“TikTok Is My Life and Snapchat Is My Ventricle”: A Mixed-Methods Study on the Role of Online Communication Tools for Friendships in Early Adolescents

Abstract

Early adolescents are frequent users of online communication tools (OCTs). Yet, we have limited knowledge about how OCTs influence this population and their friendships. We sought opinions of 938 Austrian early adolescents on the role of OCTs for their friendships via a questionnaire and 207 focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the focus groups. We found that despite the emergence of some online-specific aggression, OCTs are perceived as beneficial for friendships. Early adolescents use online spaces naturally and differentiate little between online and offline communication. Only when it comes to high levels of intimacy, early adolescents also need an offline setting to fulfill their communication need. Online communication tools, especially newer forms such as online gaming, can surpass a mere communicative function and provide a space for building and maintaining friendships. In the future, OCTs should be considered as a tool to facilitate positive development in early adolescents.

Keywords

friendship academic/school transitions communication media & technology peer relationships

Online communication tools (OCTs), including instant messaging (IM; chat services) and social networking sites (SNSs; sites for posting photos, videos, stories, etc.) are an almost ubiquitous facet of adolescents’ lives in both the United States (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010) and European countries (Tsitsika et al., 2014). Apart from IM and SNSs, the rapidly evolving world of online games offers new ways to experience social interactions online by grouping in games (e.g., World of Warcraft) or playing as a team against other teams (e.g., League of Legends or Fortnite) while communicating directly with fellow players or entire teams. Thus, today’s users have a variety of different types of OCTs with differing features at their disposal.

As usage starts at an ever younger age (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010), in this article, we specifically focus on the age at which online communication starts to become an important tool (Antheunis, Schouten, & Krahmer, 2014), that is, early adolescence (broadly considered 10-14 years). This time of transitioning from childhood to adolescence is a complex phase that not only includes physical and cognitive changes but is marked by the emerging importance of social interactions and relationships outside the family (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017). Since the current generation of early adolescents was born into a highly digitalized world, which allows constant social connection without physical proximity, it is critical to understand the role of digital technology for social relationships in this age group.

Friendships and Peer Relations

Early adolescence

Psychosocial development advances rapidly during adolescence, affecting identity, intimacy, and sexuality (Erikson, 1963; Valkenburg & Peter, 2011) and making early adolescents particularly prone to influences from peers. As children get older, desire for conformity with parents moves toward striving for conformity with peers (Berndt, 1979). Friends become the reference for social norms and values, and peer pressure to fit in can make adolescents change (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007) and increase the likelihood of risk taking (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). This might be driven by the fact that early adolescents think of popularity and status enhancement as top priorities when it comes to relationships (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). For example, friends are a key factor influencing a person’s alcohol and drug use (Sieving, Perry, & Williams, 2000) or academic achievement during adolescence (Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004). Poor peer relations in this age group are related to social anxiety and depression (Borowski, Zeman, & Braunstein, 2018; La Greca & Harrison, 2005; La Greca & Lopez, 1998) or loneliness (Lodder, Scholte, Goossens, & Verhagen, 2017). On the positive end of the spectrum, reciprocal friendships are connected to prosocial behavior (Wentzel et al., 2004; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997), resilience (Van Harmelen et al., 2017), or well-being (Cuadros & Berger, 2016). Friendship experiences during early adolescence also predict future outcomes such as academic achievement (Loeb, Davis, Costello, & Allen, 2019) or romantic relationships (Loeb, Tan, Hessel, & Allen, 2018).

Offline friendships

In traditional friendship development, various determinants predict friendship formation, most importantly homophily, that is, the attraction between people who are alike. This includes sex, age, and race (Brown & Klute, 2003; Burk, Steglich, & Snijders, 2007; Hafen, Laursen, Burk, Kerr, & Stattin, 2011; Knecht, Burk, Weesie, & Steglich, 2011) but also similar interests (Franken et al., 2016) and physical proximity (Preciado, Snijders, Burk, Stattin, & Kerr, 2012). Friendship development traditionally undergoes various phases with increasing reciprocated self-disclosure, intimacy, support, and closeness (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Johnson, Wittenberg, Villagran, Mazur, & Villagran, 2003; Reis & Shaver, 1988).

Nowadays, children’s and adolescents’ development are closely intertwined with digital media (Gerwin, Kaliebe, & Daigle, 2018). Thus, friendships should also be considered in relation to these. Given the importance of communication in social interactions and friendships (Arroyo & Segrin, 2011) and the emergence of OCTs as central tools of communication during early adolescence, this study focuses on OCTs specifically, excluding other forms of digital technology such as television.

Online friendships

Online interactions provide a number of different features as opposed to traditional communication settings such as constant and asynchronous accessibility of content, the possibility of posting to a large (even unknown) audience, the emergence of “likes” and similar features as a form of validation, and a new visual focus (with the absence of physical cues but a focus on photos and videos; Nesi, Choukas-Bradley, & Prinstein, 2018). Consequently, a number of theories have been proposed to describe the impact of online communication on social interactions and friendship development. While some assume negative consequences of such communication because people spend less time face-to-face with existing friends (Nie, 2016), others purport that friendships are strengthened because of additional time spent online (in contact) with friends (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007a), enhancing social connectedness, and well-being (Bourgeois, Bower, & Carroll, 2014). High OCT activity level has been associated with a high face-to-face communication level, and online communication can even increase (Dienlin, Masur, & Trepte, 2017) or exceed (Walther, 2016) face-to-face communication.

Previous research has suggested that different co-existing interpersonal media tools occupy different specific roles and niches (Dimmick, Feaster, & Ramirez, 2011; Dimmick, Kline, & Stafford, 2016), and different OCTs are arguably used according to the level of friendships (Yang, Brown, & Braun, 2013). However, this work has focused on older media (landline telephone, email; Dimmick et al., 2011) and specific populations (socially isolated; Chan, 2020).

It seems likely that online communication has different effects on different individuals. However, the nature and scope of the effects on adolescent friendships have so far received little attention in research, especially from the perspective of early adolescence, when the role of social relationships is critical for strong relationships over the life course, mental health, and well-being. Research has so far focused mainly on the use of OCTs in older adolescents and adults (e.g., Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Lee, 2009; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008; Tsitsika et al., 2014), with limited knowledge when it comes to early adolescents.

In a recent literature review about adolescents’ psychosocial development and SNS use (Shapiro & Margolin, 2014), only five out of 27 studies included adolescents under the age of 13, and only one study (Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2013) looked specifically into young adolescents aged 9 to 13. Literature focusing on early adolescents still yields varying results concerning OCTs’ positive or negative impacts (e.g., Vannucci & Ohannessian, 2019). Furthermore, research on friendship has largely neglected to examine the whole social online experience including IM, SNSs, and online gaming, which is particularly relevant given the increasing trend of online gaming. Little is known about how similarities or differences between different types of OCTs with their distinct features might be connected to friendships in early adolescents as most existing studies examine only one of these types.

