends perform DSMT, we focused on adolescents' own motives (variables 7–10 in the table).

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

DSMT, digital social multitasking; Fd, friend; Neg, negative; Per, perception; Pos, positive; SD, standard deviation; Sf, self.

Levels, perceptions, and motives of DSMT

We measured levels, negative perceptions, and positive perceptions of DSMT, using several 4-point DSMT scales (αs = 0.74–0.94).¹ Three scales focused on participants' own DSMT: self DSMT level (frequency of phone engagement during face-to-face interactions with a friend they frequently contacted), negative perception of self DSMT (how much participants felt distracted by their own DSMT), and positive perception of self DSMT (how much participants felt their DSMT brought convenience, efficiency, and joy). Another three scales focused on the friend's DSMT. Negative perception entailed how much participants felt dismissed by their friend's phone use (negative perception of friend DSMT). The other two scales (friend DSMT level, positive perception of friend DSMT) were the same as the self DSMT scales, except that participants were instructed to consider the friend's phone-based multitasking.

Participants reported motives on the 5-point DSMT Motives Scale (αs = 0.72–0.87),⁶ which measured the degree to which they engaged in DSMT to (a) access information, (b) enhance social experience and have fun, (c) avoid boredom, or (d) out of habit. Each subscale score was used for analysis.

Loneliness

Loneliness was measured with the 4-point UCLA Loneliness Scale Short Form (α = 0.85).²¹

Depressive symptoms

Depressive symptoms were measured with the 4-point Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Short Form (α = 0.94).²²

Digital stress

Digital stress refers to the stress derived from constant use of information and communication technologies.²³ Items measuring three types of such stress^24–26 were combined to measure overall digital stress on a 5-point scale (α = 0.96).

Friendship quality

Items from the 5-point Relationship Assessment Scale²⁷ were adapted to measure friendship quality (α = 0.86).

Basic psychological need satisfaction

The 5-point Intrinsic Need Satisfaction Scale in Mobile Communication²⁸ was adapted to measure how well participants' basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were satisfied in mobile communication (α = 0.92).

Plan for analysis

We started with LPA, using the 10 DSMT-related scales, along with gender, age, and amount of phone use in a typical day as covariates. Mplus was used to perform LPA. The number of profiles was determined by considering the sample size-adjusted Bayesian information criterion (SABIC; lower), entropy (>0.80), adjusted Lo–Mendell–Rubin test (p < 0.05), and interpretability.²⁹ ANOVAs, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference tests, were performed to examine group differences in the DSMT features and well-being. Welch's ANOVA was performed in cases where the assumption of equal variances was violated. The significance level was adjusted to p < 0.005 for DSMT features and p < 0.01 for well-being.

Results

We chose the three-profile solution (see Table 3 for the reasoning). Relying on Figure 1 to name the profiles, we attended to both between-group observations (whether a profile scored higher/lower on a scale relative to other groups) and within-group patterns (whether a profile scored higher/lower on a scale relative to other scales).

FIG. 1.

Latent profile analysis by DSMT levels, perceptions, and motives. DSMT, digital social multitasking; Neg Perc, negative perception; Pos Perc, positive perception.

Table 3.

Results of Latent Profile Analysis

	SABIC	Entropy	p for LMR LRT
Two-profile	10735.910	0.803	0.1196
Three-profile	10368.830	0.840	0.0071
Four-profile	10184.000	0.875	0.0708
Five-profile	10018.033	0.869	0.3978

Although the five-profile solution had the lowest SABIC and the four-profile solution had the greatest entropy, the nonsignificant LMR results suggested that adding additional profiles did not improve the model. The three-profile solution appeared acceptable (entropy >0.80 and a significant LMR result) and interpretable. Therefore, the three-profile solution was chosen.

LMR LRT, Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test; SABIC, sample size-adjusted Bayesian information criterion.

Profile 1 (N = 100; 19 percent) was named the Unimpressed. These adolescents and their friends engaged in low DSMT levels and scored lowest on all the motives among the three groups. Although the unimpressed adolescents did not feel particularly negative about their own and friend's DSMT (relative to the other two groups), they felt least positive about the activity. This was the only group whose negative and positive perceptions had close scores.

