Dispositional and Social Correlates of Digital Status Seeking Among Adolescents

Abstract

Social media have transformed peer relationships among adolescents, providing new avenues to attain online status indicators such as likes and followers. This study aimed to explore the associations between various dispositional and social factors and digital status-seeking behaviors among a sample of adolescents (N = 731; M_age = 14.69, 48.7 percent female), as well as explore potential gender differences in the examined associations. Sociometric nominations for digital status-seeking, likeability, and popularity were collected, and participants self-reported their social media use frequency, awareness of social media positivity bias, reward sensitivity, and gender. The findings revealed a positive relationship between sociometric popularity and digital status-seeking, whereas likeability displayed a negative association with digital status-seeking. These results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between different social status indicators in understanding online behaviors. Reward sensitivity did not show a significant link to digital status-seeking, and awareness of social media positivity bias heightened the likelihood of being nominated as a digital status-seeker. These findings underscore the need for further research, especially focusing on girls who appear to be more vulnerable to engaging in digital status-seeking behaviors.

Introduction

Social media provide adolescents with valuable opportunities to enhance their social standing¹ and satisfy their self-presentation and relationship formation needs.^2–4 However, social media can also be a source of alienation and ostracism, thereby challenging adolescents' psychosocial well-being.⁵ Adolescents heavily rely on a sense of group belonging,^6,7 which becomes highly visual and quantified through social media. The increased opportunities for impression management coupled with the quantifiable peer feedback have led adolescents to meticulously control and enhance their online presence.^8,9

Furthermore, the distinctive features of social media have reshaped adolescents' interactions with their peers, ushering in entirely new behaviors.¹⁰ One noteworthy example is digital status-seeking,⁹ where adolescents actively seek likes and comments to enhance their online status.⁸ Active efforts of likes-seeking have, however, been linked to adverse well-being outcomes and engagement in risk behaviors.^4,5 Social comparison processes as well as the heightened visibility of peer status are possible explanatory mechanisms for the adverse consequences of digital status-seeking.^9,11

There remains a scarcity of research dedicated to exploring the factors that contribute to adolescent digital status-seeking. This study expands upon this previous research^8,9,12 by (a) using a peer-driven and more objective assessment of digital status-seeking and (b) examining both dispositional and social correlates of digital status-seeking. Specifically, building on the premises of Differential Susceptibility Model of Media Effects,¹³ which emphasizes that individuals' (social) media behaviors are driven by dispositional (i.e., person dimensions such as temperamental traits and attitudes) and social (i.e., all social context or interpersonal factors) susceptibility factors, the present research delves into the connections between reward sensitivity and awareness of social media positivity bias (dispositional factors) and likeability and popularity (social factors) with digital status-seeking behaviors.

Social factors

Adolescence is characterized by social and biological sensitivities that contribute to a heightened dependence on peer relationships for self-esteem, leading to an intensified emphasis on peer status and validation. Sociodevelopmental tasks, including relationship formation, are considered one of the formative reasons for social media's popularity among adolescents. Consequently, adolescents' engagement with social media platforms is inherently driven by peer dynamics.¹⁰

Across the literature, researchers have argued that those who are socially competent offline get more out of their presence online because both types of interactions draw from “separate but complementary skills sets.”¹⁴ This phenomenon is often referred to as the rich-get-richer hypothesis, which proposes that popular adolescents can boost their social status by increasing their online visibility.¹⁵ A recent meta-analysis provides empirical support for this social enhancement perspective by showing that individuals high in extraversion—a trait closely related to social competence¹⁶—tend to have more friends and social opportunities online.¹⁵

Although position within the peer hierarchy is often equated with popularity, the latter holds different interpretations ranging from being well-liked to being socially dominant.¹⁷ Research on social status suggests that it is relevant to distinguish between both types of high-status youth,^18,19 whereas likeable teenagers are socially preferred among their peers, and their attributes include prosocial and cooperative behavior and the ability to form strong relationships,²⁰ popular teens often display dominance, visibility, and power.²¹ This distinction seems especially relevant in terms of active efforts to increase one's online social presence.