The Present Study

The present study aims to examine early adolescents’ perspectives on OCT use and its relationship to their offline and online friendships; analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative and mixed-methods approaches are valuable to gather specific information about a topic as broad and ever-changing as the internet (Davis, Charmaraman, & Weinstein, 2019). Since parents are often ignorant about their children’s internet behavior (Livingstone, 2016), data can provide valuable information when coming from children themselves. There has been little focus on early adolescence when it comes to OCT use, and the existing literature often uses self-report questionnaires or looks at specific online behavior such as Facebook posts (Peter, Valkenburg, & Schouten, 2006; Shapiro & Margolin, 2014; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007b). Qualitative approaches such as focus groups are still rare.

Thus, the lack of investigations in this age group makes it hard to identify what is important to the social lives of modern adolescents when they use different types of existing OCTs. The current study seeks to identify key features of OCTs that drive adolescents’ interest, engagement, and need fulfillment when it comes to social relationships and friendships. Yet, as this was an exploratory study, we did not formulate hypotheses. We took sex differences into account in the quantitative analysis, given that research shows substantial developmental changes during the time of early adolescence and the onset of puberty, sexuality, and interest in gender (e.g., Miller et al., 2012), as well as the documented sex differences existing in OCT use, including IM (Fox, Bukatko, Hallahan, & Crawford, 2007) and especially online gaming (Veltri, Krasnova, Baumann, & Kalayamthanam, 2014).

Method

Participants

Children from the last year of primary and first year of secondary school were recruited in two ways: first, the Department of Education of Lower Austria recommended potentially interested schools; and second, we advertised the project at all schools in Lower Austria via leaflets (paper and email), media presence, and teacher training events. Whole classes of schools participated in a one-time workshop on a voluntary basis but were purposefully chosen to represent a wide range of sociodemographic and educational backgrounds, that is, all types of schools (primary schools, Austrian equivalents for secondary schools, that is, Neue Mittelschule and Gymnasium, and special needs schools); different school sizes; rural, suburban, and urban areas; and a varying proportion of pupils with a migration background. This study also served the purpose to build relationships with schools to include them in later co-development activities for interventions based on the results of this study. Hence, we did not turn away interested schools, which led to a higher than scientifically necessary sample size. Parents of all pupils provided signed parental consent. Overall, 54 workshops with 207 focus groups were conducted between September 2018 and December 2018, with a total of 906 completed questionnaires. In addition, the questionnaire was handed to another two classes during a series of workshops in March 2019. Due to missing variables, 22 questionnaires had to be excluded from the analysis, resulting in 938 participants ( $\bar{X}$ _age = 10.48, SD = .93) in total. Some pupils older than the targeted age group were accepted due to the inclusion of whole classes and special needs schools. For full description of the demographics, see Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographics of the Pupils Who Filled Out the Questionnaire.

		$\bar{X}$	SD
Age	years	10.48	.928
		n	%
Gender	Female	433	46.2
Age in years	9	83	8.8
	10	450	48.0
	11	287	30.6
	12	66	7.0
	13	22	2.3
	14	5	0.5
	15	2	0.2
	16	1	0.1
School type	Primary school	187	19.9
	New secondary school	555	59.2
	Gymnasium	165	17.6
	Special needs school	31	3.3

Procedure

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna (EK-Nr. 10/2018) and all data were anonymized for analysis.

The workshop parts analyzed for this article were part of bigger one-time workshops conducted with school classes that covered topics of school transition, friendships, emotions, and the role of social media (which is the part discussed in this article). The workshops were advertised as a session providing opportunity to discuss children’s experiences during the transition period from primary to secondary school. A full workshop lasted 2 hours (including the parts analyzed in this article) and was held during school hours. Each school class only participated in one workshop. The workshop parts analyzed for this article included a qualitative focus group (10-15 minutes) and a quantitative questionnaire (5-10 minutes). Both parts evolved slightly over the course of the study according to insights in feasibility and acceptability gained along the way. Initial workshops included open discussions about topics that came to children’s minds. After identifying the most relevant topics, specific prompts and questions were formulated for subsequent workshops. This is an established procedure in qualitative research (Willig & Rogers, 2017).

Focus groups

Group size in the focus groups ranged between three and six pupils and each group was led by a trained facilitator. Participants were encouraged to form groups themselves to maximize willingness to disclose and participate. The discussion was started with a picture prompt, since “stimulus material” can successfully facilitate communication (Fargas-Malet, McSherry, Larkin, & Robinson, 2010). The picture consisted of the logos of nine well-known online applications with communication functions (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Fortnite, Pokémon Go, and Minecraft). If needed, discussion was initiated with an open question about usage of these apps. Topics of interest that were identified during the first workshops included the general use of OCTs, experiences during OCT use, advantages and disadvantages of OCT use, and OCTs in relation to friendships, but prompts focusing on these topics of interest were only used when they were needed to facilitate discussion. Frequently discussed topics and corresponding questions asked by the facilitators are shown in Table 2. With this procedure, we ensured that important topics would not be dismissed by restricting discussion to a preconceived structure and that pupils were allowed to talk about any topic important to them in relation to OCTs.

Table 2.

Topics and Example Questions of the Focus Groups.

Prevalent topics	Example questions
General use of OCTs	How/for what are you using [e.g., WhatsApp]?
Topics during the use of OCTs	What do you talk about while playing [e.g., Fortnite]?
Pros and cons of OCTs	What is great?/What is not great? Have you ever experienced anything unpleasant?
OCTs in relation to friends and strangers	Does [e.g., WhatsApp] have an effect on your friendship? Have you ever met a person on [e.g., Fortnite] who became a friend in real life? Please tell me more about that.

Note. OCT = online communication tool.

Questionnaire on online communication tool usage

After the focus group, participants were handed an author-designed questionnaire about OCT use. The questionnaire was piloted in the first workshops and refined to improve acceptability (e.g., more pictures) and usability (e.g., skipping or reformulating questions to improve comprehensibility). Questions that were changed slightly were merged with the adapted questions in the analysis, questions that were only asked during pilot sessions were not included in the analysis. Participants filled out the questionnaire individually. Facilitators gave verbal instructions in line with the needs of pupils. The questionnaire covered demographic information, used applications, and information about when, where, how long, and with whom early adolescents use these applications (see Table 3; see Supplemental Material for full questionnaire).

Table 3.

Self-Developed Questionnaire on OCT Use.