Adolescents in Profile 2 (N = 234; 45 percent) felt more positive than negative about their own and friend's DSMT, and they were more motivated than the Unimpressed to perform DSMT. However, these adolescents reported low self and friend DSMT levels. Among all motives, these adolescents scored especially high on the social connection motive and low on the habit motive. Habitual technology use is reactive to environmental cues and is unintentional.³⁰ While adolescents in Profile 2 appreciated the opportunities afforded by DSMT, they appeared to multitask when there were goals (especially social ones) they intended to achieve through this behavior. Therefore, these adolescents were named the Intentional.

Profile 3 (N = 183; 35 percent) was named the Embracers, who reported high self and friend DSMT levels. Their positive perceptions about self and friend DSMT were noticeably higher than the negative perceptions, and they were highly motivated to perform DSMT for all four reasons. Females were more likely to be the Unimpressed (b = 0.80, p = 0.005) and those spending much time on the phone were more likely to be the Embracers (b = 0.18, p = 0.003). Age did not predict profile membership.

The 3 profiles differed in all 10 DSMT features (Fs = 12.01–321.70, ps < 0.001). The Embracers did not differ from the Unimpressed in negative perception of friend DSMT (p = 0.073) but scored highest on all other scales (ps < 0.001). The Intentional scored higher than the Unimpressed on positive perceptions and the four motives (ps < 0.001), but not levels and negative perceptions of DSMT (ps = 0.18–0.97; Table 4).

Table 4.

Group Differences in Digital Social Multitasking Features

	Profile 1 The Unimpressed (N = 100; 19%) Mean (SD)	Profile 2 The Intentional (N = 234; 45%) Mean (SD)	Profile 3 The Embracers (N = 183; 35%) Mean (SD)	Tukey's HSD
Self DSMT level	2.31 (0.93)	2.29 (0.75)	3.63 (0.54)	3 > 1, 3 > 2
Friend DSMT level	2.28 (0.84)	2.23 (0.65)	3.61 (0.52)	3 > 1, 3 > 2
Negative perception of self DSMT	2.52 (0.63)	2.43 (0.66)	2.82 (0.65)	3 > 1, 3 > 2
Negative perception of friend DSMT	2.57 (0.65)	2.41 (0.73)	2.77 (0.77)	3 > 2
Positive perception of self DSMT	2.78 (0.53)	3.31 (0.39)	3.74 (0.25)	3 > 2 > 1
Positive perception of friend DSMT	2.70 (0.64)	3.27 (0.43)	3.67 (0.37)	3 > 2 > 1
Motive: information	3.11 (0.77)	4.01 (0.59)	4.46 (0.53)	3 > 2 > 1
Motive: social connection	3.31 (0.57)	4.39 (0.47)	4.66 (0.33)	3 > 2 > 1
Motive: boredom	3.25 (0.82)	4.06 (0.62)	4.52 (0.47)	3 > 2 > 1
Motive: habit	2.94 (0.87)	3.66 (0.92)	4.40 (0.62)	3 > 2 > 1

Levels and perceptions were on a 4-point Likert scale. Motives were on a 5-point Likert scale. Tukey's HSD was tested at p < 0.005.

HSD, honestly significant difference.

The three profiles also differed in all five well-being scales (Fs = 11.58–111.68, ps < 0.001). The Embracers scored highest on all five scales (ps < 0.007). The Intentional scored higher on friendship quality and need satisfaction than the Unimpressed (ps < 0.001), but there was no difference in the other three well-being scores (ps = 0.55–0.95; Table 5).

Table 5.

Group Differences in Well-Being

	Profile 1 The Unimpressed (N = 100; 19%) Mean (SD)	Profile 2 The Intentional (N = 234; 45%) Mean (SD)	Profile 3 The Embracers (N = 183; 35%) Mean (SD)	Tukey's HSD
Loneliness (4-pt)	2.24 (0.71)	2.17 (0.75)	2.55 (0.89)	3 > 1, 3 > 2
Depressive symptoms (4-pt)	2.15 (0.80)	2.11 (0.82)	2.69 (1.05)	3 > 1, 3 > 2
Digital stress (5-pt)	2.50 (0.87)	2.63 (1.02)	3.66 (1.16)	3 > 1, 3 > 2
Friendship quality (5-pt)	3.78 (0.78)	4.42 (0.55)	4.59 (0.47)	3 > 2 > 1
Satisfaction of basic psychological needs (5-pt)	3.41 (0.67)	4.06 (0.58)	4.50 (0.48)	3 > 2 > 1

Tukey's HSD was tested at p < 0.01.