Specifically, popular teenagers may leverage social media to boost their social status and increase their online visibility.¹⁵ In terms of digital status-seeking, in particular, qualitative research revealed that adolescents perceive digital visibility as a prerequisite for popularity.²² Popular social media users have reported using various tactics, such as posting edited photos and untagging uncool images to project a popular image on Facebook.¹⁷ Finally, peers not only perceive popular teenagers as attractive and sociable but also manipulative and controlling.²³ Likeable individuals, who often report a stronger sense of belonging, use social media less often and may also be less inclined to engage in like-seeking behaviors.^12,24 Additionally, given that strategic efforts such as using filters and staging photos may compromise the authenticity of self-expression²⁵ and are generally frowned upon by teenagers,² likeable teens may be less inclined to engage in active efforts to increase their online presence.

Dispositional factors

In addition to social dynamics, adolescents' status-seeking behaviors may be determined by dispositional (person-related) factors.⁸ One variable in this regard is adolescents' awareness of the positivity bias on social media, or their cognitive ability to recognize the unrealistic nature of social media posts.²⁶ Specifically, both empirical and theoretical articles have emphasized how social media platforms enable users to strategically highlight positive aspects of themselves to construct a desirable self-image, thereby intensifying a positivity bias on social media.^25–27 Considering the importance of peer status in adolescence, adolescents may use social media as a strategic means to cultivate a positive online image by gathering approval and attention from their peers.

At the same time, qualitative studies show that adolescents recognize the adverse effects of excessive editing and staging, as these practices can lead to inauthentic online representations.²⁸ Being aware of this positivity bias on social media has been recognized as an essential element of users' social media literacy.²⁹ Since social media literate adolescents are believed to be more attentive to the portrayal of certain posts³⁰ and their potential negative effect on others' mental health,²⁹ these adolescents are expected to be more motivated to display an authentic self-presentation themselves and thus less likely to engage in digital status-seeking.²⁶

Another crucial dispositional factor to consider when examining adolescents' status-seeking behavior is their reward sensitivity. Specifically, due to the heightened sensitivity of the developing adolescent brain toward seeking social rewards and avoiding social rejection,^31,32 social media with its inherent feedback mechanisms continuously entice adolescents into a never-ending quest for social validation.³³ Previous research has found associations between reward sensitivity and increased problematic mobile phone use³⁴ and feedback-seeking. Moreover, likes have high social and affective relevance for adolescents high in social comparison and feedback seeking.³⁵ Thus, those high in reward sensitivity may be more inclined to engage in behaviors directed at gaining social reward, such as digital status-seeking.

Gender differences

Lastly, gender is a crucial demographic characteristic that may influence adolescents' engagement in particular types of digital behaviors. Teenage girls are more inclined than boys to use visually focused social media platforms, to post “selfies,” and to modify their pictures using digital tools such as filters.³³ This pattern may be a result of, and possibly intensifies, a strong emphasis on physical appearance among young females and a desire for peer validation.³⁶ Moreover, previous article has shown that girls are more likely than boys to be nominated as digital status seekers.⁹ Further research is needed to better understand potential gender differences in factors that might relate to one's status-seeking behaviors.

Current study

Despite the consensus in existing literature that social media use is often socially motivated,¹⁰ there is surprisingly little research examining how specific social dynamics (i.e., peer group interactions and processes such as social relationships and power structures³⁷) are involved in a particular behavior among adolescents on social media: seeking status. This study adds to current research^8,9,12 by incorporating two distinct measures of popularity (likeability and popularity) in adolescents' inclination to seek digital status. To provide a more objective representation of adolescents' social position within the peer hierarchy and their inclination to engage in status-seeking, we utilized peer-nominated sociometric ratings.