Question	Reply options
1. Which electronic devices do you use “very often”?	Computer, Laptop, Console, Tablet, Mobile Phone—Multiple answers possible
2. Which electronic devices do you take to school with you?	Computer, Laptop, Console, Tablet, Mobile Phone—Multiple answers possible
3./4. How much time do you spend with electronic devices at home/while being with friends?	not at all, only rarely, much time, very much time
5./6. How much time do you spend with electronic devices during the week/during weekends?	hardly ever (<1 hour), a little (1-2 hours), quite a lot (3-4 hours), very much (>5 hours)
7. What do you use for communication with friends or classmates?	SMS, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, nothing, something else—Multiple answers possible
8. How often do you use Internet/the mobile phone to talk to your best friends?	Never, sometimes, often, very often
9. What do you use the most?	Email, WhatsApp, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Twitch, Minecraft, Fortnite, Pokémon Go—Ranking
10. Do you communicate with people who you have not met in real life?	Yes, no
11. Which games do you like most?	Open question—Ranking
12. Age and sex

Note. OCT = online communication tool; SMS = short message service.

Data Analysis Plan

Quantitative analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24 (IBM Corp., 2016, Armonk, NY). Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were conducted for groups (boys and girls; primary and secondary school; different age) and relevant outcome variables of the questionnaire.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative data were analyzed with the QSR International’s NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis software (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2018). Workshop notes were transferred to the software. We applied a reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to the qualitative data, enhanced by methods taken from grounded theory (including iterative inductive coding, line-by-line coding, and constant comparison; Tan, 2010) and supplemented by methods taken from content analysis (visualization using counting of mentions and descriptive statistics; Morgan, 1993). Thematic analysis was used because it is not guided by preexisting theoretical assumptions and (used in a realist way) describes experiences and the reality of participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which fits the aims of this study. Themes were found on a semantic, individual level, meaning we looked for surface meaning of the data rather than latent themes. Only content related to friendship was included in this article. After reviewing and becoming familiar with the data, initial inductive coding led to the broad codes as described below. The initial broad themes were further line-by-line coded into more fine-grained descriptive themes and subthemes, clustered and reclustered in an iterative process. Two independent coders coded all data and resolved any discrepancies (e.g., collapsing overlapping themes, separating distinct themes) by consensus in repeated discussions together and with a senior researcher.

Quantitative Results

Quantitative results show that overall, almost 90% of participants use their mobile phones “very often,” making it their key device for communication. It is also the only device that the majority (72%) brings to school, even though most participants (86%) report that mobile phone use is not allowed during school time. There is a significant increase in mobile phone use between 9 and 10 years of age, which marks the most common age for school transition in Austria. At the age of 13, only 3% do not use a mobile phone “very often.” WhatsApp is by far the most favorite communication app, followed by TikTok and Instagram. WhatsApp is also the most popular tool to interact with friends and peers. For full details of favorite applications separated by age and gender, see Table 4. Use of OCTs with their best friends increases significantly between 9 and 10 (33% vs. 57% high usage, p < .001), with a steady further rise in the years thereafter. In general, 47% report spending “much or very much time” on digital devices together with friends, with boys reaching higher values than girls, and 43% report to be in contact with people they have never met in real life. Overall, only 12% report not playing any games on their phones. Girls play less than boys (17% vs. 9%, p < .001) and percentages significantly decrease between primary and secondary school (17% vs. 12%, p = .048). The top three games are Minecraft, Fortnite, and Helix Jump.

Table 4.

Early Adolescents’ Favorite Applications.

	Overall		Boys		Girls		p value	Primary school		Secondary school		p value
	n	%	n	%	n	%	p value	n	%	n	%	p value
WhatsApp	315	36	125	27	190	22	<.001	45	64	454	89	<.001
TikTok	95	11	23	5	72	18	<.001	23	13	73	10	n.s.
Instagram	74	8	39	8	35	9	n.s.	10	14	104	20	n.s.
Snapchat	66	8	30	6	36	9	<.001	10	14	122	24	n.s.
Twitch	20	2	18	4	2	<1	<.001	3	2	17	2	n.s.
Facebook	20	2	10	2	10	2	n.s.	8	11	25	5	n.s.
Email	20	2	11	2	9	2	n.s.	2	1	18	3	n.s.
Twitter	9	1	7	2	2	<1	n.s.	2	<1	7	<1	n.s.

Qualitative Results

For the qualitative analysis, we categorized different OCTs according to their main motive for their usage: instant messaging (IM) within a network of friends, closely resembling real-life communication (e.g., WhatsApp), social networking sites (SNSs) that are about public communication/posting (e.g., TikTok), and apps that are about gaming, where communication is a secondary feature (e.g., Fortnite). Notably, some of the applications also comprise features of the other types such as both private and public chat functions. These types were considered within most of the themes. Seven meaningful themes were identified. The structure and definitions of the main themes can be found in Table 5.

Table 5.

Coding Structure of Themes and Subthemes, Including Definitions, and Examples.

Theme	Subtheme	Definition	Example
Value of a phone	Reasons for importance	Opinions on the value of a phone for friendships.	“I think it makes friendships better, for example when you write something like: ‘Oh, you’re cute!’”
Value of a phone	Reasons against importance	Opinions on the value of a phone for friendships.
Emotions	Type of emotions	Both positive and negative emotions and regulatory processes related to OCT use.	“When you’re sad, you can make a video.”
Emotions	Regulation processes		“When you’re sad, you can make a video.”
Asynchronicity		Pros and cons of being able to communicate at any time without physical proximity.	“When someone is far away, you can call them.”
Level of intimacy	Topics	Information about the content discussed during OCT use and the aim of the conversation; differences between offline and online conversations.	“If you forget what the homework assignment is, you can ask friends.”
Level of intimacy	Offline versus online topics
Offline and online fusion		Offline OCT use (with friends, with face-to-face contact).	“I visit a friend and we play together.”
Aggression and arguments		Negative interactions online.	“A lot of people write you after a loss [in Fortnite] and say: ‘You’re not good!’. I block them.”
Friendship level	Use with friends online	Online OCT use (with friends, without face-to-face contact).	“We play together online.”
	Groups	Online OCT use with more than one person.	“We have a class-group, but there have been problems and some have left the group.”
	Use with strangers	Quantity and quality of interactions with strangers both online and offline, and their pros and cons.	“I liked his picture, wrote him, then we just met.”

Note. OCT = online communication tool.

Theme 1: Value of a Phone and Online Communication Tools

The possession of a phone and access to OCTs is deemed important for the majority of early adolescents, especially for friendships, which can be seen for all types of OCTs (Figure 1):

“It [Fortnite] helps with friendships, because you do something together and talk.”

“Friendships are strengthened by sending videos.”

“It [WhatsApp] helps with our friendships, because we are more closely connected.”

Figure 1.

Mentions of the value of different types of OCTs for friendships.

In general, IM is the most used and most talked-about type of OCT, followed by gaming and SNS. Gaming is the most controversial category when it comes to importance, with approximately one third of opinions deeming it not important for friendships.

Peer connectedness is the main motive for usage. Mostly, early adolescents reason that they use OCTs together with their friends, and not having a phone could lead to social exclusion. For example, some early adolescents are not allowed to use WhatsApp as it requires a minimum age of 16 in the European Union. Yet, the majority of early adolescents uses WhatsApp, thus without this application, they miss conversations, which might cause problems for connecting with friends:

“I am not allowed to use it [WhatsApp]. It is only allowed from the age of 16. I don’t understand why people use it. Legally, that is not allowed. I use Telegram, one can [legally] use it at my age and it’s the same as WhatsApp.”

