Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 730833 CDPXXX10.1177/0963721417730833Clark et al.Social Network Sites and Well-Being
research-article2017
Social Network Sites and Well-Being:
The Role of Social Connection
Jenna L. Clark1, Sara B. Algoe2, and Melanie C. Green3
1Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University; 2Department of Psychology,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and 3Department of Communication, University
at Buffalo, The State University of New York
Current Directions in Psychological
Science
2018, Vol. 27(1) 32 –37
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0963721417730833
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417730833
www.psychologicalscience.org/CDPS
Abstract
In the early days of the Internet, both conventional wisdom and scholarship deemed online communication a threat
to well-being. Later research has complicated this picture, offering mixed evidence about how technology-mediated
communication affects users. With the dawn of social network sites, this issue is more important than ever. A close
examination of the extensive body of research on social network sites suggests that conflicting results can be reconciled
by a single theoretical approach: the interpersonal-connection-behaviors framework. Specifically, we suggest that
social network sites benefit their users when they are used to make meaningful social connections and harm their
users through pitfalls such as isolation and social comparison when they are not. The benefits and drawbacks of using
social network sites shown in existing research can largely be explained by this approach, which also posits the need
for studying specific online behaviors in future research.
Keywords
social network sites, well-being, social comparison, Facebook, social media
The history of communication technology is a history
of concern about progress. From the telegraph to the
telephone, new advances in communication technology
have been met with trepidation—often seen not as a
way to bring people closer together but as a threat to
more meaningful methods of interaction (Katz, Rice, &
Aspden, 2001).
The Internet is the latest example of this trend. Initial
studies on Internet use suggested negative conse-
quences for users’ offline social networks and social
integration. For example, the HomeNet Study placed
computers in the homes of new Internet users and
found that increased Internet use was linked to declines
in the size of users’ social circles and increases in
depression and loneliness (Kraut et al., 1998). This find-
ing was soon echoed by other work suggesting that
Internet use displaced more beneficial face-to-face
socializing, thereby damaging users’ relationships and
well-being (e.g., Nie, 2001).
However, this perception that Internet use had pri-
marily negative consequences for its users was quickly
complicated by further research. In fact, when Kraut
and colleagues (2002) revisited their original HomeNet
sample, they found that the negative association they
had observed had disappeared. Some research sug-
gested that divergent findings regarding the outcomes
of Internet use might be due to changes in the nature
of Internet use itself (e.g., Bessière, Kiesler, Kraut, &
Boneva, 2008; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009).
Indeed, it is common for communication technology
to change, sometimes rapidly. Individuals engage in very
different social activities online today than they did 20
years ago. Consider the list of activities enumerated in
the HomeNet study: “email, distribution lists, multiuser
dungeons (MUDs), chats, and other such applications”
(Kraut et al., 1998, p. 1017). Activities such as chats (in
the form of chat rooms, at least) and MUDs have largely
disappeared from users’ awareness, supplanted by
newer platforms, such as social network sites. Social
network sites are defined as
Corresponding Author:
Jenna L. Clark, Center for Advanced Hindsight, 334 Blackwell St., Suite
320, Durham, NC 27701
E-mail: jenna.clark@duke.edu
Social Network Sites and Well-Being
33
networked communication platforms in which
participants 1) have uniquely identifiable profiles
that consist of user-supplied content, content
provided by other users, and/or system-level data;
2) can publicly articulate connections that can be
viewed and traversed by others; and 3) can
consume, produce, and/or interact with streams
of user-generated content provided by their
connections on the site. (Ellison & boyd, 2013,
p. 158)
Social network sites (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, and
Twitter) have exploded in popularity in recent years;
Facebook, the most heavily used social network site, has
1.71 billion users (Statista, 2016). Although social network
sites have improved on the social forms of Internet use
available in the HomeNet era, questions remain about
the potential consequences of their use. Many studies
have been conducted on Facebook and other social net-
work sites, but to date, no single theoretical perspective
has organized the literature on the association of social
network sites with well-being. One review of existing
research on Facebook described it as “diverse and frag-
mented” (Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012, p. 203).