Discussion

DSMT profiles

The Intentional emerged as the largest group (45 percent). Although these adolescents felt positive about DSMT and were motivated to engage in DSMT for specific goals (especially social ones), they reported below-midpoint levels of engagement. The Intentional being the largest group refutes a common misconception that adolescents are “mindless” users who are “always” on the phone. Consistent with the uses and gratifications theory,³¹ adolescents' technology behaviors are goal-driven and usually serve important developmental functions,^1,32 such as enhancing social connections.

The second largest group, the Embracers (35 percent), reported active engagement, positive perceptions, and strong motives for DSMT. Phone addiction is a concern for more than one-third of adolescents,³³ and there may be an overlap between the “addicted” teens and the Embracers. Indeed, DSMT and phubbing are associated with problematic phone use.^6,34,35 If the overlap does exist, our results may illuminate why addicted adolescents have trouble reducing phone use: They feel highly positive about phone-based multitasking and are strongly motivated to perform DSMT to fulfill various goals. Interventions may be more effective if these factors are considered (e.g., brainstorming with adolescents alternative ways to receive information, enhance social experience, and manage boredom).

A small percentage of adolescents (19 percent) were the Unimpressed. As infrequent multitaskers, they reported lowest positive perceptions and motives of DSMT. This group can be easily overlooked when the dominant discourse of adolescent phone use is “teens are always on the phone.” LPA helps to address the problem—a group of people scoring low on all scales would usually be identified in this approach,^15,17 even if they are the minority.¹³ It gives scholars a chance to assess the implications of media behaviors for this small population.

An interesting pattern consistent across the three groups is the close ratings for self and friend DSMT. The similar levels of self and friend DSMT reflect homophily—the tendency for adolescents to share various attributes with their friends.^36–38 Consistent with studies showing individuals perceiving their social media friends to think and behave similar to themselves,^39,40 our data suggest that behavioral homophily also exists in adolescents' mobile communication with peers. Given that DSMT can make one feel excluded and less close to the communication partner,¹¹ it is understandable that adolescents would befriend someone whose level of DSMT is perceived to be similar to theirs. It is less clear why adolescents also reported similar perceptions of self and friend DSMT, but it appears that when adolescents enjoy being a multitasker, they do not mind their friends performing the activity. If there are gaps between adolescents' self and friend DSMT, would that impair their friendships? This would be an interesting direction for future research.

Profiles and well-being

The Embracers scored highest on all the negative and positive well-being scales. This result corroborates a recent finding that the most active social media users enjoy more psychosocial advantages while facing more psychosocial risks.⁴¹ Contrarily, the Unimpressed scored lowest on all these scales. The findings suggest that DSMT is a double-edged sword. DSMT can hurt well-being by distracting one from the copresent interaction, making one feel ignored, or increasing one's cognitive load.^4,42,43 However, DSMT helps enhance friendships and gratify the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.¹ While the Unimpressed adolescents shielded themselves from the potential harms, they also missed out on the opportunities afforded by DSMT. The Intentional adolescents appeared to be the most adaptive group. They came in second on the positive well-being indicators but did not score higher on the negative ones than the Unimpressed peers. The intentionality and positive view of DSMT, paired with relatively low engagement, likely allows the Intentional adolescents to reap the benefits of DSMT without being dictated by the behavior. Therefore, adolescents are encouraged to recognize and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by DSMT and stay intentional in their decision to perform this behavior.

Given the cross-sectional nature of the study, we were unable to ascertain the causal direction between DSMT profiles and adolescents' well-being. However, the findings on which constellation of DSMT variables would associate with best well-being outcomes still expand the literature of copresent communication that has been heavily dependent on variable-centered approaches. By considering the levels, perceptions, and motives of DSMT simultaneously, we believe our study has provided a more holistic view of DSMT's well-being implications.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This study has been funded by the College of Education and Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University.