Facilitator: “And how do you use that?”

“I use it to write with my parents. My friends don’t have it, which is stupid, they use WhatsApp, even though it is not allowed.”

Theme 2: Asynchronicity

One major advantage of OCTs for early adolescents is asynchronicity, which means that they can connect and stay in contact with friends and family all the time, including people who are geographically far away, as well as the possibility to reach people at any time. Examples are friends who are on holiday, relatives who live far away, divorced parents, or friends from former schools. Asynchronicity is most prominently mentioned in relation to IM in our sample:

“During holidays or if you can’t see each other and you miss each other, then you write.”

“I know someone, he changed school in the second grade of elementary school and we still write, even though we haven’t seen each other for three years.”

Yet, expectations for interaction partners are high—in some rare but extreme cases, not replying to messages while online might end a friendship:

“If someone doesn’t reply to my message instantly, I get angry.”

Theme 3: Emotions

A variety of emotions were discussed with respect to OCTs. The most prevalent negative emotions are anger and fear, while the most prevalent positive emotion is a general feeling of well-being (“then I feel great!”). There is a difference between emotions that occur because of OCT use (e.g., anger because of a lost game, fear of chain letters) or while using OCTs (any emotion that is related to offline life). A variety of regulatory strategies to avoid or overcome negative feelings during OCT use were discussed, such as leaving groups that elicit stress or blocking people. On the other hand, OCTs are also actively used as a regulatory resource (e.g., using WhatsApp to talk about something sad that happened that day, making a video to overcome a feeling of sadness, or alleviating boredom). While early adolescents often described using IM and SNSs to overcome negative emotions, they tended to relate gaming to positive emotions such as well-being and happiness. Anger seems to be most relevant during IM and gaming (see also Theme 6):

“You can calm down and get rid of stress by writing.”

“When I’m bored, it’s great to write with someone [on WhatsApp].”

“You have all this adrenaline when you play [Fortnite] well—then you’re in a good mood!”

Theme 4: Level of Intimacy

Various topics with different levels of intimacy are discussed via OCTs, that is, organizational purposes (e.g., dates, homework), lightweight messages (e.g., funny videos, small talk), self-expression (posting behavior), and intimate topics (e.g., secrets, feelings). Figure 2 shows the distribution of topics according to OCT categories (IM, SNSs, gaming):

“You can meet at the playground and schedule that [via WhatsApp].”

“Me and my friend write stupid messages . . .].”

“When I build something out of wood, I take pictures and post them [on Facebook].”

“When you’re sad, you can write why you’re sad [on Snapchat] and then the other person can comfort you.”

Figure 2.

Mentions of topics during the use of different types of OCTs.

A lot of early adolescents have IM groups (especially on WhatsApp) solely for organizational purposes (e.g., a group to organize Minecraft dates or a group for the volunteer fire department). In addition, OCTs provide room for lightweight messages that center around topics such as updates of daily activities, small talk, or funny contents. Early adolescents use a variety of media tools such as videos, photos, GIFs, or emojis, to convey a message. Emojis seem to be necessary for expressing various emotions and prevent misunderstandings. Hence, they are also of particular importance when discussing intimate topics:

“When I write a message [on WhatsApp], I cannot explain my feelings. I use them [emojis] to express my feelings.”

Ways of self-expression can be divided into three subthemes: only looking at other profiles, posting privately, and posting publicly. Self-expression is an often-mentioned reason for early adolescents to use OCTs, specifically SNSs. Yet, it seems that the need for reassurance through likes and general appreciation is only starting to show at this age. Most early adolescents are happy to only look at other profiles (Instagram) or videos (YouTube) or post and share privately and for friends, with a smaller number being concerned about public self-representation. Famous YouTubers and influencers on Instagram play an important role for early adolescents when following other people.

During gameplay, early adolescents communicate in various ways. Gaming apps themselves (e.g., Fortnite) have a chat function, but early adolescents also speak with each other via programs such as Discord or TeamSpeak while playing. Others only report a very basic level of communication during gameplay, for example, by sending signs in Minecraft, or performing dances in Fortnite. Communication during gameplay mostly revolves around in-game organization (what to do, where to go, where the enemies are), but when playing with friends, early adolescents also talk about school and even intimate topics.

Early adolescents have differing opinions when it comes to the question of whether they prefer online or face-to-face communication and the topics they would discuss. For example, some would rather have a girl/boyfriend break up with them in person than via WhatsApp, others say it is easier to talk about difficult topics when they are not face-to-face. Early adolescents only talked about intimate topics, but while some would rather talk about secrets, arguments, or relationship topics face-to-face, others prefer to do it via OCTs:

“I wouldn’t write about secrets [on WhatsApp]! That’s not secure.”

“Some things are easier conveyed via WhatsApp.”

Facilitator: “What things exactly?”

“Could be anything, secrets for example.”

Theme 5: Offline and Online Fusion

Most of the OCTs are used to communicate with friends online, but they can also be used with friends while being together in real life. Especially games such as Fortnite or Minecraft often lead to real-life interactions, because early adolescents meet up to play the games together. The same applies to other applications used with friends to have a good time. A lot of early adolescents do not actively post for a broader audience but enjoy looking at other peoples’ profiles or taking pictures together with their friends. Notably, this fusion primarily happens during online gaming and with SNSs, while IM (even though the most-used type of OCT) received almost no mentions in this theme:

“I play [Minecraft] with the other children of the shared flat, they say ‘Careful, a trap!’ or something similar, they help me. They sit next to me.”

Theme 6: Aggression and Arguments

There were only a few accounts of bullying in our sample, yet general aggressiveness (e.g., writing curse words) was a prominent topic, as was gaming toxicity (aggressive behavior during gameplay, usually someone is blamed for the loss) and so-called “hates” (insulting comments below posted photos). Arguments via chat (e.g., WhatsApp) are common but are reported to be usually settled when meeting again in real life. A distinction can be made between fights that happen while using an online device, or because of using it. Arguments from the first category can be about any topic and are sometimes fueled by misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the writing but are likely to be solved during real-life interactions:

“It [WhatsApp] is not like in real life, because you can often misunderstand something.”

The other category of arguments can be found especially during gaming, when one person (accidently or intentionally) kills the other person in-game or does not help the other person. These arguments can spill over into real-life interactions, in the worst case, resulting in the dissolution of the friendship:

“When you accidentally kill someone [during Fortnite], then they are angry, they don’t play with me anymore.”

Theme 7: Friendship Level—Strangers, Dyadic Interactions, and Groups

We found that OCTs are used with strangers, in dyadic friendships, in small friendship groups, and in bigger peer groups. While dyadic friendships and small friendship groups are most common and have been covered in this article already, strangers and peer groups will be described in more detail here.