This fragmentation is understandable in light of the
fact that this literature arose across disciplinary bound-
aries, guided by concepts that emerged from different
theoretical backgrounds. Difficulties in using experi-
mental designs to assess causality in this domain also
present challenges for testing any overarching theory
linking use of social network sites and well-being.
These issues, however, do not mean that past research
cannot be conceptually integrated. Social network sites
appeal to their users because humans are social crea-
tures who require connection with others to thrive
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary & Baumeister, 2000),
and these sites help people meet this basic need. How-
ever, the same social risks that abound in everyday life
also abound on social network sites.
The radical simplicity of our proposal is to view past
and future research endeavors through the lens of this
understanding: Whether behavior on social network
sites is good or bad for well-being depends on whether
the behavior advances or thwarts innate human desires
for acceptance and belonging. In other words, our
interpersonal-connection-behaviors framework sug-
gests that when social network use is focused on pro-
moting connection, it is linked with positive outcomes;
when it is not focused on promoting connection, its
consequences are more complex.
Drawing this distinction between types of social pro-
cesses accounts for many seemingly contradictory find-
ings on the outcomes of the use of social network sites.
It also calls for more nuance in future work: Researchers
must carefully examine the specific behaviors of users
in context when studying social network sites.
Associations Between Use of Social
Network Sites and Lower Well-Being
A sizable body of research has identified associations
between the use of social network sites and lower well-
being. Our framework suggests that negative conse-
quences are likely to result from the use of social network
sites when individuals engage in social networking
behaviors that do not fulfill needs for acceptance and
belonging. These behaviors are not new to these sites;
instead, they can be understood as traditional pitfalls of
social interaction within a novel context.
The first of these pitfalls is isolation. While it might
seem strange to be isolated on a social network site,
research supports a link between Facebook use and
loneliness (e.g., Song et al., 2014). This link is likely
bidirectional: Lonely people are more drawn to medi-
ated communication (Morahan-Martin & Schumacher,
2003), but social network sites may also open the door
to loneliness if they are used for “social snacking,” or
temporary but illusory fulfillment of social needs
(Gardner, Pickett, & Knowles, 2005). For example,
social network sites allow for many activities that feel
social but are not interactive, such as lurking on strang-
ers’ profiles (Carpenter, Green, & LaFlam, 2011) or pas-
sively viewing Instagram feeds. These activities may
make users feel as if their immediate social needs have
been met. However, such activities fail to contribute to
interpersonal connection, ultimately resulting in a defi-
cit in important relational resources, such as social sup-
port (Green et al., 2005).
Social comparison is a second potential pitfall of
using social network sites. Repeated self-comparison
has been linked to negative outcomes (White, Langer,
Yariv, & Welch, 2006)—particularly when the compari-
son is to a superior other (Tesser, Millar, & Moore,
1988). Social network sites provide constant opportuni-
ties for social comparison. When users compare their
lived experiences with others’ curated self-presentations
(e.g., perfect Pinterest projects; see boyd & Ellison,
2007, for a review of self-presentation on social net-
work sites), they may feel their lives are lacking and,
thus, suffer from envy and depression. Individuals who
use social network sites more passively, such as by
viewing profiles without interacting with other users,
may be at the greatest risk for social comparison. Not
only do they fail to reap the benefits of the connection-
promoting use of these sites, they may also lack the
information about their connections’ real lives to rec-
ognize that the selves put forth on social network sites
are constructed.
34
Clark et al.