Based on the existent literature, our specific hypotheses were that popularity would have a positive correlation with digital status-seeking (H1), while likeability would have a negative association (H2). Additionally, given the potential of awareness of social media positivity bias to spur more healthy social media use,²⁹ we expected that such awareness would have a negative association with digital status-seeking (H3), whereas adolescents' reward sensitivity would be related to more status-seeking. Additionally, we will explore how the examined relations might differ between boys and girls.

Methods

Participants

In 2019, a total of 731 students in the 9th and 10th grades in a rural, lower middle-class community in the southeastern United States participated in the fourth wave of a panel study on peer relations and psychosocial adjustment. The larger panel study had a 1-year time lag between waves and recruited all sixth and seventh grader students from three middle schools (N = 1,385) of which 66.7 percent (N = 924) consented for their child to participate. The analytical sample of the current study (i.e., 731 participants who filled out the measures at wave 4) had a demographic breakdown of 21.8 percent Black, 37.1 percent white, and 31.2 percent Hispanic/Latino participants, a mean age of 14.69 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.987), and 48.7 percent self-identified as female.

The students completed a questionnaire on computers in classrooms during the school day and received a $10 gift card as compensation. All procedures were approved by the University's IRB. Considering our sample size was dependent on retention rates throughout the multiwave panel study, power analysis (in R) ensured us that our study had enough power to correctly detect the specified effect size; test power for N = 731; four predictor variables; effect size = 0.254; α err prob = 0.05) was 1.000 (100 percent).

Measures

Awareness of social media positivity bias

Adolescents' awareness of the positivity bias on social media was assessed by three items, inspired by the article of Schreurs and Vandenbosch.²⁶ Specifically, on a five-point scale (1 = Never; 5 = Always), adolescents indicated whether they “believe that posts/pictures on social media are staged”; “believe that posts/photos are edited”; and “believe that social media profiles/accounts only show highlights of the best selves.” The scale exhibited good reliability (α = 0.861).

Reward sensitivity

Reward sensitivity was measured by the Reward Responsiveness subscale of the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) and Behavioral Activation System (BAS) scales developed by Carver and White.³⁸ Sample item includes “When I get something I want, I feel excited and energized.” Participants indicated their agreement with five statements on a four-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree). The scale showed good internal consistency (α = 0.892).

Sociometric peer popularity and likeability

Peer popularity and likeability were measured using standard sociometric procedures. Adolescents were provided an alphabetized roster of all grademates and asked to nominate an unlimited number of students based on who they “like the most” and “like the least” (likeability) and considered “most popular” and “least popular.” For each participant, we computed a total count of nominations. Total number of nominations could range between 0 and 67 (for school 1, grade 9), 0 and 63 (school 1, grade 10), 0 and 427 (school 2, grade 9), 0 and 360 (school 2, grade 10), 0 and 337 (school 3, grade 9), and 0 and 293 (school 3, grade 10).

Following the standards within sociometric research,^39,40 these counts were subsequently standardized within each school grade. For popularity and likeability, a difference score was computed between “most liked” and “least liked” and between “most popular” and “least popular” standardized scores. Higher scores indicate higher levels of peer likeability and popularity. Kurtosis values of popularity (2.886; SD = 0.181) and likeability (3.913; SD = 0.181) imply a heavy-tailed distribution.⁴¹ To that end, we used 95 percent winsorization to address outliers.

Sociometric digital status seeking

Based on prior article,⁹ digital status-seeking was measured by asking all participants to nominate grademates in response to the question “Who tries hard to get more activity (i.e., likes, comments, etc.) on their social media profiles (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)?” For each participant, we computed a total count of nominations. These counts were subsequently standardized within each school grade,^39,40 resulting in a global index that reflects the extent to which each adolescent was seen as actively striving to receive likes. Higher scores indicate higher levels of digital status-seeking. Kurtosis value of digital status-seeking (8.039; SD = 0.181) implied a very heavy tailed-distribution. To that end, 95 percent winsorization was used to address outliers.

Covariates

Covariates included gender (1 = male, 2 = female, 3 = non-binary; 2.05 percent of the sample identified as nonbinary which was coded as missing for the purpose of gender-related analysis) and frequency of social media use—measured by one item asking them how often they check social media (Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat) on a nine-point Likert scale (1 = Never to 9 = Almost constantly).