The majority of contact with strangers is purely online and never results in a face-to-face meeting. Gaming is the main tool to interact with strangers. Some early adolescents have not met their online friends for real but plan to do so in the future. Early adolescents from our sample who met online friends personally do not report any negative experiences:

“I also play [Fortnite] with other people.”

Facilitator: “And do you also meet them in person?”

“Yes, I have met them in person.”

Facilitator: “How did that happen?”

“I asked: ‘Where do you live?’, and then we met and became friends.”

Yet, some early adolescents are worried about the identity of strangers who they interact with on online devices and ignore unwanted contact or report them to their parents. It seems that early adolescents are highly aware of the potential dangers of anonymity (e.g., they talk about abduction), yet they also seem confident that they will identify dangerous people through various tactics such as checking if the other person disguises their voice or asking a lot of questions, so the person might reveal themselves. Sometimes, the “strangers” early adolescents befriend online are, in reality, people they already know but have not been friends with before:

“I only saw him passing and in gym class, he’s in the other school class. But we weren’t friends before. Now we are.”

There are several common group compositions in OCTs such as groups centering around a specific activity (e.g., Fortnite) or gender-specific groups. One special form of peer group use is “class WhatsApp groups” including (more or less) all pupils of one class. While it is acknowledged that it makes organizing easier, the flood of messages received is seen as an important disadvantage. Most early adolescents emphasize the negative aspects of class WhatsApp groups, such as redundant content (e.g., everyone says “good morning”), or topics that are too specific for all (e.g., Fortnite). Leaving the class WhatsApp group due to these disadvantages is a common phenomenon, making OCT use in large peer groups least attractive:

“The [WhatsApp] class group is always being misused by the boys to write stupid stuff.”

Discussion

This study used a mixed-methods approach to discover meaningful themes of early adolescents’ perspectives on OCT use and its relationship to their offline and online friendships. We found that the time of early adolescence and especially the time of school transition matches the time when OCT use starts to become increasingly important for interpersonal reasons: Different tools are used to fulfill different social needs, and communication using these tools differs in terms of intimacy.

Needs Fulfillment

Our analysis of early adolescents’ OCT use confirms that such tools are already essential in this age group. Our quantitative analysis revealed that most early adolescents start using phones and related communication applications when transitioning to secondary school (age 10-11). A lot of pupils seem to get their own first phone at that age and start using it extensively. Early adolescents in our sample mostly use OCTs for connecting with their friends. This is in line with research about OCT use in older adolescents, where peer relations are a key motivational factor for usage (Throuvala, Griffiths, Rennoldson, & Kuss, 2019), and supports the fact that OCTs and friendships are closely connected. We did not find any indications that OCT use has a general negative impact on friendships of early adolescents, extending findings from Antheunis et al. (2014) about SNS use. Even though we did not explicitly ask for opinions on friendship quality, results from our sample support the positive relation between OCT use and friendship quality (Antheunis et al., 2014; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007a) due to the extensive use of OCTs with friends. In addition, a lot of OCTs are not used only for communication, but as a tool during offline interaction (taking pictures for Snapchat, playing Fortnite together in the same room).

Different OCTs were found to fulfill different needs in early adolescents. In general, all OCTs are used to ensure peer connectedness and peer acceptance, but in alignment with Valkenburg and Peter (2007b), we also found differences in the type of OCTs, with IM being more important for friendships than SNSs. Our findings also extend previous findings concerning different roles of OCTs (Dimmick et al., 2011; Dimmick et al., 2016) to more recent forms of media in a general population, but with similar results: IM is used primarily with friends discussing a variety of topics, while games can be played with friends and strangers alike, with less communication that exceeds organizational topics. Hence, while IM resembles offline communication, gaming can be better described as resembling offline interactions. This is accentuated by the fact that online and offline fusion happens almost exclusively during SNS use and gaming, which in turn can be explained by the fact that these types have features that surpass a simple communicative purpose (e.g., playing, photos/videos). In a recent meta-analysis, Liu and Yang (2016) found that IM, SNSs, and online gaming are used for less close friendships than phoning and texting (services that do not need internet). These findings do not match findings from our sample of early adolescents. We argue that, as new tools emerge, IM has almost completely replaced texting.

Instant messaging

IM is the most used and most important communication tool for early adolescents in our sample, especially for classic communication purposes, and is also deemed the most vital tool to maintain relationships. As in older adolescents (Reich, Subrahmanyam, & Espinoza, 2012), in our sample of early adolescents, IM is mostly used for connecting with offline friends and discussing a variety of topics with them, closely resembling real-life communication. Generally, intimate topics are shared in this domain rather than on SNSs or during gaming. This makes sense, as IM does not usually surpass a group of friends, and intimate topics are more likely to be discussed with someone close than publicly (Hornstein & Truesdell, 1988). Large IM groups with many people (especially whole class groups) do not seem to strengthen connectedness, but rather lead to irritations. This might be explained by the fact that online communication allows an audience to be addressed without a specific recipient (Berger, 2013), leaving uninterested recipients with an overflow of information.

Social networking sites

Facing the considerable amount of research about Facebook (e.g., Marino, Gini, Vieno, & Spada, 2018a, 2018b; Song et al., 2014), it seems important to mention that Facebook is hardly used by the early adolescents in this sample, supporting the presence of a declining trend in Facebook usage among teenagers (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). SNSs are used primarily for private communication and entertainment in our sample. This is in contrast to studies that found that 10- to 12-year-old American pupils use platforms like YouTube to seek a broad audience beyond their friends (Uhls & Greenfield, 2012) or that self-presentation is more important than actual interaction with other people online (Mazur & Kozarian, 2009). In our sample, YouTube is mostly only used to watch videos, often together with friends, and not to upload videos or comment on other videos. Thus, it is not really used as a tool for communication, but rather as a tool for entertainment. In accordance with this finding, adolescents in our sample seemed to attach little importance to public approval, for example, in the form of likes. This may be due to their young age but arguably also due to the cultural context and the inclusion of a large proportion of participants from more rural areas where personal attachment might still be perceived as more important—and available—than anonymous public “befriending.” It is a question for future research as to which determinants lead adolescents to pursue public self-presentation and how that interrelates with offline social connections.