References

Yang

C-C

, Pham

, Ariati

, et al. Digital social multitasking (DSMT), friendship quality, and basic psychological needs satisfaction among adolescents: Perceptions as mediators. J Youth Adolesc, 2021; 50(12):2456–2471; doi: 10.1007/s10964-021-01442-y

Bai

, Lei

, Hsueh

, et al. Parent-adolescent congruence in phubbing and adolescents' depressive symptoms: A moderated polynomial regression with response surface analyses. J Affect Disord, 2020; 275:127–135; doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.156

Stockdale

, Coyne

, Padilla-Walker

. Parent and child technoference and socioemotional behavioral outcomes: A nationally representative study of 10- to 20-year-old adolescents. Comput Human Behav, 2018; 88:219–226; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.034

Yang

C-C

, Christofferson

. On the phone when we're hanging out: Digital social multitasking (DSMT) and its socioemotional implications. J Youth Adolesc, 2020; 49(6):1209–1224; doi: 10.1007/s10964-020-01230-0

McDaniel

, Wesselmann

. “You phubbed me for that?” Reason given for phubbing and perceptions of interactional quality and exclusion. Hum Behav Emerg Technol, 2021; 3(3):413–422; doi: 10.1002/hbe2.255

Yang

C-C

, Ariati

, Pham

, et al. Motives for digital social multitasking (DSMT) and problematic phone use among adolescents. J Adolesc, 2023; 95(4):811–823; doi: 10.1002/jad.12155

McDaniel

, Galovan

, Drouin

. Daily technoference, technology use during couple leisure time, and relationship quality. Media Psychol, 2020; 24(5):637–665; doi: 10.1080/15213269.2020.1783561

Hefner

, Vorderer

Digital Stress Permanent Connectedness and Multitasking. In: The Routledge Handbook of Media Use and Well-Being. ( Reinecke

, Oliver

. eds.) Routledge: New York, NY; 2016; pp. 237–249.

Reinecke

, Aufenanger

, Beutel

, et al. Digital stress over the life span: The effects of communication load and internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments in a German probability sample. Media Psychol, 2016; 20(1):90–115; doi: 10.1080/15213269.2015.1121832

10.

David

, Roberts

. Investigating the impact of partner phubbing on romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: The moderating role of attachment anxiety. J Soc Pers Relat, 2021; 38(12):3590–3609; doi: 10.1177/0265407521996454

11.

Beukeboom

, Pollmann

. Partner phubbing: Why using your phone during interactions with your partner can be detrimental for your relationship. Comput Human Behav, 2021; 124:106932; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106932

12.

Sun

, Samp

. ‘Phubbing is happening to you’: Examining predictors and effects of phubbing behaviour in friendships. Behav Inf Technol, 2021; 41(12):2691–2704; doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2021.1943711

13.

Frackowiak

, Hilpert

, Russell

. Partner's perception of phubbing is more relevant than the behavior itself: A daily diary study. Comput Human Behav, 2022; 134:107323; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107323

14.

Howard

, Hoffman

. Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches. Organ Res Methods, 2017; 21(4):846–876; doi: 10.1177/1094428117744021

15.

Kim

, Nam

, Oh

, et al. A latent profile analysis of the interplay between PC and smartphone in problematic internet use. Comput Human Behav, 2016; 56:360–368; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.009

16.

Scott

, Bay-Cheng

, Prince

, et al. Time spent online: Latent profile analyses of emerging adults' social media use. Comput Human Behav, 2017; 75:311–319; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.026

17.

Russell

, Vest

, Litt

. Social networking site use and alcohol use behaviors among adolescents: A latent profile analysis. Addict Behav, 2022; 129:107261; doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107261

18.

McDaniel

, Drouin

, Dibble

, et al. Are you going to delete me? Latent profiles of post-relationship breakup social media use and emotional distress. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2021; 24(7):464–472; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0714

19.

Brown

, Larson

Peer Relationships in Adolescence. In: Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Contextual Influences on Adolescent Development. ( Lerner

, Steinberg

. eds.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ; 2009; pp. 74–103.

20.

Turkle

Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. Penguin Press: New York, NY;. 2015.

21.

