1800 words essay 10 hrs

Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review

Paul Best a,b,⁎, Roger Manktelow a,c,1, Brian Taylor a,b,2

a School of Sociology and Applied Social Studies, University of Ulster, United Kingdom b Room 21D11, Dalriada, School of Social Work, University of Ulster, Jordanstown Campus, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, United Kingdom c Room MD112, School of Sociology and Applied Social Studies, University of Ulster, Magee Campus, Londonderry BT48 7JL, United Kingdom

⁎ Corresponding author at: Room 21D11, Dalriada, Scho Ulster, Jordanstown Campus, Newtownabbey, Co. Antri Tel.: +44 28 90 368076.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Best), r (R. Manktelow), [email protected] (B. Taylor).

1 Tel.: +44 28 71 675 311. 2 Tel.: +44 28 90 366 142.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001 0190-7409/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 12 December 2013 Received in revised form 28 February 2014 Accepted 1 March 2014 Available online 11 March 2014

Keywords: Systematic narrative review Adolescence Social networking Wellbeing Social media

Background: Much debate and polarisation exist regarding the impact of online social technologies on the mental wellbeing of young people. Objective: To systematically review and synthesise current empirical research on this topic, identifying both the beneficial and harmful effects of online communication and social media technology amongst young people. Methods: A systematic narrative review of research published between January 2003 and April 2013, retrieved using rigorous searching on eight bibliographic databases. Results were then subject to review using a quality ap- praisal tool and a narrative synthesis methodology. A theoretical framework was developed for the synthesis using concepts from mental health and communication studies literature. Results: Systematic searching retrieved 43 original research papers investigating or exploring the effects of online technologies on adolescent mental well-being or related concept(s). The benefits of using online technologies were reported as increased self-esteem, perceived social support, increased social capital, safe identity experi-

mentation and increased opportunity for self-disclosure. Harmful effects were reported as increased exposure to harm, social isolation, depression and cyber-bullying. The majority of studies reported either mixed or no ef- fect(s) of online social technologies on adolescent wellbeing. Conclusions: This systematic narrative review has revealed contradictory evidence while revealing an absence of robust causal research regarding the impact of social media on mental wellbeing of young people. Online tech- nologies are increasingly being used for health and social care purposes, but further research is required to give confidence that these are appropriately designed to promote the mental health care and support of young people.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The ‘science of networks’ (Watts, 2007) has evolved significantly over the course of the last decade spurred by the popularity of online communication through social media technology. One group to fully embrace this new medium are young people, with some international data suggesting that 83% of those aged 18–29 years use social network- ing sites (Duggan & Brenner, 2013). Data from the ‘EU Kids Online’ sur- vey estimates that an average 15–16 year old spends 118 min per day online (O'Neill, Livingstone, & McLaughlin, 2011). In recognition of the extent of this exposure one must consider the impact of online social media technology is having on young people's psycho-social well-

ol of Social Work, University of m BT37 0QB, United Kingdom.

[email protected]

being. Following an advanced systematic database search method, this paper presents a ‘narrative review’ of research relating to the effects of social media technology (SMT) on adolescent wellbeing to provide a much needed synthesis of current knowledge and a clear direction for future research.

2. Context

2.1. Social media technology

Increasingly, academic research has focused on the potential bene- fits and pitfalls of current technologies, not the least in regard to SMT. Of particular interest are social networking sites (SNS) which are de- fined as “websites which make it possible to form online communities and share user created content” (Kim, Jeong, & Lee, 2010).

This technology allows for immediate, low cost, private and hidden communication, making it difficult to monitor. Furthermore, it provides the opportunity for both synchronous (immediate) and asynchronous (delayed) communication (Barak, 2007; Stefanone, Lackaff, & Rosen,

28 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

2011). Positive mental health benefits using SNS such as increases in so- cial capital via wider social networks have been reported (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), although some studies have highlighted on- line risks such as cyber-bullying, social isolation and exploitation (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kraut et al., 1998; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears, 2006; Milani, Osualdella, & Di Blasio, 2009). Other re- searchers have avoided this dichotomy between the positives and neg- atives and have perceived the reality to lie “somewhere between these two extremes” (Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, & Smallwood, 2006).

SNS however, are only one form of SMT (Moorhead et al., 2013). This distinction is important as individual SMTs have unique features and may influence wellbeing differently. This is illustrated when one exam- ines the literature on personality types and online communication whereby both introverts and extraverts may benefit from using SMTs — yet they made choose to use different platforms e.g. introverts may prefer chat rooms (increased anonymity) whereas extraverts may prefer Facebook (Orchard & Fullwood, 2010; Ryan & Xenos, 2011).

2.2. Adolescence

The United Nations Population Fund estimates that there are over 1.8 billion young people aged 10–24 in the world today (UN-DESA, 2010), many of whom are facing significant new pressures and chal- lenges due to the increasing demands of modern society (Stengård & Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, 2010). In addition, it has been suggested that children today require more support, training and coping skills to prepare them for a “more complex and technologically advanced society” (Mathur & Freeman, 2002: 695–696). In the midst of such tech- nological advances one must consider the developmental influences these new technologies are having on young people.

The creation and maintenance of friendship networks is considered an important and developmentally significant process during adoles- cence (Hartup, 1996; Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield, 2012; Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan, 2009). During this life stage the peer group often as- sumes key importance and displaces parental relationships as the prin- cipal source of social support for the young person (Boyd & Bee, 2012; Coleman, 1974). Current popular SNS were launched post 2003 (Boyd & Ellison, 2007) with the result that today's generation of adolescents are the first cohort to have ‘grown up’ with online social networking. To date, academic attention in this area appears skewed towards young adult populations, namely older college students (Ellison et al., 2007; Manago et al., 2012). The apparent dearth of research relating to the adolescent age group provided the impetus for the current study and was used to focus on sample populations with a mean age below 20.

2.3. Wellbeing

The term wellbeing (WB) may be viewed as an abstract and wholly individualised concept whose meaning appears in constant flux. Conse- quently, it is difficult to operationalize and measure. Research in this field has divided wellbeing into two areas: (1) hedonic and (2) eudaimonic. Hedonic theorists tend to view wellbeing in a pleasure vs. displeasure paradigm (Ryan & Deci, 2001), with research investigating hedonic wellbeing employing subjective well-being (SWB) as an assess- ment measure, consisting of the components of life satisfaction, positive affect and negative affect. Eudaimonic psychologists distinguish them- selves from the hedonic notion of ‘happiness’ and measure WB by how one lives and fulfils one's life (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff & Singer, 2000).