Results

Descriptive statistics and comparisons by gender

Descriptive statistics were conducted with SPSS 28.0. See Table 1 for correlations and means for all study variables. Girls' mean scores were significantly higher than boys' mean scores on all variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
(1) Reward sensitivity	1	0.283^***	−0.019	0.032	0.062	0.008
(2) Awareness of social media positivity bias		1	0.065	0.093^**	0.141^***	−0.178^***
(3) Peer popularity			1	0.183^***	0.451^***	−0.192^***
(4) Peer likeability				1	0.013	−0.072
(5) Digital status-seeking					1	−0.183^***
(6) Frequency of social media use						1
Total sample, M (SD)	2.797 (0.895)	2.588 (1.057)	0.127 (1.342)	0.176 (1.093)	0.027 (0.770)	2.58 (1.847)
Girls, M (SD)	3.007^a (0.797)	2.799^a (1.065)	0.314^a (1.157)	0.226^a (0.846)	0.318^a (1.143)	2.24^a (1.654)
Boys, M (SD)	2.601^b (0.932)	2.378^b (1.01)	0.125^b (1.028)	−0.154^b (0.624)	−0.143^b (0.724)	2.91^b (1.983)

Note. Different superscripts denote significant differences between girls and boys.

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

SD, standard deviation.

Correlates of digital status-seeking

The proposed model was tested using Mplus 8.0. A structural equation model was constructed with peer popularity, peer likeability, social media positivity bias awareness (latent variable), and reward sensitivity (latent variable) as exogenous variables and digital status-seeking as the endogenous variable. The goodness-of-fit of the model was checked with the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), indices. The significance of the examined pathways was assessed with bootstrapping (95 percent bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals [CIs]; 1,000 bootstrapped samples). Gender and frequency of social media use were included as covariates. Gender was dummy-coded (female as reference category). A multiple-group analysis was conducted to compare the examined relations across genders.

The structural equation model showed a good fit to the data with χ²(48) = 69.191, p = 0.024, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.992, RMSEA = 0.025 (90 percent CI [0.009 to 0.037]), SRMR = 0.029; η² = 0.253. Digital status-seeking was significantly associated with greater popularity (β = 0.430, p < 0.001, 95 percent CI [0.199 to 0.287]), lower likeability (β = −0.096, p = 0.006, 95 percent CI [−0.117 to −0.020]), and greater self-reported awareness of social media positivity bias (β = 0.082, p = 0.023, 95 percent CI [0.011 to 0.113]). Reward sensitivity was not significantly associated with digital status-seeking (β = 0.008, p = 0.850, 95 percent CI [−0.061 to 0.076]).

Gender differences

First, full configural, metric, and scalar invariance were confirmed for awareness of social media positivity bias and reward sensitivity, to ensure meaningful comparisons across genders. Next, a model in which the structural paths were free to vary across groups (unconstrained model) was compared to a constrained model; again frequency of social media use was included as a covariate. Freeing the paths to vary across gender did result in a significant improvement in model fit, Δχ²(4) = 14.788, p < 0.01. Table 2 summarizes the paths for girls and boys. Girls and boys differed with regard to the association between popularity and digital status-seeking, as the difference parameter was (p < 0.001), such that the effect was stronger among girls (β = 0.535, p < 0.001) compared to boys (β = 0.339, p < 0.001).

Table 2.

Predictive Value of the Social and Dispositional Factors by Gender

From	To	β (all), (95 percent CI)	β (girls)	β (boys)	Significance difference between girls and boys (p value)
Reward sensitivity	Digital status seeking	0.008 (−0.06 to 0.11)	−0.026	0.032	0.456
Awareness of social media positivity bias		0.082^* (0.01 to 0.11)	0.114^*	0.041	0.267
Likeability		−0.096^* (−0.12 to −0.02]	−0.127^**	−0.057	0.233
Popularity		0.430^*** (0.20 to 0.29)	0.535^***	0.339^***	<0.001

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

CI, confidence interval.