Online gaming

A dominance of male players and adult age has been linked to online gaming (Griffiths, Davies, & Chappell, 2003; Williams, Yee, & Caplan, 2008). Similarly, our questionnaire shows differences between boys and girls that are most likely related to the higher number of male online players (e.g., amount of contact with strangers). Yet, our sample shows extensive gaming behavior already in early adolescence. This seems to be influenced substantially by the release of the game Fortnite, which led to growth in the games and interactive media industry by 13% in 2018 (Market Brief, 2018). It appears that now, instead of being a niche for “nerdy” people, online gaming has become a popular mainstream activity for (especially male) adolescents. These players strongly identify with the activity, and online and offline grouping among gamers is very common in our sample, supporting homophily during online as well as offline interactions. This is also supported by research about older adolescents, where gaming was found to be a motivator for friendship formation (Eklund & Roman, 2017). Ultimately, rather than just a tool for communication, online games are better described as a place to engage in a hobby with other players and friends, eliciting the same joy and feelings of well-being as other hobbies might. Gaming then also overlaps with other types of OCTs such as WhatsApp groups for the sole purpose of talking about Fortnite or the use of SNSs to watch (and sometimes post) videos about Fortnite. We argue that the fact that friends mostly talk about game-related information and organizational topics during gameplay does not necessarily have to be seen as a disadvantage. Like many other hobbies such as playing board games or playing a team sport together, it seems plausible that friendships are not solely strengthened through communication about intimate topics but rather by being together and spending time together doing the same activity. The fact that intimate topics are still discussed in this setting despite the relative urgency of organizational topics for gameplay and the limited time given the gaming context supports this idea. It also shows the importance of including gaming in research about OCTs as these online spaces are used as a place to discuss topics that would otherwise be discussed via IMs, for example, school or planning other activities, thus rendering the other OCTs unneeded. At the same time, communication via games might create or aggravate a gender divide within larger groups such as school classes.

Offline versus Online Friendships

Online friendship formation is closely intertwined with offline friendships and shows similar patterns such as friendships clustering around similar activity preferences or same gender according to the concept of homophily. Yet, physical proximity is not required anymore due to the possibility of asynchronous communication, generating a new constant availability of connectedness. How this compares to the shaping of adolescents’ friendships in offline settings is yet to be examined. Most of the participants in this study perceive asynchronicity as positive, even though in some cases, it can also lead to high expectations concerning availability of the chat partner. The fact that early adolescents mostly see this advantage for IM might be because IM allows them to overcome both temporal and spatial separation, whereas multiplayer games still demand temporal synchronicity.

While for most parts of their friendships, OCTs (especially IM) are seen as a normal tool that early adolescents use without deliberation, there seems to be a threshold that OCTs still cannot fully breach and that early adolescents deem worthy of discussion, namely, higher levels of intimacy. This is highlighted by the fact that opinions about discussing intimate topics via OCTs are controversial while all other topics are acceptable to discuss via OCTs. Intimacy level rises with friendship level and self-disclosure (Altman & Taylor, 1973) but also depends on the responsiveness of the partner (Reis & Shaver, 1988). The asynchronicity of OCTs can lead to missing visual cues such as gestures or facial expressions (Nesi et al., 2018), which might limit the perceived responsiveness of the partner and thus hinder intimacy. Since our results highlight discrepancy between different adolescents’ perspectives on whether OCTs are appropriate for intimate discussions, an important area for future research is how these adolescents’ different experiences might impact their willingness to engage in intimate discussions via OCTs, such that these tools could be better brought to support friendship development. Notably, however, in our sample, early adolescents who do not share intimate conversation via OCTs do not necessarily experience less intimacy in their friendships but gain this intimacy by merging offline and online interactions.

Early adolescents in our sample were aware of safety and data protection when communicating online, especially with strangers. This might reflect an increased educational focus on online safety in Austria (BMBWF, 2018) but also stresses the fact that for today’s adolescents, there is no significant difference between online and offline communication: They have certainly been warned against talking with strangers in the offline world and, hence, also perceive the greatest threat to safety when talking with strangers online, irrespective of whether this actually constitutes a danger or not. At the same time, the online environment seems to provide a sense of safety, since they talk with strangers anyway. Also, they report rather unrealistic strategies of how they can protect themselves, which in turn shows high self-efficacy expectations in relation to navigating online communication.

Implications for Research

Considering that arguments and aggressiveness happen online and affect early adolescents’ emotional well-being, research should not only focus on problems arising from interaction with strangers, but also on problems arising among offline friends while communicating online and how to meet those challenges. Specific problems of online interactions that seem to deserve further scientific investigation are “hates” below posted photos and general “toxicity” or aggressiveness during gameplay and their psychological influence during the sensitive period of early adolescence.

Our results must be seen in the Austrian cultural context, where most children grow up with mobile phones. In our sample, almost all early adolescents start using OCTs on a regular basis around school transition at the age of 10. This is possible due to Austria’s generally high socioecological status (SES), but even in our sample, we could find indications that early adolescents without a phone or access to OCTs run the risk of lower peer acceptance and peer connectedness, making especially low SES pupils vulnerable to exclusion. The results are most likely generalizable to countries with similar developmental status even though preference for specific applications might differ.

Research should be aware of the benefits that come with reaching out to children in an environment that they deem positive. We need to put further effort into developing safe online spaces that educate and protect children from online-specific risks and help with friendship formation. Prevention or intervention programs that make use of online settings are increasingly being developed (e.g., Merry et al., 2012) but are not yet widely used in school settings, let alone specifically targeting the challenging time of school transition. This appears to be a promising time for support interventions, especially in systems with no structured transition support and in rural areas in which online interventions can help to overcome mobility issues as is the case in the Austrian context and school system.

Following our results, we believe that using digital devices such as mobile phones or serious games might benefit the acceptance of such interventions, especially when targeting communication or social interactions in general. In light of recent worldwide lockdowns due to COVID-19, advantages of digital media are further emphasized. Not only are OCTs a vital resource to stay connected to friends, but online interventions can also be deployed in times when personal contact is not possible and schools need to be closed. This can help classes to stay connected and pupils to engage in topics that also involve their socioemotional health during such challenging times.

Limitations

Combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies has been advocated to enhance research design by validating the results and promoting pragmatism (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Yet, limitations of the qualitative analysis need to be considered. The focus groups were conducted in a semi-structured way and adapted over time. This is a usual and recommended process in qualitative research (Willig & Rogers, 2017) and allowed the collection of data reflecting the firsthand worldviews of early adolescents with minimum influence of adult views and expectations. Yet, quantified results generated from the qualitative assessments must be interpreted with caution, as the questions of the facilitators might have put different focus on topics, and early adolescents might have spontaneously talked about topics that were on their minds at that very point in time due to reasons other than the actual importance of the topic. It is possible that some children did not disclose everything or deliberately kept information to themselves due to the presence of classmates and possible peer pressure. This was minimized by letting the participants choose their own focus groups, which mostly led to gathering of friends in the same groups. Yet, this procedure cannot fully diminish effects of social desirability, biased information, or withholding of information due to embarrassing content. The questionnaire used in this study was author-developed and nonvalidated, but consistency between qualitative and quantitative data provides some initial evidence of concurrent validity. Finally, as friendship is a highly complex and multifaceted interpersonal phenomenon, the study is limited in its scope of addressing friendships and other outcomes. Yet, it provides a valuable step toward understanding online communication and friendships, their determinants, and their implications.