Regardless of WB measure, there appears a strong link between social support and WB. Past studies by both Argyle (1987) and DeNeve (1999) have shown association between wellbeing and high ‘relatedness’ pro- vided by social networks (Argyle, 1987; DeNeve, 1999). A research re- view by Nezlek (2000) also concluded that in general those who have greater intimacy and higher quality relationships also have higher

wellbeing. The importance of social support networks is further emphasised when one considers the psychological costs associated with the suppression of emotions caused by limited social support (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; King & Pennebaker, 1998). Cohen and Ashby Wills (1985) also found evidence of a buffering hypothesis whereby so- cial support mitigates against the full harm of negative life events.

It can be viewed as imperative that the wellbeing consequences of migration towards online social networking (OSN) by the developmen- tally vulnerable adolescent population are fully investigated and under- stood. As there is an over-representation of adult sample populations within current research (e.g. undergraduates), the umbrella label of WB, under which a variety of related concept fall, allowed for the inclu- sion of a sufficient number of studies to warrant a narrative review.

3. Materials and methods

This study reviews the evidence regarding the effects of SMT on ad- olescent wellbeing. The methodological principles upon which this study was developed are influenced by systematic reviewing tech- niques (McFadden, Taylor, Campbell, & McQuilkin, 2012; Taylor, Wylie, Dempster, & Donnelly, 2007) and include seeking transparent and rigorous approaches to identification, quality appraisal and synthe- sis of studies. At its simplest, systematic reviews are “designed to provide a reliable picture of ‘current best evidence’ relevant to a partic- ular question” (MacDonald, 2003). While great emphasis is placed on the rigour of selection and appraisal methods within such reviews, of equal importance is the methodical quality of data synthesis (Killick & Taylor, 2009). Campbell et al. (2003: 5) describe ‘synthesis’ as “a process of extracting data from individual research studies and interpreting and representing them in a collective form”.

In most cases the final product of such reviews is the presentation of a statistical (quantitative) or narrative (qualitative) summary of findings (Rodgers et al., 2009). Due to the nature of the research question and re- search designs involved within this review a statistical meta-analysis of data was not possible so a narrative review approach to synthesise was used. Narrative reviews may be used to explore studies that investigate: the effects of interventions; the factors shaping the implementation of interventions; the needs and/or preferences of particular population groups; and the causes of particular social and/or health problem (Popay et al., 2006). The methodology of narrative synthesis was in- formed by the work of Popay et al. (2006: 11) who developed an ap- proach involving four specific elements or steps: (1) developing a theory of how the intervention works, why and for whom; (2) develop- ing a preliminary synthesis of findings of included studies; (3) exploring relationships in the data; and (4) assessing the robustness of the synthe- sis. The method was further validated in work by Rodgers et al. (2009) citing how rigorous narrative synthesis approaches added “meaning to quantitative findings”. This framework was adopted to reduce bias and to enhance the transparency of the review.

3.1. Search strategy

This study utilised systematic searching techniques to retrieve rele- vant research studies pertaining to the search topic (McFadden et al., 2012). This was defined as the ‘influence of social networking sites on the mental wellbeing of adolescents’. Searches were performed on the fol- lowing eight bibliographic databases: (1) Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA); (2) Communication Abstracts; (3) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL); (4) Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC) (5) Medline (Ovid); (6) PsycINFO; (7) Scopus and (8) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (see Fig. 1).

All searches took place within a one week period (11th–18th April, 2013), each involving up to 41 key words across three concept groups and a pre-defined ‘published within’ range of 1st January 2003–11th April 2013. The concept groups used to create the search structure were: (1) online social networking; (2) mental-wellbeing

Fig. 1. Overview of systematic search strategy.

29P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

and (3) adolescent(s). Fig. 2 shows a generic search query used as part of the systematic search process.

3.2. Selecting for relevance

Using pre-defined inclusion criteria, titles and abstracts (n = 2004) were reviewed and selected by two members of the research team, with any non-agreement referred to a third reviewer. All included papers had to contain a focus on some form of communicative social media technol- ogy. This included blogs, message boards, interactive websites, forums, social networking sites, video sharing platforms (e.g. YouTube) etc. Studies which included samples above 19 years of age were only select- ed if the mean age was 19 or below. The authors were less prescriptive regarding younger sample populations as they will present with much the same developmental (and generational) vulnerabilities. Grey litera- ture and non-English language papers were excluded due to time and cost constraints. Papers that investigated the impact of the internet were removed unless they included variables relating to interactive on- line communication with others. A total of 132 studies were identified and subject to full text review. The removal of duplicate studies, theo- retical material, descriptive case study articles and policy documents produced a final total of 43 original studies presenting empirical

research (see Table 2). Using the Kappa statistic, inter-rater reliability between reviewers recorded at 0.82 denoting substantial agreement (p b 0.05) (Landis & Koch, 1977).

3.3. Quality appraisal of studies

The researchers used the Downs and Black Instrument to appraise methodological quality of quantitative studies (Downs & Black, 1998). This tool is recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration for use with both randomised and non-randomised trials and has been successfully utilised in a recent systematic review of social media within health com- munication (Downs & Black, 1998; Moorhead et al., 2013). The tool in- volves questions regarding four key areas (reporting, external validity, internal validity – bias and internal validity – confounding). The total qual- ity score is calculated from questions under these four headings with a maximum score of 32.