Discussion

Social media provide adolescents with ways to garner social rewards and peer validation. However, active attempts to obtain social-media-based indicators of peer status, such as likes and comments, have been associated with engaging in risky behaviors⁹ and experiencing depressive symptoms.¹¹ The current study aimed to gain insight into the dispositional and social factors related to the digital status-seeking among adolescents.

In line with other studies,⁴² likeability and popularity were found to be distinct aspects of social standing as both were related to digital status-seeking in opposite directions. Specifically, adolescents who were rated as higher in popularity were also more often nominated as digital status-seekers by their classmates. Likeable adolescents, on the other hand, were less likely to be nominated as digital status-seekers. Moreover, in line with other studies^19,43 the current study found only a moderate association between likeability and popularity, indicating that being popular does not necessarily equate to being well-liked, nor the opposite.⁴⁴ One possible explanation for differences in how popularity and likeability are associated with status-seeking could be the tendency for well-liked adolescents to demonstrate higher levels of emotional competence.

Specifically, emotional competence, encompassing emotional intelligence and regulation,⁴⁵ has been linked with higher levels of self-reported and peer-reported sociability in adolescents.^46,47 Emotional competence and regulation, in turn, are considered crucial components of social media literacy.²⁹ As such, it is possible that likeable individuals might be less inclined to engage in digital status-seeking because they possess the emotional and cognitive skills to consider its drawbacks (e.g., unauthenticity). As this conjecture falls outside the scope of the current study, future studies are needed to explore the role of emotional and self-regulation, particularly adolescents' ability to resist the immediate gratification of needs such as social status and prestige, within the context of status-seeking.

The positive association between offline popularity and digital status-seeking aligns with prior article showing that adolescents demonstrate consistent social behaviors across different domains,^11,48 resulting in popular individuals offline often being popular online as well.¹⁷ This finding is consistent with the rich-get-richer hypothesis, suggesting that popular adolescents can enhance their social status by increasing their online visibility, and vice versa.¹⁵ In addition, adolescents themselves also perceive that being popular necessitates a noticeable online presence,^4,20 which could explain the current findings.

Contrary to our expectations, social media positivity bias awareness was positively related to digital status-seeking, suggesting that adolescents who are aware of online manipulation may actually engage in more status-seeking behaviors themselves. Our findings seem to suggest that, in the context of digital status-seeking, awareness of positivity bias may not serve as a protective factor but could, in fact, present a risk. In particular, while previous research on social media literacy has encompassed positivity bias awareness within its components,²⁹ it is conceivable that this awareness is more closely related to the internalization of norms established by online peers.

It is worth noting that individuals' behaviors are often shaped by their perceptions of descriptive norms (what others are doing) and injunctive norms (what is approved by others).⁴⁹ If adolescents believe that everyone around them is engaging in behaviors to maintain a favorable online image and approving of them, it can heighten their motivation to do so too, including seeking peer approval and attention. One qualitative study seems to confirm this assumption by indicating that while adolescents may desire a more authentic and spontaneous self-presentation, they feel constrained by the prevailing norm of cultivating a curated and popular online persona.⁵⁰

Furthermore, while existing literature generally agrees that certain elements of social media, particularly the quantification of peer validation, stimulate the brain's reward system,³³ the present findings did not provide evidence of a connection between reward sensitivity and digital status-seeking. It is possible that this outcome could have differed if the measurement had been more fine-tuned to capture online rewards. Another explanation may lie in the assertion that “reward sensitivity does not explicitly involve being the object of social attention.”⁵¹ As such, there might still be an important threshold between reward sensitivity and actually engaging in behaviors aimed at attracting visible and tangible online rewards. Lastly, the role of reward sensitivity in social media use and its effects may be more meaningfully examined through momentary assessments rather than treated as a trait-like variable. As such, researchers could better understand how reward sensitivity interacts with situational factors to influence specific actions, such as digital status-seeking.