Conclusion

As technology advances, it is crucial to give credit to the entanglement of real-life and online connectedness. Instead of a simple method of communication, OCTs, SNSs, and online gaming platforms provide complex spaces for interaction depending on their different features. This allows early adolescents to quickly reach each other and share activities and hobbies. Even in the context of acknowledged disadvantages, OCTs for the most part are deemed an important tool to establish and maintain friendships, with online and offline settings being closely intertwined. In this way, it is possible for technology to deepen and maintain friendships.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jea-10.1177_02724316211020368 – Supplemental material for “TikTok Is My Life and Snapchat Is My Ventricle”: A Mixed-Methods Study on the Role of Online Communication Tools for Friendships in Early Adolescents

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jea-10.1177_02724316211020368 for “TikTok Is My Life and Snapchat Is My Ventricle”: A Mixed-Methods Study on the Role of Online Communication Tools for Friendships in Early Adolescents by Gloria Mittmann, Kate Woodcock, Sylvia Dörfler, Ina Krammer, Isabella Pollak and Beate Schrank in The Journal of Early Adolescence

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The D.O.T. (Die OffeneTür—The Open Door) team of co-investigators—Adam Barnard (playwright and theater director), João Dias (computer scientist), Marija Mitic (medical doctor), Beate Schrank (practicing & research psychiatrist), and Kate Woodcock (research psychologist)—grew during a sandpit event organized by the Open Innovation Center of Ludwig Boltzmann Society and facilitated by Know Innovation. The team would like to thank these organizations for their role in its formation. D.O.T teamwork is jointly conceived and led by the co-investigators. The team sees this as a fully meaningful interdisciplinary collaboration.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Ludwig Boltzmann Society and Karl Landsteiner University.

ORCID iDs

Gloria Mittmann

Ina Krammer

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Gloria Mittmann, MSc, is a researcher at the D.O.T. (Die OffeneTür—The Open Door) Research Group in Austria, Krems. She has several years of experience in the fields of both neuropsychology and social psychology with a focus on new media such as videogames.

Kate Woodcock, BSc, PhD, PGCHET, is a senior lecturer at the Centre for Applied Psychology at the University of Birmingham. Her research focuses on young people who face behavioral and emotional difficulties, examining factors that come together to precipitate these.

Sylvia Dörfler, MA, BSc, is a researcher at D.O.T. Research Group in Austria, Krems. She has significant experience in social and public health research projects focused on children and adolescents.

Ina Krammer, MSc, is a researcher at the D.O.T. Research Group in Austria, Krems. She has several years of theoretical and practical experience in the field of education as well as child and youth psychology.

Isabella Pollak, MSc, is a researcher at the D.O.T. Research Group in Austria, Krems. Her background is in psychology with a focus on cognitive science and game development.

Priv.Doz. OA Dr. Beate Schrank, MSc, PhD, is a psychiatrist and senior lecturer at the Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems. Her research focuses on the development and evaluation of resource-oriented interventions in psychiatry and the prevention of psychiatric illness.

References

Altman

Taylor

D. A.

(1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Anderson

Jiang

(2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center, 31, 1673-1689. Retrieved from http://publicservicesalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Teens-Social-Media-Technology-2018-PEW.pdf

Antheunis

M. L.

Schouten

A. P.

Krahmer

(2014). The role of social networking sites in early adolescents’ social lives. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36, 348-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614564060

Arroyo

Segrin

(2011). The relationship between self- and other-perceptions of communication competence and friendship quality. Communication Studies, 62, 547-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.580037

Berger

(2013). Beyond viral: Interpersonal communication in the internet age. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 293-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.842203

Berndt

T. J.

(1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15, 608-616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.15.6.608

BMBWF. (2018). Information betreffend Einführung der Verbindlichen Übung “Digitale Grundbildung” in der Sekundarstufe 1 im Schuljahr 2018/19 [Information regarding the introduction of the mandatory exercise “Digital Basic Education” in middle school in the school year 2018/19]. Retrieved from https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/schule/zrp/dibi/dgb.html

Borowski

S. K.

Zeman

Braunstein

(2018). Social anxiety and socioemotional functioning during early adolescence: The mediating role of best friend emotion socialization. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38, 238-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616665212

Bourgeois

Bower

Carroll

(2014). Social networking and the social and emotional wellbeing of adolescents in Australia. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2014.14

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

11.

Brown

B. B.

Klute

(2003). Friendships, cliques, and crowds. In Adams

G. R.

Berzonsky

M. D.

(Eds.), Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology. Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 330-348). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.

12.

Burk

W. J.

Steglich

C. E.

Snijders

T. A.

(2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077762

13.

Chan

G. H.

(2020). Intimacy, friendship, and forms of online communication among hidden youth in Hong Kong. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, Article 106407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106407

14.

Cuadros

Berger

(2016). The protective role of friendship quality on the wellbeing of adolescents victimized by peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1877-1888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0504-4

15.

Davis

Charmaraman

Weinstein

(2019). Introduction to special issue: Adolescent and emerging adult development in an age of social media. Journal of Adolescent Research, 35, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558419886392

16.

Dienlin

Masur

P. K.

Trepte

(2017). Reinforcement or displacement? The reciprocity of FtF, IM, and SNS communication and their effects on loneliness and life satisfaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12183

17.

Dimmick

Feaster

J. C.

Ramirez

(2011). The niches of interpersonal media: Relationships in time and space. New Media & Society, 13, 1265-1282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811403445

18.

Dimmick

Kline

Stafford

(2016). The gratification niches of personal e-mail and the telephone. Communication Research, 27, 227-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027002005

19.

Eklund

Roman

(2017). Do adolescent gamers make friends offline? Identity and friendship formation in school. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 284-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.035

20.

Erikson

E. H.

(1963). Youth: Change and challenge. New York, NY: Basic books.

21.

Fargas-Malet

McSherry

Larkin

Robinson

(2010). Research with children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8, 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x09345412

22.

Fox

A. B.

Bukatko

Hallahan

Crawford

(2007). The medium makes a difference: Gender similarities and differences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 389-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07306982

23.

Franken

Prinstein

M. J.

Dijkstra

J. K.

Steglich

C. E.

Harakeh

Vollebergh

W. A.

(2016). Early adolescent friendship selection based on externalizing behavior: The moderating role of pubertal development. The SNARE study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 1647-1657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0134-z

24.

Gardner

Steinberg

(2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41, 625-635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625

25.

Gerwin

R. L.

Kaliebe

Daigle

(2018). The interplay between digital media use and development. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 27, 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2017.11.002

26.

Griffiths

M. D.

Davies

M. N.

Chappell

(2003). Breaking the stereotype: The case of online gaming. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493103321167992

27.

Hafen

C. A.

Laursen

Burk

W. J.

Kerr

Stattin

(2011). Homophily in stable and unstable adolescent friendships: Similarity breeds constancy. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 607-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.027

28.

Hornstein

G. A.

Truesdell

S. E.

(1988). Development of intimate conversation in close relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1988.7.1.49

29.

IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: Author.

30.