Various tools exist to aid in the appraisal of qualitative research e.g. CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) and the Quality Framework (CASP, 2006; Spencer, Ritchie, Lewis, & Dillon, 2003). The researchers used both these tools to inform the quality appraisal of qualitative re- search located within the study. It was recognised that there is less con- sensus on quality appraisal of qualitative research (Dixon-Woods,

(Adolescen* OR “Young People” OR Child* OR Youth OR Teen* OR Juvenile)

AND

(“Social Media” OR “Online Friends” OR “Online Social Network” OR “Online

Social Networking” OR “Online Communities” OR Facebook OR MSN OR Twitter

OR Blog OR “Chat Rooms” OR MySpace OR “Online Forum” OR “Net Generation”

OR “Digital Natives” OR “Generation Z” OR Cyberspace OR Cyberbullying OR

Cyber-bullying OR “Social Networking Sites” OR “Web 2.0”)

AND

(“Wellbeing” OR “Well-being” OR “Social Support” OR “Perceived Social Support”

OR “Mental Health” OR “Self-efficacy” OR “Life Satisfaction” OR “Self-Esteem” OR

“Social Capital”)

Fig. 2. The generic search formula.

30 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

Booth, & Sutton, 2007). With this in mind, the merits of and caveats to each research design were discussed within the research team until consensus was achieved. These tools were used only to assess method- ological quality and were not used as a means of synthesis.

3.4. Synthesis method: developing a theoretical model for analysis

Before commencing the narrative review process the authors used the studies themselves to elicit a viable theoretical template to begin the synthesis. Such a method of categorisation has been successfully employed in previous work of a similar nature and scope (Killick & Taylor, 2009). This approach was particularly important in this case as the literature was derived from diverse fields of knowledge and the inter-relationship between studies is less obvious than if there was a consistent frame of reference and terminology across studies. A thematic analysis of each study allowed for a deductive approach to the organisation of key themes and issues. No single theory or model provided the necessary applicability and scope to fully categorise the lit- erature. Consequently, a multi-dimensional framework of analysis was developed linking theoretical models from the fields of communication, sociology and psychology. The impact of online social networking among adolescents and the associated nuances is felt throughout the three social levels at macro-, meso- and micro-levels, and a framework at these different levels was developed as described below.

3.5. Multi-level approaches

Multi-level approaches are well established within academic litera- ture(s), particularly that of sociology and organisational research (Rousseau, 2011). Simply put, micro level research pertains to individual interactions and processes; macro level research is concerned with wider structural forces and meso research, aptly taken from the Greek word for ‘in between’ involves group behaviours and processes (House, Rousseau, & Thomas, 1995). These paradigms are often used within both quantitative and qualitative research to inform and guide the ana- lytical process. Kozlowski and Klein (2000: 218–220) highlight three broad analytical models present within these approaches:

1. Single level models: relationships among variables at one level of analysis;

2. Cross level models: describes the relationship among variables at dif- ferent levels of analysis; and

3. Homologous multi-level models: relationships between two or more variables hold at multiple levels of analysis.

3.5.1. Macro level: communication approaches Woodstock (2002) contends that ‘communication’ is the process

through which individuals learn about the world around them. Central to this proposition, is the presence of communication within a context of human interaction and social development (Adler & Rodman, 2006; Green, Strange, & Brocks, 2002). In fact, some theorists have gone as far as to suggest that inter-personal communication is a key facet of identity formation (Scott, 2007), thus linking communication theory, interpersonal networks and human development. While an uncontest- ed account of ‘communication theory’ remains to be achieved, what ap- pears clear is that online communication is a separate phenomenon with distinguishable characteristics that differentiate it from face to face communication (Walther, 1992). This paper draws upon Shannon and Weaver's (1949) Mathematical Model of Communication to con- ceptualise this difference (see Fig. 3).

The application of this model to electronic communication has proved particularly valuable and is well established within the communication field. Shannon and Weaver (1949) identify three problems associated with communication; (1) Technical Problems (How accurately can the symbols of communication be transmitted?); (2) Semantic Problems (How do the transmitted symbols convey meaning?); (3) Effectiveness Problems (How effectively do the received meaning affect behaviour).

This tripartite conceptualisation may be applied to the phenomenon of online communication. If one assumes, as mentioned earlier, that in- dividuals learn and develop through the information they receive then any distortion of communication channels may in fact influence and alter behaviour and in turn affect development. This is further support- ed by Laswell (1948) who notes the crucial determinant of nature of the communication medium (e.g. radio, television, or in this case, the inter- net etc.) when sharing and receiving information (Walther, 1992). Shannon and Weaver (1949) communication model provides the theo- retical framework in which to justify the classification of the literature pertaining to this area.

Table 1 List of studies by general methodology.

Quantitative = 32 Qualitative = 9 Mixed/other

Gross (2004) Tichon and Shapiro (2003) Valaitis (2005) Donchi and Moore (2004) Thomas (2006) Nicholas (2010) Valkenburg et al. (2006) Williams and Merten (2008) Van den Ejinden et al (2008) Cerna & Smahel (2009) Hwang et al. (2009) Siriaraya et al. (2011) Ko and Kuo (2009) Duggan et al. (2012) Maarten et al. (2009) Davis (2012) Gross (2009) Parris et al. (2012) Lee (2009) Cash et al. (2013) Baker and White (2010) Wilson et al. (2010) Tomai et al. (2010) Leung (2011) Vandoninck et al. (2011) O'Dea and Campbell (2011a) O'Dea and Campbell (2011b) Pantic et al. (2012) Devine & Lloyd (2012) Fioravanti et al. (2012) Jelenchick et al. (2013) Koles and Nagy (2012) Huang and Leung (2012) Sarriera et al. (2012) Ahn (2012) Fanti et al. (2012) Machmutow et al. (2012) Quinn and OldMeadow (2013) Vandoninck et al. (2013) Apaolaza et al. (2013) Sticca et al. (2013) Pea et al. (2012) Dolev-Cohen and Barak (2013)

Table 2 Mental well-being and related concepts by study.