Neto

Psychometric analysis of the short-form UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-6) in older adults. Eur J Ageing, 2014; 11(4):313–319; doi: 10.1007/s10433-014-0312-1

22.

Levine

SZ.

Evaluating the seven-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies depression scale short-form: A longitudinal U.S. community study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 2013; 48(9):1519–1526; doi: 10.1007/s00127-012-0650-2

23.

Steele

, Hall

, Christofferson

. Conceptualizing digital stress in adolescents and young adults: Toward the development of an empirically based model. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev, 2020; 23(1):15–26; doi: 10.1007/s10567-019-00300-5

24.

Hall

, Baym

. Calling and texting (too much): Mobile maintenance expectations, (over)dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media Soc, 2012; 14(2):316–331; doi: 10.1177/1461444811415047

25.

Misra

, Stokols

. Psychological and health outcomes of perceived information overload. Environ Behav, 2012; 44(6):737–759; doi: 10.1177/0013916511404408

26.

Przybylski

, Murayama

, DeHaan

, et al. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Comput Human Behav, 2013; 29(4):1841–1848; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014

27.

Hendrick

SS.

A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. J Marriage Fam, 1988; 50(1):93–98.

28.

Halfmann

, Rieger

. Permanently on call: The effects of social pressure on smartphone users' self-control, need satisfaction, and well-being. J Comput Mediat Commun, 2019; 24(4):165–181; doi: 10.1093/jcmc/zmz008

29.

Spurk

, Hirschi

, Wang

, et al. Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. J Vocat Behav, 2020; 120:103445; doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445

30.

LaRose

, Kim

, Peng

Social Networking: Addictive, Compulsive, Problematic, or Just Another Media Habit? In: A Networked Self, Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. (Papacharissi Z. ed.) Routledge: New York, NY; 2010; pp. 59–81.

31.

Katz

, Blumler

, Gurevitch

Utilization of Communication by the Individual. In: The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. (Blumler JG, Katz E. eds.) Sage: Beverly Hills, CA; 1974; pp. 19–32.

32.

Manago

, Brown

, Lawley

, et al. Adolescents' daily face-to-face and computer-mediated communication: Associations with autonomy and closeness to parents and friends. Dev Psychol, 2020; 56(1):153–164; doi: 10.1037/dev0000851

33.

Robb

MB.

The new normal: Parents, teens, screens, and sleep in the United States. 2019. Available from: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2019-new-normal-parents-teens-screens-and-sleep-united-states-report.pdf [Last accessed: August 24, 2023].

34.

Chotpitayasunondh

, Douglas

. How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Comput Human Behav, 2016; 63:9–18; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018

35.

Karadag

, Tosuntas

, Erzen

, et al. Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. J Behav Addict, 2015; 4(2):60–74; doi: 10.1556/2006.4.2015.005

36.

Kandel

DB.

Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am J Sociol, 1978; 84(2):427–436.

37.

Kitts

, Leal

. What is(n't) a friend? Dimensions of the friendship concept among adolescents. Soc Netw, 2021; 66:161–170; doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2021.01.004

38.

Trinh

, Lee

, Halpern

, et al. Our buddies, ourselves: The role of sexual homophily in adolescent friendship networks. Child Dev, 2019; 90(1):e132–e147; doi: 10.1111/cdev.13052

39.

Figeac

, Favre

. How behavioral homophily on social media influences the perception of tie-strengthening within young adults' personal networks. New Media Soc, 2021; 25(8):20691; doi: 10.1177/14614448211020691

40.

Sun

, Li

, Millet

, et al. Sharing news with online friends: A study of network homophily, network size, and news type. Telemat Inform, 2022; 67:101763; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101763

41.

Keum

, Wang

, Callaway

, et al. Benefits and harms of social media use: A latent profile analysis of emerging adults. Curr Psychol, 2022; 1–13. [Epub ahead of print]; doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03473-5

42.

Ivanova

, Gorbaniuk

, Blachnio

, et al. Mobile phone addiction, phubbing, and depression among men and women: A moderated mediation analysis. Psychiatr Q, 2020; 91(3):655–668; doi: 10.1007/s11126-020-09723-8

43.

, Wang

, David

. Social media multitasking (SMM) and well-being: Existing evidence and future directions. Curr Opin Psychol, 2022; 47:101345; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101345