Finally, when looking into gender differences and in line with the literature,⁹ girls were more likely to be nominated as digital status-seekers. Moreover, popularity was more strongly related to girls' digital status-seeking than boys’. These findings might be due to the fact that popularity among girls, more so than for boys, often revolves around physical appearance and attractiveness.⁵² The picture- and video-oriented nature of social media, then, provides the ultimate platform for girls to seek peer recognition by engaging in edited self-presentation.^29,50,51

Limitations and conclusion

Several limitations must be considered. First, although combining peer-nominated and self-reported measures reduces common method bias and thus helps ensure a more robust and reliable assessment, further investigation of the causal, longitudinal, and bidirectional relationships between dispositional and social factors and digital status-seeking is required. Second, cognitive structures—such as awareness of social media positivity bias—alone may be insufficient to counter adversarial social media effects.²⁹ Self-regulation has been considered as an important boundary condition to healthy social media use,⁵³ and should thus be included in studies to understand when and how individuals engage in active attempts to seeking likes online. Moreover, in future research, the inclusion of variables such as the number of online friends or the ratio of offline to online friends could be valuable, given that prior research has demonstrated the practice of adding strangers as friends on social media is regarded as a strategy to enhance online status.¹⁷

Finally, our measurement of digital status-seeking relied on a sociometric assessment involving a single item, wherein classmates assigned an overall score related to like-seeking behavior. It is important to note that digital status-seeking encompasses a spectrum of diverse behaviors, such as utilizing software to enhance one's appearance, removing photos with insufficient likes, posting at specific times of the day, and liking others' pictures.¹² Addressing the disentanglement of motivations for engaging in these distinct activities, and thereby determining whether they can be categorized as digital status-seeking or instead fall under the purview of self-monitoring, emerges as a pertinent area for exploration in future research.

Although preliminary, the current study provides novel perspectives on the dispositional and social factors related to digital status-seeking. The findings emphasize the significance of differentiating between various indicators of social status, as they may have distinct associations with online behaviors. Furthermore, despite its initial promise, social media positivity bias awareness was associated with increased rather than decreased digital status-seeking. This underscores the necessity for further research, particularly among girls who appear to be more susceptible to engaging in digital status-seeking behaviors.

Sharing of Materials

The data that support the findings of the current study are not available to share, but analysis code is available upon request to the first author. This study was not preregistered.

Footnotes

Authors' Contributions

J.T.: conceptualization (lead), writing—original draft (lead), formal analysis (lead), writing—review and editing (equal); J.N.: writing—review and editing (equal); K.B.: writing—review and editing (equal); M.J.P.: writing—review and editing (equal), funding acquisition; E.H.T.: conceptualization (supporting), writing—review and editing (equal), funding acquisition. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Funding Information

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grant R01DA039923 (E.H.T.) and the Winston Family Foundation.

References

Boer

, Stevens

GWJM

, Finkenauer

, et al. The complex association between social media use intensity and adolescent wellbeing: A longitudinal investigation of five factors that may affect the association. Comput Hum Behav, 2022; 128:107084.

Siibak

Constructing the Self through the Photo selection—Visual Impression Management on Social Networking Websites. Cyberpsychology J Psychosoc Res Cyberspace, 2009; 3(1).

Walther

, Van Der Heide

, Ramirez

Jr.,

et al. Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Dimensions of Computer-Mediated Communication. In: The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. ( Sundar

, ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2015; pp. 1–22.

Deci

, Ryan

. Self-Determination Theory. In: Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Vol. 1. ( Van Lange

PAM

, Kruglanski

, Higgins

eds.) Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA; 2012; pp. 416–436.

Allen

, Ryan

, Gray

, et al. Social media use and social connectedness in adolescents: The positives and the potential pitfalls. Educ Dev Psychol, 2014; 31(1):18–31.

Arslan

, Allen

, Ryan

. Exploring the impacts of school belonging on youth wellbeing and mental health among Turkish adolescents. Child Indic Res, 2020; 13(5):1619–1635.