Study Wellbeing issue or related concept investigated

Tichon and Shapiro (2003) Social support Gross (2004) Social isolation/social anxiety Donchi and Moore (2004) Self-esteem/loneliness Valaitis (2005) Social participation/risk/increased reflection Valkenburg et al. (2006) Self-esteem/wellbeing Thomas (2006) Identity formation/development Williams and Merten (2008) ‘Risk behaviours’ Van den Ejinden (2008) Loneliness Hwang et al. (2009) Depressive mood Ko and Kuo (2009) Subjective well-being Maarten et al. (2009) Depression and anxiety Gross (2009) Social exclusion Cerna and Smahel (2009) Social support Lee (2009) Healthy social relationships (parental and peer) Baker and White (2010) Self-esteem measure Wilson et al. (2010) Self-esteem/personality Tomai et al. (2010) Social capital Nicholas (2010) Online mental health support Leung (2011) Loneliness/social support Vandoninck et al. (2011) ‘Psycho-social factors’ O'Dea and Campbell (2011a) Self-esteem/social support O'Dea and Campbell (2011b) ‘Peer support’ Siriaraya et al. (2011) ‘Emotional support’ Pantic et al. (2012) Depression Duggan et al. (2012) Non-suicidal self-harm Devine and Lloyd (2012) Psychological WB Fioravanti et al. (2012) Self-esteem Jelenchick (2012) Depression Koles and Nagy (2012) ‘Emotional support’ Huang and Leung (2012) Self-esteem/loneliness Pea et al. (2012) Social wellbeing Sarriera et al. (2012) Personal wellbeing Ahn (2012) Social capital Fanti et al. (2012) Bullying/social support Dolev-Cohen and Barak (2012) Emotional state/personality Davis (2012) Identity/friendship Parris et al. (2012) Cyber-bullying Machmutow et al. (2012) Cyber-bullying Quinn and OldMeadow (2013) ‘Belonging’ Vandoninck et al. (2013) Self-efficacy Apaolaza et al. (2013) Self-esteem/loneliness Cash et al. (2013) Suicide disclosure Sticca et al. (2013) Cyber-bullying/self-esteem

31P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

3.5.2. Meso level: systems approaches A useful starting point for the conceptualisation of a systems based

approach is the Aristotelian view that “the whole is more than the sum of its parts” (von Bertalanffy, 1962; 1972). In a general sense, a sys- tem may be defined as a “group of objects related or interacting so as to form a unity” (Garmonsway, 1991). A network is described as a “group of persons sharing an aim or interest and frequently communicating with…or helping each other” (Garmonsway, 1991). Social systems and networks involve interaction(s) and transaction(s) among a collec- tive which may influence or alter the behaviour of individuals. Ecologi- cal systems theory adds a humanistic feature to general system-based theories and is concerned mainly with interactions between individuals within a social system (Siporin, 1980). Furthermore, ecological systems theory provides a framework in which to understand human develop- ment within an environmental context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986, 1989; Miller, 2011). A meso level approach allows one to examine on- line group behaviours and processes, with a particular focus on the de- velopment and maintenance of adolescent social networks.

3.5.3. Micro level: adolescent development approaches Following on from communication and systems based approaches is

a focus on the impact of SMTs on the individual. Thematic analysis sug- gested that macro/meso theories interact at this point through develop- mental issues unique to this population. Theories regarding human development and wellbeing are a plenty within the psychological liter- ature. In specific regard to adolescence (and although somewhat incon- gruent), theories such as those offered by Sigmund Freud, Piaget and Erik Erikson define human development sequentially postulating responses to external stimuli determined by developmental stage (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Erikson's (1968) ‘Stages of Psycho-social Development’ posits ado- lescent development occurring primarily through identity formation within the context of social relationships (Moshman, 1999). The

successful transition of each life stage in Erikson's model is presented as a ‘crisis’ (e.g. identity vs. confusion) through which one must negoti- ate in order to progress. There is a period of instability before adolescent identity and positive self-esteem are achieved (Erikson, 1968). It can be seen that psychological and physiological changes cause vulnerability as coping mechanisms are constantly redefined (Frydenberg, 2008), there- fore challenges, stressors or threats could have exacerbated affects (Manago et al., 2012). Erikson's model provides a theoretical framework in which to explore issues such as self-esteem, belonging and identity (Erikson, 1968). Additional models of adolescent development are offered by Steinberg (2005) whereby adolescence is seen as divided into three distinct stages (Early, Middle and Late Adolescence) each of which poses differing vulnerabilities and risks (Steinberg, 2005).

4. Results

4.1. Methodological profile and quality of included studies

The research methodologies of studies investigating the influence of social networking sites on the mental wellbeing of adolescents were varied. The majority of studies (95%) had gender-mixed samples. How- ever many studies had a higher number of female participants. Survey research (55%) was by far the most widely employed research design, followed by qualitative (12%), longitudinal (12%), content analysis (11%), experimental (4%), case control (3%) and mixed method studies

Fig. 3. Shannon and Weaver (1949) mathematical model of communication.

32 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

(3%). The quantitative studies (n = 32) evaluated using the Downs and Black Instrument had scores ranging from 8 (O'Dea & Campbell, 2011a, 2011b) to 20 (Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013). These low scores reflected the weak nature of research designs retrieved within the study in rela- tion to the research question (Table 1).

4.2. Communication-based approaches

Research in this category fell into five broad areas: (1) intensity of online communicative practices; (2) preference for online communica- tion; (3) online disclosure processes and motivations; (4) behaviour change through online communications; and (5) differences associated with online and offline communications. The rise of the internet and so- cial networking sites has seen the rapid growth of readily available and accessible information on the social habits of individuals. Qualitative content analysis of publicly available profile pages, message boards and blogs has been readily employed within this area (Cash, Thelwall, Peck, Ferrell, & Bridge, 2013; Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Duggan, Heath, Lewis, & Baxter, 2011; Siriaraya, Tang, Ang, Pfeil, & Zaphiris, 2011; Williams & Merten, 2013). Such studies suggest a ‘treasure trove’ of information available online regarding the communication patterns and social lives of adolescents. The literature suggests that teens are more willing to disclose personal information online and, in general, displayed more emotionally empathic online communication than adults (Cash et al., 2013; Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Duggan et al., 2011; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Siriaraya et al., 2011; Tichon & Shapiro, 2003). As a re- sult, a growing body of evidence is emerging examining the potential role of supportive virtual environments for young people (Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Nicholas, 2010; Siriaraya et al., 2011; Tichon & Shapiro, 2003).