Several studies suggest that negative links between
the use of social network sites and well-being may be
mediated by social comparison. For example, people
who spend more time on Facebook and people who
have more strangers as Facebook friends are more
likely to feel that others have better lives than they do
(Chou & Edge, 2012). In daily diary research, more time
spent on Facebook was associated with more social
comparison, which was in turn associated with higher
levels of depression; reversed models that attempted to
treat depression as the mediator between Facebook use
and social comparison did not fit the data (Steers,
Wickham, & Acitelli, 2014). People who are more likely
overall to compare themselves with others are both
more likely to use Facebook and more likely to suffer
from lower self-esteem after Facebook use (Vogel, Rose,
Okdie, Eckles, & Franz, 2015). Experimental work also
confirms that comparing oneself with superior others’
profiles on social network sites can result in greater
dissatisfaction with one’s achievements (Haferkamp &
Krämer, 2011). In sum, when individuals use social
network sites in a way that does not promote interper-
sonal connection, they open themselves up to the pit-
falls of isolation and social comparison: significant
dangers to well-being.
Associations Between Use of Social
Network Sites and Higher Well-Being
Connection-promoting use of social network sites, on
the other hand, may benefit users by helping them meet
needs for acceptance and belonging. A wealth of
research has found that high-quality intimate relation-
ships are critical to well-being, affecting happiness,
health, and even longevity (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser &
Newton, 2001). This is likely due to the cumulative
benefits of everyday interactions that allow relational
partners to demonstrate responsiveness, or acceptance
and care for each other’s needs (Reis, 2012). For exam-
ple, when individuals self-disclose to their relational
partners, the responsiveness of their partner’s reaction
predicts the growth of intimacy in their relationship
(Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998).
Self-disclosure is particularly relevant because
technology-mediated self-disclosure is at least as fre-
quent and as meaningful as face-to-face self-disclosure,
(Nguyen, Bin, & Campbell, 2012) and may have greater
implications for increasing intimacy ( Jiang, Bazarova,
& Hancock, 2011). Looking specifically at social net-
work sites, researchers have found that a correlation
between positive attitudes toward online social
connection/self-disclosure and relational closeness is
mediated by increased use of Facebook (Ledbetter
et al., 2011). These findings suggest that the disclosures
that users offer through social network sites may have
the same relational benefits that face-to-face disclosures
provide. If social network sites can be used to strengthen
relationships by increasing intimacy, and strong rela-
tionships are linked to well-being, then social network
sites should boost well-being to the extent that they
are used in the service of connection.
Our interpersonal-connection-behaviors framework
unites the findings of multiple other studies that have
found positive associations between the usage of social
network sites and well-being. For example, multiple
studies—both experimental and correlational—show
that increases in Facebook use lead to increases in felt
connection, perceived social support, and social capital;
these relationship-quality indicators, in turn, are related
to increased well-being (Ahn & Shin, 2013; Deters &
Mehl, 2013; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Liu &
Yu, 2013). Another finding provides support for self-
disclosure as a potential mechanism by demonstrating
that self-disclosing on social network sites also increases
well-being by increasing perceived social support (Lee,
Noh, & Koo, 2013).
These findings are mostly correlational; therefore,
we cannot claim decisively that using social network
sites increases well-being by generating relational
closeness. However, the interpersonal-connection-
behaviors framework plausibly explains positive asso-
ciations between use of social network sites and
well-being. Moreover, this framework helps organize a
disparate literature that has focused on different poten-
tial outcomes and predictor variables; many existing
findings can be grouped under the umbrellas of well-
being and relationship quality.
Behavior on Social Network Sites
and Well-Being
If connection-promoting use of social network sites is
beneficial but non–connection-promoting use is detri-
mental, studying specific behaviors would allow
researchers to distinguish the difference. In fact, a small
subset of studies on Facebook use have found both
beneficial and detrimental outcomes, depending on
behavioral factors that align with our distinction
between connection-promoting and non–connection-
promoting use. These studies provide crucial evidence
that the outcomes of using social network sites depend
on choosing behaviors that avoid its dangers and maxi-
mize its benefits.