Smith

, Leonis

, Anandavalli

. Belonging and loneliness in cyberspace: Impacts of social media on adolescents' well-being. Aust J Psychol, 2021; 73(1):12–23.

Wallace

, Buil

. Investigating trait antecedents of normative and deceptive Like-seeking on Instagram. Personal Individ Differ, 2023; 208:112175.

Nesi

, Prinstein

. In search of likes: Longitudinal associations between adolescents' digital status seeking and health-risk behaviors. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol, 2019; 48(5):740–748.

10.

Nesi

, Choukas-Bradley

, Prinstein

. Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 1—A theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer relationships. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev, 2018; 21(3):267–294.

11.

Nesi

, Prinstein

. Using social media for social comparison and feedback-seeking: Gender and popularity moderate associations with depressive symptoms. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 2015; 43(8):1427–1438.

12.

Dumas

, Maxwell-Smith

, Davis

, et al. Lying or longing for likes? Narcissism, peer belonging, loneliness and normative versus deceptive like-seeking on Instagram in emerging adulthood. Comput Hum Behav, 2017; 71:1–10.

13.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. Differential susceptibility to media effects model. J Commun, 2013; 63(2):221–243.

14.

Bouchillon

. Social networking for interpersonal life: A competence-based approach to the rich get richer hypothesis. Soc Sci Comput Rev, 2022; 40(2):309–327.

15.

Cheng

, Wang

H-Y

, Sigerson

, et al. Do the socially rich get richer? A nuanced perspective on social network site use and online social capital accrual. Psychol Bull, 2019; 145(7):734–764.

16.

Jenkins-Guarnieri

, Wright

, Hudiburgh

. The relationships among attachment style, personality traits, interpersonal competency, and Facebook use. J Appl Dev Psychol, 2012; 33(6):294–301.

17.

Zywica

, Danowski

. The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook™ and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. J Comput Mediat Commun, 2008; 14(1):1–34.

18.

Cillessen

AHN

, Rose

. Understanding popularity in the peer system. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 2005; 14(2):102–105.

19.

van der Linden

, Scholte

RHJ

, Cillessen

AHN

, et al. Classroom ratings of likeability and popularity are related to the Big Five and the general factor of personality. J Res Personal, 2010; 44(5):669–672.

20.

Rubin

, Bukowski

, Parker

. Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. In: Handbook of Child Psychology. ( Damon

, Lerner

RM.

eds.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ; 2007; pp. 141–171.

21.

Rodkin

, Farmer

, Pearl

, et al. They're cool: Social status and peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Soc Dev, 2006; 15(2):175–204.

22.

Yau

, Reich

. “It's just a lot of work”: Adolescents' self-presentation norms and practices on Facebook and Instagram. J Res Adolesc, 2019; 29(1):196–209.

23.

LaFontana

, Cillessen

AHN

. Children's perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Dev Psychol, 2002; 38(5):635–647.

24.

Strayhorn

. Exploring the impact of Facebook and Myspace use on first-year students' sense of belonging and persistence decisions. J Coll Stud Dev, 2012; 53(6):783–796.

25.

Kreling

, Meier

, Reinecke

. Feeling authentic on social media: Subjective authenticity across Instagram stories and posts. Soc Media Soc, 2022; 8(1):1–13.

26.

Schreurs

, Vandenbosch

. Should I post my very best self? The within-person reciprocal associations between social media literacy, positivity-biased behaviors and adolescents' self-esteem. Telemat Inform, 2022; 73:101865.

27.

Gil-Or

, Levi-Belz

, Turel

. The “Facebook-self”: Characteristics and psychological predictors of false self-presentation on Facebook. Front Psychol, 2015; 6:99.

28.

Chua

THH

, Chang

. Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls' engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Comput Hum Behav, 2016; 55:190–197.

29.

Schreurs

, Vandenbosch

. Introducing the Social Media Literacy (SMILE) model with the case of the positivity bias on social media. J Child Media, 2021; 15(3):320–337.