Considerable evidence suggests a negative relationship between on- line communication practices and wellbeing (Devine & Lloyd, 2012; Fioravanti, Dèttore, & Casale, 2012; Hwang, Cheong, & Feeley, 2009; Koles & Nagy, 2012; O'Dea & Campbell, 2011a, 2011b; Pantic et al., 2012; van den Eijnden, Meerkerk, Vermulst, Spijkerman, & Engels, 2008). Evidence of a ‘rich-get-richer’ phenomenon is provided whereby young people whose offline friendship quality is perceived as ‘high’ had greater benefits from online communicative activities those who did not possess high quality friendships (Davis, 2012; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Selfhout et al., 2009). Perhaps reflecting the division of opinion in this field a number of studies reported positive affect between online com- munication and wellbeing, namely; increased social support, reduced social anxiety, increased self-esteem and reduced social isolation (Davis, 2012; Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013; Gross, 2009; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Maarten et al., 2009; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006). More- over, three papers highlighted the possible mental health promotion benefits of online communication (Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Frydenberg, 2008; Valaitis, 2005) and interestingly, two studies reported little or no association between online communication and depression among adolescents (Gross, 2004; Jelenchick, Eickhoff, & Moreno, 2013).

4.3. Social network and system based approaches

A number of studies examined the WB implications of SMT through the lens of interpersonal relationship formation, online friendships, social capital and social support (see below). These studies were categorised under the umbrella of social network and system based approaches and their underpinnings allowed an examination of the

impact of OSN on social network development and the possible implica- tions for individual wellbeing.

An emerging theme within the literature was online friendship (or related concept) (Apaolaza et al, 2013; Davis 2012; Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013; Donchi & Moore, 2004; Fanti, Demetriou, & Hawa, 2012; Hwang et al., 2009; Maarten et al., 2009; ; Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2012; Tichon & Shapiro, 2003). However, a precise definition of what consti- tutes an ‘online friend’ was somewhat illusive. Some suggest that online friends are merely an extension of offline relationships (Ahn, 2012; Gross, 2004; Thomas, 2006), perhaps minimalizing any differentiating factors, making separate definition(s) problematic. The purported ben- efits of online friendships were identified as the following: increased perceived social support; opportunity for emotional relief; increased so- cial integration; opportunity for identity experimentation and extended ‘bridging’ social capital (i.e. wider social connections outside local net- works, see Putnam, 2000) (Ahn, 2012; Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Leung, 2011; Sarriera, Abs, Casas, & Bedin, 2012).

Social support offered through social networking sites, blogs, and specialist forums etc. provided a number of specific benefits such as increased emotional support, self-disclosure, reduced social anxiety and belongingness (Duggan et al., 2011; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2012; Siriaraya et al., 2011; Tichon & Shapiro, 2003; Valaitis, 2005; Williams & Merten, 2013). However, one study of online self-harm websites highlighted the lack of ‘trigger warnings’ within in- formal support forums/websites compared to their professional coun- terparts, indicating increased risk associated with the use of the former (Duggan et al., 2011). Moreover, some informal websites were also found to promote negative attitudes, actively discouraging profes- sional help seeking (Cerna & Smahel, 2009).

Two studies compared wellbeing through communicative online activities with non-communicative activities, finding communicative online activities positively associated with increases in wellbeing (Hwang et al., 2009; Maarten et al., 2009). Social networking sites have been linked with community formation and increased belonging- ness among adolescents (Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2012). Social capital benefits, in particular bridging capital, are also evident within the liter- ature, indicating a link between online networking and offline gains (Ahn, 2012; Tomai et al., 2010). Interestingly, one study also found evi- dence of increasing bonding capital as online usage increased (Tomai et al., 2010).

4.4. Adolescent development approaches

Eight studies used measures of self-esteem in relation to SMT (Apaolaza, Hartmann, Medina, Barrutia, & Echebarria, 2013; Baker & White, 2011; Fioravanti et al., 2012; Gross, 2009; Huang & Leung, 2012; O'Dea & Campbell, 2011a, 2011b; Valkenburg et al, 2006; Wilson, Fornasier, & White, 2010). Three reported associations between SMT, blogging and low self-esteem (Fioravanti et al., 2012; Huang & Leung, 2012; Maarten et al., 2009). Conversely, positive self-esteem as- sociations were found between online communicative activities such as online chatting with peers or strangers or receiving support when dis- tressed (Donchi & Moore, 2004; Gross, 2009; Valkenburg & Peter, 2006). Self-esteem was examined as a predicting factor of levels of so- cial networking site usage in two studies but neither reported a signifi- cant relationship (Baker & White, 2011; Wilson et al., 2010).

Mixed results were reported in studies examining depression and SMTs (Jelenchick et al., 2013; Pantic et al., 2012; Van den Eijnden et al, 2008; Vandoninck et al., 2011). For example, instant messenger has

33P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

been linked with increased depression in one study (Van den Eijnden, 2008) yet equally other evidence suggested no such relationship (Jelenchick et al., 2013). One large scale Taiwanese study found in- creased depressive mood among adolescents who used the internet to socialise and make friends, but no significant association was found be- tween the amount of time spent online and depression (Vandoninck, d'Haenens, De Cock, & Donoso, 2011). More generally, a number of studies in North America have found negative associations between ‘social wellbeing’ and interpersonal interaction online (Pea et al., 2012).

Five studies collected data on loneliness or related concepts (e.g. social isolation) and SMT (Apaolaza et al., 2013; Donchi & Moore, 2004; Gross, 2004; Huang & Leung, 2012; Leung, 2011). In some cases loneliness de- creased following OSN (Gross, 2009; Jelenchick et al., 2013). However, in one study this association was only significant for females (Apaolaza et al., 2013). Online social interaction has also been shown to support identity experimentation and found to be a more gratifying experience for lonely adolescents (Leung, 2011). Indeed further evidence from a Chinese study on bulletin board systems suggests a preference for OSN among lonely adolescents (Jelenchick et al., 2013). Related to this were two further studies which investigated feelings of belongingness (Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2012) and social exclusion (Thomas, 2006) amongst online users. Both reported positive effects between OSN and increased belongingness and reduced isolation.

4.5. Cyber-bullying (CB)

While cyber-bullying (CB) is emerging as a separate field of research in its own right, it was considered for the purposes of this review that CB is a relevant mental well-being issue occurring exclusively via social media and other online interactive technologies. CB is described as a “wilful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers… and other electronic devices” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Four papers were recovered which focused on CB (Fanti et al., 2012; Machmutow, Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012; Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2012; Sticca, Ruggieri, Alsaker, & Perren, 2012) however all varied dramatical- ly in nature and scope. Collectively, their findings suggest that offline social support may buffer the negative impact of CB (Parris et al., 2012); that time spent online may increase risk of CB (Machmutow et al., 2012); that CB (victimisation and offending) may be predicted using Psychopathic Trait measures (Sticca et al., 2012) and that victims often adopt three main attitudes strategies to reduce the impact of CB — reactive coping (responding after the event); preventative coping (protection measures e.g. stay offline) and/or acceptance (Parris et al., 2012).