Johnson

A. J.

Wittenberg

Villagran

M. M.

Mazur

Villagran

(2003). Relational progression as a dialectic: Examining turning points in communication among friends. Communication Monographs, 70, 230-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000167415

31.

Knecht

A. B.

Burk

W. J.

Weesie

Steglich

(2011). Friendship and alcohol use in early adolescence: A multilevel social network approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 475-487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00685.x

32.

LaFontana

K. M.

Cillessen

A. H.

(2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x

33.

La Greca

A. M.

Harrison

H. M.

(2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34, 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_5

34.

La Greca

A. M.

Lopez

. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022684520514

35.

Lee

S. J.

(2009). Online communication and adolescent social ties: Who benefits more from internet use? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 509-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01451.x

36.

Lenhart

Purcell

Smith

Zickuhr

(2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525056.pdf

37.

Liu

Yang

C.-c.

(2016). Media niche of electronic communication channels in friendship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12175

38.

Livingstone

(2016). Children’s use of the internet: Reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media & Society, 5, 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444803005002001

39.

Lodder

G. M.

Scholte

R. H.

Goossens

Verhagen

(2017). Loneliness in early adolescence: Friendship quantity, friendship quality, and dyadic processes. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46, 709-720. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1070352

40.

Loeb

E. L.

Davis

A. A.

Costello

M. A.

Allen

J. P.

(2019). Autonomy and relatedness in early adolescent friendships as predictors of short- and long-term academic success. Social Development, 29, 818-836. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12424

41.

Loeb

E. L.

Tan

J. S.

Hessel

E. T.

Allen

J. P.

(2018). Getting what you expect: Negative social expectations in early adolescence predict hostile romantic partnerships and friendships into adulthood. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38, 475-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616675971

42.

Marino

Gini

Vieno

Spada

M. M.

(2018a). The associations between problematic Facebook use, psychological distress and well-being among adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 226, 274-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.10.007

43.

Marino

Gini

Vieno

Spada

M. M.

(2018b). A comprehensive meta-analysis on problematic Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 262-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.009

44.

Market Brief. (2018). Digital games & interactive entertainment industry—Year in review. Retrieved from https://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/market-brief-year-in-review/

45.

Mazur

Kozarian

(2009). Self-presentation and interaction in blogs of adolescents and young emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 124-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558409350498

46.

Merry

S. N.

Stasiak

Shepherd

Frampton

Fleming

Lucassen

M. F.

(2012). The effectiveness of SPARX, a computerised self help intervention for adolescents seeking help for depression: Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. BMJ, 344, Article e2598. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2598

47.

Miller

K. S.

Fasula

A. M.

Lin

C. Y.

Levin

M. L.

Wyckoff

S. C.

Forehand

(2012). Ready, set, go: African American preadolescents’ sexual thoughts, intentions, and behaviors. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610393247

48.

Morgan

D. L.

(1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300107

49.

Nesi

Choukas-Bradley

Prinstein

M. J.

(2018). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 1—A theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer relationships. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21, 267-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-0261-x

50.

Nie

N. H.

(2016). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the internet. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 420-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957277

51.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Leech

N. L.

(2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 375-387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447

52.

Peter

Valkenburg

P. M.

Schouten

A. P.

(2006). Characteristics and motives of adolescents talking with strangers on the internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 526-530. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.526

53.

Preciado

Snijders

T. A.

Burk

W. J.

Stattin

Kerr

(2012). Does proximity matter? Distance dependence of adolescent friendships. Social Networks, 34, 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.01.002

54.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 12). Doncaster, VIC, Australia: Author.

55.

Quinn

Oldmeadow

J. A.

(2013). Is the igeneration a “we” generation? Social networking use among 9- to 13-year-olds and belonging. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 136-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12007

56.

Reich

S. M.

Subrahmanyam

Espinoza

(2012). Friending, IMing, and hanging out face-to-face: Overlap in adolescents’ online and offline social networks. Developmental Psychology, 48, 356-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026980

57.

Reis

H. T.

Shaver

(1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

58.

Rideout

V. J.

Foehr

U. G.

Roberts

D. F.

(2010). Generation M²: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf

59.

Shapiro

L. A. S.

Margolin

(2014). Growing up wired: Social networking sites and adolescent psychosocial development. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0135-1

60.

Sieving

R. E.

Perry

C. L.

Williams

C. L.

(2000). Do friendships change behaviors, or do behaviors change friendships? Examining paths of influence in young adolescents’ alcohol use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(99)00056-7

61.

Song

Zmyslinski-Seelig

Kim

Drent

Victor

Omori

Allen

(2014). Does Facebook make you lonely? A meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 446-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011

62.

Steinberg

Monahan

K. C.

(2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1531-1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531

63.

Subrahmanyam

Greenfield

(2008). Online communication and adolescent relationships. The Future of Children, 18, 119-146. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0006

64.

Tan

(2010). Grounded theory in practice: Issues and discussion for new qualitative researchers. Journal of Documentation, 66, 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011016380

65.

Throuvala

M. A.

Griffiths

M. D.

Rennoldson

Kuss

D. J.

(2019). Motivational processes and dysfunctional mechanisms of social media use among adolescents: A qualitative focus group study. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 164-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.012

66.

Tsitsika

A. K.

Tzavela

E. C.

Janikian

Olafsson

Iordache

Schoenmakers

T. M.

…Richardson

(2014). Online social networking in adolescence: Patterns of use in six European countries and links with psychosocial functioning. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.010

67.

Uhls

Y. T.

Greenfield

(2012). The value of fame: Preadolescent perceptions of popular media and their relationship to future aspirations. Developmental Psychology, 48, 315-326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026369

68.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2007a). Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement Hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1169-1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x

69.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2007b). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43, 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.267

70.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 121-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020

71.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Piotrowski

J. T.

(2017). Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

72.

Van Harmelen

A.-L.

Kievit

Ioannidis

Neufeld

Jones

Bullmore

… Consortium

(2017). Adolescent friendships predict later resilient functioning across psychosocial domains in a healthy community cohort. Psychological Medicine, 47, 2312-2322. https://doi.org/:10.1017/S0033291717000836

73.

Vannucci

Ohannessian

C. M.

(2019). Social media use subgroups differentially predict psychosocial well-being during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 1469-1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01060-9

74.

Veltri

Krasnova

Baumann

Kalayamthanam

(2014, August). Gender differences in online gaming: A literature review. Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah, USA. https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.68896

75.

Walther

J. B.

(2016). Computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 23, 3-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001

76.

Wentzel

K. R.

Barry

C. M.

Caldwell

(2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.195

77.

Wentzel

K. R.

Caldwell

(1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Realtions to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198-1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01994.x

78.

Williams

Yee

Caplan

S. E.

(2008). Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 993-1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00428.x

79.

Willig

Rogers

W. S.

(2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. London, England: SAGE.

80.

Yang

C.-c.

Brown

B. B.

Braun

M. T.

(2013). From Facebook to cell calls: Layers of electronic intimacy in college students’ interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 16, 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812472486

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.58 MB