For example, one study found that for first-year college
students, number of Facebook friends is negatively cor-
related with college adjustment, while for college seniors,
number of Facebook friends is positively correlated with
college adjustment (Kalpidou, Costin, & Morris, 2011).
Social Network Sites and Well-Being
35
The authors suggested that seniors are using Facebook
to connect with local friends, while first-year students are
using Facebook to focus on social networks they have
left behind. The latter behavior would inhibit feelings of
integration and connection within one’s current environ-
ment, while the former may promote it.
Work on motivations for using Facebook also sup-
ports the distinction between connection-promoting
and non–connection-promoting use. A longitudinal
study conducted across two time points looked at the
impact of Facebook use on adolescents’ well-being. Use
motivated by compensating for insufficient social net-
works predicted increased loneliness at follow-up,
while use motivated by the desire to connect with other
people predicted decreased loneliness at follow-up
(Teppers, Luyckx, Klimstra, & Goossens, 2014). The
authors explained these results by suggesting that com-
pensation motives led to passive use and connection
motives led to active use, but they did not measure this
distinction directly. However, other research has empiri-
cally distinguished between passive Facebook use
(defined as consuming information without direct
exchanges) and active Facebook use (defined as activi-
ties that facilitate direct exchanges with others). Across
two studies using experimental methods and experi-
ence sampling, passive Facebook use was linked to
declines in well-being, while active Facebook use was
not (Verduyn et al., 2015). In other words, the effect of
using social network sites depended entirely on the
nature of that use.
Conclusions
While it is tempting to search for a simple effect of
social network sites on well-being, the literature is best
explained by differentiating between connection-
promoting and non–connection-promoting use. Much
of this literature is correlational, prohibiting any abso-
lute claim that this framework has causal validity. How-
ever, it is consistent with the sum of the existing
research. Positive associations between well-being and
use of social network sites are typically linked to ben-
efits of increased connection, such as social support,
while negative associations between well-being and use
of social network sites go hand in hand with behaviors
that do not help to meet users’ needs for acceptance
and belonging.
The interpersonal-connection-behaviors framework
has other benefits beyond illuminating contradictions
in prior research. Though we have primarily reviewed
literature on Facebook, this theoretical approach is
applicable to social media generally, as well as to other
forms of mediated communication. The rapid evolution
of the Internet allows specific platforms to rise and fall;
research too heavily rooted in the particular features of
any given social network site may be made irrelevant
as that platform’s use wanes. By focusing instead on
behavior and motivation, this theory can explain the
consequences of any form of mediated communication
in ways compatible with basic psychological research
on human social interaction. This theory also has room
to account for individual differences, such as self-
esteem and social anxiety; their effects should manifest
through different patterns of behavior that should still
drive well-being in ways predicted by the current
framework.
If social network sites are to function as constructive
tools that foster healthy relationships, researchers must
focus on identifying further beneficial and detrimental
behaviors for users of these sites and disseminating this
knowledge to inform their actions and decisions.
Recommended Reading
Appel, H., Gerlach, A. L., & Crusius, J. (2016). The interplay
between Facebook use, social comparison, envy, and
depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 44–49.
doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.006. A helpful review and
synthesis of current literature on Facebook use and social
comparison.
Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2016). The relationship between
Facebook use and well-being depends on communica-
tion type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 21, 265–281. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12162.
Additional research supporting the importance of spe-
cific Facebook behaviors in predicting well-being as a
consequence of use.
Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). (See
References). A comprehensive review summarizing much
of the early research on Facebook from multiple theoreti-
cal perspectives.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest
with respect to the authorship or the publication of this
article.
References
Ahn, D., & Shin, D.-H. (2013). Is the social use of media for
seeking connectedness or for avoiding social isolation?
Mechanisms underlying media use and subjective well-
being. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2453–2462.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.022.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Bessière, K., Kiesler, S., Kraut, R., & Boneva, B. S. (2008).