5. Discussion

This study seeks to build upon the high quality methodology of stud- ies such as Moorhead et al. (2013) and takes the topic of social media usage a step further by focusing on a more precise domain within the field of adolescent health and development. As part of a narrative re- view method, a theoretical model to assist with preliminary analysis was developed. Following on, the final two stages were to (1) explore relationships within the data and (2) assess the robustness of the synthesis (Popay et al., 2006).

5.1. Exploring relationships: benefits vs. limitations of online social networking

Perhaps surprising, given the growing academic and public concern, the majority of included papers reported either mixed or no effect(s) of social media on adolescent wellbeing (Baker & White, 2011; Cash et al., 2013; Cerna & Smahel, 2009; Fanti et al., 2012; Gross, 2004; Jelenchick et al., 2013; Lee, 2009; Leung, 2011; Parris et al., 2012; Sarriera et al., 2012; Sticca et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2010; Valkenburg & Peter, 2006; Vandoninck, d'Haenens, & Roe, 2013; Vandoninck et al., 2012;

Williams & Merten, 2013). These included studies which found no association(s) between SMTs and wellbeing concepts (e.g. depression) as well as those who uncovered both increased opportunities and increased risks for wellbeing from OSN (Jelenchick et al., 2013; Valkenburg & Peter, 2006; Vandoninck et al., 2013).

5.2. Benefits of online social networking

Following the review process, 13 of the 43 studies were deemed to report beneficial outcomes regarding SMT and communication. By and large, these benefits were indirect and fuelled by perceptions regarding perceived social support. For example, increased social networking opportunities raise self-esteem and ‘belongingness’ which may then in- directly impact upon feelings of wellbeing. However, it is worth caution- ing that perceived online social support may be providing a false sense of security. To balance this concern, considerable evidence suggested that direct emotional and empathetic support via online networks can contribute to lowering barriers to self-disclosure (Ko & Kuo, 2009), through increased anonymity and reduced non-verbal inhibitors, thus promoting the help-seeking process. In turn, self-disclosing and associ- ated positive feedback can enhance perceptions of community integra- tion (Ko & Kuo, 2009) and social support (Davis, 2012; Quinn & Oldmeadow, 2013). These processes may provide a more direct explan- atory link between SMT and increased wellbeing. Moreover, it is likely that repressing emotions through non-disclosure will have a negative impact upon wellbeing (Dolev-Cohen & Barak, 2013). Online disclosure can benefit stigmatised groups facilitating and encouraging their con- tact with mental health resources. This technology may also appeal to young males as a more fashionable alternative to traditional forms of help seeking.

5.3. Caveats to online social networking

A variety of negative outcomes between SMT and wellbeing are present within the literature. Informed by the theoretical model one could suggest that, by and large, these studies view online communica- tion as a weaker form of interaction — the cost of which could be in- creased risk of depression and/or social isolation. There was evidence of links between preferences for social interaction, friendship formation online and decreases in wellbeing; however little if any association was found between the number of online friends and lower wellbeing.

One large scale study suggests that merely having a social network- ing profile may decrease psychological wellbeing; however this negative relationship was reported only for girls (Devine & Lloyd, 2012). An im- portant link within the body of research reviewed is the association be- tween increased intensity of usage i.e. time spent online and increased risk of exposure to online harm, particularly pertinent to risk of CB. CB has been associated with increased depression and is therefore a real risk to adolescent wellbeing. In spite of these possibilities, little direct or indirect associations were found between time spent online and neg- ative wellbeing, save for one Serbian study (Pantic et al., 2012). Research is thus moving away from variables relating to intensity of use, and is shifting towards the impact of different and discrete online activities.

5.4. Future directions

The findings from this review indicate that SMTs allow adolescents to increase the size and composition of their social networks substan- tially. This may be either beneficial (e.g. increased social capital, social support etc.) or harmful through increased exposure to triggering or abusive content or the promotion of negative coping strategies (Duggan et al., 2011).

One key factor associated with wellbeing outcomes, was the use of on- line technologies for communicative rather than non-communicative purposes (Vandoninck et al., 2011). SMTs which promote communicative activities were shown to provide more wellbeing benefits; however this

34 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

must be tempered with the fact that such activities may also increase ex- posure to harm. Consequently, strategies to support the wellbeing of young people who use SMTs may wish to focus on the following areas: (1) the particular SMT being used; (2) the communicative and non-communicative activities that are taking place and (3) the social capital available to that individual to manage the potentially negative experiences that may arise. In regard to the latter, one must consider the wider social network as an important factor as they provide the con- text to which negative encounters are experienced. Again, the actual SMT being used is of great importance as different SMTs provide differ- ent social networking contexts (e.g. Facebook vs. Askfm). Future re- search may wish to explore these issues in more depth as well as consider the differing motivations (e.g. personality types) behind social media usage and the subsequent wellbeing implications.

6. Robustness and limitations of the synthesis

In terms of overall methodological quality, there was an over- representation of cross-sectional survey based research, recognised as a weaker research design in relation to the research question, for which experimental designs are notably stronger. In the face of such ev- idence, one is unable to distinguish various mitigating factors such as gender, socio-economic status, geographical locality etc. on adolescent OSN and wellbeing much less the impact of online friendships or specif- ic online activities. Moreover, a disparity exists between both inductive and deductive approaches within the evidence base, therefore a greater number of mixed method designs would be welcomed within the liter- ature. As the quality of included studies will undoubtedly impact on the reliability of the synthesis drawn from it, one must highlight this limita- tion. Popay et al. (2006) intimate that this restriction can be avoided if steps are taken to critically review the methodological quality of each study and thus ensure appropriate ‘weighting’. Using a validated instru- ment such as Downs and Black (1998) enables researchers to strength- en synthesis reliability. The systematic search of online databases has proved a useful formula for locating research on the topic; however, future research may wish to expand the range of databases further to in- clude more specialist communication focused databases.