30.

Paxton

, McLean

, Rodgers

. “My critical filter buffers your app filter”: Social media literacy as a protective factor for body image. Body Image, 2022; 40:158–164.

31.

Nelson

, Jarcho

, Guyer

. Social re-orientation and brain development: An expanded and updated view. Dev Cogn Neurosci, 2016; 17:118–127.

32.

Somerville

. The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 2013; 22(2):121–127.

33.

Prinstein

, Nesi

, Telzer

. Commentary: An updated agenda for the study of digital media use and adolescent development—Future directions following Odgers & Jensen (2020). J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2020; 61(3):349–352.

34.

Deng

, Gao

, Hu

, et al. Differences in reward sensitivity between high and low problematic smartphone use adolescents: An ERP study. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021; 18(18):9603.

35.

Sánchez-Hernández

, Herrera

, Expósito

. Does the number of likes affect adolescents' emotions? The moderating role of social comparison and feedback-seeking on Instagram. J Psychol, 2022; 156(3):200–223.

36.

McLean

, Jarman

, Rodgers

. How do “selfies” impact adolescents' well-being and body confidence? A narrative review. Psychol Res Behav Manag, 2019; 12:513–521.

37.

Cole

, Hussong

, Faris

, et al. A latent variable approach to measuring social dynamics in adolescence. J Res Adolesc, 2020; 30(S1):238–254.

38.

Carver

, White

. Behavioral Avoidance/Inhibition (BIS/BAS) Scales. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. 2013. Available from: www.midss.ie [Last accessed: May 20, 2023].

39.

Coie

, Dodge

. Continuities and changes in children's social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Q, 1983; 29(3):261–282.

40.

Jiang

, Cillessen

AHN

. Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status: A meta-analysis. Dev Rev, 2005; 25(1):1–25.

41.

Bono

, Arnau

, Alarcón

, et al. Bias, precision, and accuracy of skewness and kurtosis estimators for frequently used continuous distributions. Symmetry, 2020; 12(1):19.

42.

Schwartz

, Fritz

, Kelleghan

, et al. Adolescents who are nonusers of fashionable social networking platforms. Cyberpsychology, 2021; 15(3):7.

43.

Sandstrom

, Cillessen

AHN

. Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. Int J Behav Dev, 2006; 30(4):305–314.

44.

Szczygiel

, Mikolajczak

. Is it enough to be an extrovert to be liked? Emotional competence moderates the relationship between extraversion and peer-rated likeability. Front Psychol, 2018; 9:804; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00804

45.

Brasseur

, Grégoire

, Bourdu

, et al. The Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC): Development and validation of a self-reported measure that fits dimensions of emotional competence theory. PLoS One, 2013; 8(5):e62635.

46.

Mavroveli

, Petrides

, Rieffe

, et al. Trait emotional intelligence, psychological well-being and peer-rated social competence in adolescence. Br J Dev Psychol, 2007; 25(2):263–275.

47.

Frederickson

, Petrides

, Simmonds

. Trait emotional intelligence as a predictor of socioemotional outcomes in early adolescence. Personal Individ Differ, 2012; 52(3):323–328.

48.

Mikami

, Szwedo

, Allen

, et al. Adolescent peer relationships and behavior problems predict young adults' communication on social networking websites. Dev Psychol, 2010; 46:46–56.

49.

White

, Smith

, Terry

, et al. Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. Br J Soc Psychol, 2009; 48(1):135–158.

50.

Gorea

. Becoming your “authentic” self: How social media influences youth's visual transitions. Soc Media Soc, 2021; 7(3):205630512110478.

51.

Ashton

, Lee

, Paunonen

. What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2002; 83(1):245–252.

52.

Bocskor

. Gender differences in popularity discourses. Intersect East Eur J Soc Polit, 2022; 8(1):90–109.

53.

Reinecke

, Gilbert

, Eden

. Self-regulation as a key boundary condition in the relationship between social media use and well-being. Curr Opin Psychol, 2022; 45:101296.