Effects of Internet use and social resources on changes in
depression. Information, Communication & Society, 11,
47–70. doi:10.1080/13691180701858851.
36
Clark et al.
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites:
Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. doi:10.1111/j
.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Carpenter, J. M., Green, M. C., & LaFlam, J. (2011). People
or profiles: Individual differences in online social net-
working use. Personality and Individual Differences, 50,
538–541. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.006
Chou, H.-T. G., & Edge, N. (2012). “They are happier and hav-
ing better lives than I am”: The impact of using Facebook
on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 15, 117–121. doi:10.1089/cyber
.2011.0324
Deters, F. G., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Does posting Facebook status
updates increase or decrease loneliness? An online social
networking experiment. Social Psychological & Personality
Science, 4, 579–586. doi:10.1177/1948550612469233
Ellison, N. B., & boyd, d. m. (2013). Sociality through social
network sites. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford hand-
book of Internet studies (pp. 151–172). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits
of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’
use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j
.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2005). Social
snacking and shielding: Using social symbols, selves, and
surrogates in the service of belonging needs. In K. D.
Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social
outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bul-
lying (pp. 227–242). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Green, M. C., Hilken, J., Friedman, H., Grossman, K., Gasiewskj,
J., Adler, R., & Sabini, J. (2005). Communication via
instant messenger: Short-and long-term effects. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 445–462.
Haferkamp, N., & Krämer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison
2.0: Examining the effects of online profiles on social-
networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14, 309–314. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0120
Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship
between Facebook and the well-being of undergraduate
college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14, 183–189. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0061
Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The Internet,
1995-2000: Access, civic involvement, and social inter-
action. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 405–419.
doi:10.1177/0002764201045003004
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and
health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.472
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V.,
& Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal
of Social Issues, 58, 49–74. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00248
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S.,
Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet para-
dox: A social technology that reduces social involvement
and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53,
1017–1031. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998).
Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of
self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived part-
ner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and func-
tion of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
32, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Mao,
Y., & Swafford, B. (2011). Attitudes toward online social
connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook
communication and relational closeness. Communication
Research, 38, 27–53. doi:10.1177/0093650210365537
Lee, K.-T., Noh, M.-J., & Koo, D.-M. (2013). Lonely people
are no longer lonely on social networking sites: The
mediating role of self-disclosure and social support.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16,
413–418. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0553
Liu, C.-Y., & Yu, C.-P. (2013). Can Facebook use induce well-
being? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
16, 674–678. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0301
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2003). Loneliness and
social uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior,
19, 659–671. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00040-2.
Nguyen, M., Bin, Y. S., & Campbell, A. (2012). Comparing
online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15,
103–111. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0277
Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and
the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American
Behavioral Scientist, 45, 420–435. doi:10.1177/0002764
0121957277
Reis, H. T. (2012). Perceived partner responsiveness as
an organizing theme for the study of relationships
and well-being. In L. Campbell & T. J. Loving (Eds.),
Interdisciplinary research on close relationships: The case
for integration (pp. 27–52). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Song, H., Zmyslinski-Seelig, A., Kim, J., Drent, A., Victor, A.,
Omori, K., & Allen, M. (2014). Does Facebook make you
lonely?: A meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior,
36, 446–452. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011
Statista. (2016). Facebook users worldwide 2016. Retrieved
from https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-
of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/
Steers, M.-L. N., Wickham, R. E., & Acitelli, L. K. (2014).
Seeing everyone else’s highlight reels: How Facebook
usage is linked to depressive symptoms. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 33, 701–731. doi:10.1521/
jscp.2014.33.8.701.
Teppers, E., Luyckx, K. A., Klimstra, T., & Goossens, L.
(2014). Loneliness and Facebook motives in adoles-
cence: A longitudinal inquiry into directionality of effect.
Journal of Adolescence, 37, 691–699. doi:10.1016/j.ado
lescence.2013.11.003
Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective
consequences of social comparison and reflection