7. Conclusion and future directions

This review has classified research findings in terms of the influence of social media on adolescent wellbeing. However, it must be recognised that technology acts merely as a facilitator of human interaction and is value-free, neither promoting the good nor the bad. Retrieved within this review was a wealth of contradictory evidence suggesting both harmful and beneficial aspects of SMTs. However, one must point to a lack of evidence exacting the specific direction of the relationship be- tween SMT and wellbeing. Be that as it may, a growing body of evidence is suggesting that SMT and WB experience(s) (either positive or nega- tive) are premised upon specific online activity rather than variables such as, the ‘amount of time’ or ‘number of online friends’. This would suggest that early education of children and adolescents on the various pitfalls of SMTs may enable them to avoid more ‘harmful’ activ- ities e.g. talking to strangers and thus reduce harmful experience(s).

Of further interest is the ability of SMTs to foster self-disclosure through increased social network size and composition. This may prove valuable to health and social care professionals attempting to ac- cess traditionally hard-to-reach populations such as, young males or those experiencing mental ill-health. Future studies may wish to in- clude the benefits of both informal and formal means of online support. Little or no association was found between the number of online friends and WB, perhaps suggesting more indirect effect(s) or a current indis- tinguishable ‘merging’ between online and offline social networks. Further research would therefore do well to investigate the impact of online friendships on issues such as online help-seeking, exposure to harm, cyber-bullying etc.

References

Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2006). Understanding human communication (9th ed.). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ahn, J. (2012). The effect of social network sites on adolescents' social and academic development: Current theories and controversies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1435–1445.

Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Medina, E., Barrutia, J., & Echebarria, C. (2013). The relation- ship between socializing on the Spanish online networking site Tuenti and teenagers' subjective wellbeing: The roles of self-esteem and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 4.

Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. London: Methuen. Baker, R. K., & White, K. M. (2010). In their own words: Why teenagers don't use so-

cial networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(6), 395–398.

Barak, A. (2007). Emotional support and suicide prevention through the Internet: A field project report. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(2), 971–984. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.chb.2005.08.001.

Boyd, D. R., & Bee, H. L. (2012). Lifespan development (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholar- ship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press0-674-22457-4.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). The ecology of the family as a context for human develop- ment. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 185–246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A.M. K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00028.x.

Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M., et al. (2003). Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 671–684.

Cash, S., Thelwall, M., Peck, S., Ferrell, J., & Bridge, J. (2013). Adolescent suicide statements on MySpace. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16, 166–174.

CASP (2006). Qualitative research: Appraisal tool. 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research (pp. 1–4). Oxford: Public Health Resource Unit (Available from: www.phru.nhs.uk/Doc_Links/Qualitative_Appraisal_Tool.pdf).

Cerna, A., & Smahel, D. (2009). Self-injury in adolescence: Blog as a mean of community formation. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 53(5), 492–504.

Cohen, S., & Ashby Wills, T. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 310–357.

Coleman, J. (1974). Relationships in adolescence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Davis, K. (2012). Friendship 2.0: Adolescents' experiences of belonging and self-disclosure

online. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1527–1536. DeNeve, K. M. (1999). Happy as an extraverted clam? The role of personality for subjec-

tive well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 141–144. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1359105308093860.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 per- sonality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197.

Devine, P., & Lloyd, K. (2012). Internet use and psychological well-being among 10-year- old and 11-year-old children. Child Care in Practice, 18(1), 5–22.

Dixon-Woods, M., Booth, A., & Sutton, A. J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative research: A re- view of published reports. Qualitative Research, 7, 375–422. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/1468794107078517.

Dolev-Cohen, M., & Barak, A. (2013). Adolescents' use of Instant Messaging as a means of emotional relief. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 58–63.

Donchi, L., & Moore, S. (2004). It's a boy thing: The role of the Internet in young people's psychological wellbeing. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 76–89.

Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. http://dx. doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377.

Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users. Pew Internet Re- search Centre's Internet and American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Reports/ 2013/Social-media-users.aspx).

Duggan, J. M., Heath, N. L., Lewis, S. P., & Baxter, A. (2012). An examination of the scope and nature of non-suicidal self-injury online activities: Implications for school mental health professionals. School Mental Health, 4, 56–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s12310-011-9065-6.

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, 1143–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007. 00367.x/CrossRef link.

Erikson, Erik H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, A. G., & Hawa, V. V. (2012). A longitudinal study of cyberbullying:

Examining risk and protective factors. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 168–181.

Fioravanti, G., Dèttore, D., & Casale, S. (2012). Adolescent Internet addiction: Testing the association between self-esteem, the perception of internet attributes, and prefer- ence for online social interactions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(6), 318–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0358.

35P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

Frydenberg, E. (2008). Adolescent coping: Advances in theory, research and practice. New York: Routledge.

Garmonsway, G. N. (1991). The Penguin Concise English dictionary. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Green, M. C., Strange, J. J., & Brocks, T. C. (2002). Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 287–314.

Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent internet use: What we expect, what teens report. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 633–649.

Gross, E. F. (2009). Logging on, bouncing back: An experiential investigation of online communication following social exclusion. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1787–1793.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental signif- icance. Child Development, 67, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.326.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221.

House, R., Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas, M. (1995). MESO: An integration of macro and micro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings, & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 17. (pp. 71–114). Greenwich, CT: JA.

Huang, H. Y., & Leung, L. (2012). Gratification-opportunities, self-esteem, and loneliness in determining usage preference of BBS and blog among teenagers in China. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 20(3), 141–157.

Hwang, J. M., Cheong, P. H., & Feeley, T. H. (2009). Being young and feeling blue in Taiwan: Examining adolescent depressive mood and online and offline activities. New Media & Society, 11(7), 1101–1121.

Jelenchick, L. A., Eickhoff, J. C., & Moreno, M.A. (2013). “Facebook depression?” Social net- working site use and depression in older adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(1), 128–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.008.

Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? — Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1746-1561.2008.00335.x.

Killick, C., & Taylor, B. J. (2009). Professional decision making on elder abuse: Systematic narrative review. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 21, 211–238. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/08946560902997421.

Kim, W., Jeong, O., & Lee, S. (2010). On social web sites. Information Systems, 35(2), 215–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/bm.2012.120.

King, L. A., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1998). What's so great about feeling good? Psychological Inquiry, 9, 53–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.617.

Ko, & Kuo (2009). Can blogging enhance subjective well-being through self-disclosure? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 75–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.016.

Koles, B., & Nagy, P. (2012). Facebook usage patterns and school attitudes. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, 6(1), 4–17.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. L. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kowlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psycho- logical well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.53.9.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

Laswell, M. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.

Lee, S. J. (2009). Online communication and adolescent social ties: Who benefits more from Internet use? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 509–531.

Leung, L. (2011). Loneliness, social support, and preference for online social interaction: The mediating effects of identity experimentation online among children and adoles- cents. Chinese Journal of Communication, 4(4).

MacDonald, G. (2003). Using systematic reviews to improve social care. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.

Machmutow, K., Perren, S., Sticca, F., & Alsaker, F. D. (2012). Peer victimisation and de- pressive symptoms: Can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation? Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 17(3), 403–420.

Manago, A.M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P.M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well- being. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 69–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026338.

Mathur, V. K., & Freeman, D.G. (2002). A theoretical model of adolescent suicide and some evidence from US data. Health Economics, 11, 695–708.

McFadden, P., Taylor, B. J., Campbell, A., & McQuilkin, J. (2012). Systematically identifying rel- evant research: Case study on child protection social workers' resilience. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(6), 626–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731512453209.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 000312240607100301.

Milani, L., Osualdella, D., & Di Blasio, P. (2009). Quality of interpersonal relationships and problematic Internet use in adolescence. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 681–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0071.

Miller, P. H. (2011). Theories of developmental psychology (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013). A new dimension of health care: Systematic review of the uses, benefits and limitations of so- cial media for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4), e85.

Moshman, D. (1999). Adolescent psychological development: Rationality, morality and iden- tity. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nezlek, J. B. (2000). The motivational and cognitive dynamics of day-to-day social life. In J. P. Forgas, K. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behaviour (pp. 92–111). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Nicholas, J. (2010). The role of internet technology and social branding in improving the mental health and wellbeing of young people. Perspectives in Public Health, 130, 86–90.

O'Neill, B., Livingstone, S., & McLaughlin, S. (2011). Final recommendations for policy, methodology and research. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.

O'Dea, B., & Campbell, A. (2011). Healthy connections: Online social networks and their potential for peer support. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 168, 133–140.

O'Dea, B., & Campbell, A. (2011). Online social networking amongst teens: Friend or foe? Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 167, 133–138.

Orchard, L. J., & Fullwood, C. (2010). Current perspectives on personality and Internet use. Social Science Computer Review, 28(2), 155–169.

Pantic, I., Damjanovic, A., Todorovic, J., Topalovic, D., BojovicJovic, D., Ristic, S., et al. (2012). Association between online social networking and depression in high school students: Behavioral physiology viewpoint. Psychiatria Danubina, 24(1), 90–93.

Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2012). High school students' perceptions of coping with cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44(2), 284–306.

Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., et al. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 327–336.

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rogers, M., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods Program (Retrieved March 21st, 2013 from http://cpd.conted.ox.ac.uk/healthsciences/ courses/short_courses/qsr/NSguidanceV1-JNoyes.pdf).

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster. Quinn, S. V., & Oldmeadow, J. A. (2013). Is the iGeneration a ‘We’ generation?: Social net-

working use and belonging in 9–13 year olds. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 136–142.

Rodgers, M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Roberts, H., Britten, N., et al. (2009). Test- ing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic re- views: Effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function. Evaluation, 15(1), 49–73.

Rousseau, D.M. (2011). Reinforcing the micro/macro bridge: Organizational thinking and pluralistic vehicles. Journal of Management, 37, 429–442.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.

Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? (2011). An investigation into the rela- tionship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1658–1664.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69. 4.719 (PMID: 16508343).

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing: A positive health agenda for the new millennium. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 30–44. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_4.

Sarriera, J. C., Abs, D., Casas, F., & Bedin, L. M. (2012). Relations between media, perceived social support and personal well-being in adolescence. Social Indicators Research, 106(3), 545–561.

Scott, C. R. (2007). Communication and social identity theory: Existing and potential con- nections in organisational identification research. Journal of Communication Studies, 58(2), 123–138.

Selfhout, Maarten H. W., Branje, Susan J. T., Delsing, M., ter Bogt, Tom F. M., & Wim (2009). Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32(4), 819–833.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. : University of Illinois Press.

Siporin, M. (1980). Ecological systems theory in social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 7(4), 507–532.

Siriaraya, P., Tang, C., Ang, S., Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2011). A comparison of empathic communication pattern for teenagers and older people in online support communi- ties. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(5), 617–628.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence [monograph online]. London: Cabinet Office (Available from: www.gsr.gov.uk/evaluating_policy/era_papers/qual_eval.asp).

Stefanone, M.A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2011). Contingencies of self-worth and social- networking-site behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14, 41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01585.x.

Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 69–74.

Stengård, E., & Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, K. (2010). Mental health promotion in young people — An investment for the future. : Publications of WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Sticca, Ruggieri, S., Alsaker, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Longitudinal risk factors for cyberbullying in adolescence. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 52–67.

Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. (2009). Children, adolescents, and the media (2nd ed.). CA, Sage: Thousand Oaks.

Taylor, B., Wylie, E., Dempster, M., & Donnelly, M. (2007). Systematically retrieving re- search: A case study evaluating seven databases. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(6), 697–706.

Thomas, A. (2006). “MSN was the next big thing after beanie babies”: Children's virtual experiences as an interface to their everyday lives. For: E-Learning, 3(2), 126–143.

Tichon, J., & Shapiro, M. (2003). The process of sharing social support in cyberspace. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 6(2), 161–170.

Tomai, M., Rosa, V., Mebane, M. E., D'Acunti, A., Benedetti, M., & Francescato, D. (2010). Virtual communities in schools as tools to promote social capital with high school students. Computers & Education, 54, 265–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu. 2009.08.009.

36 P. Best et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014) 27–36

Population division UN-DESA world population prospects: 2010 revision. Accessed On- line July 27th 2013. Available at. http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/ factsheets/One%20pager%20on%20youth%20demographics%20GF.pdf

Valaitis, R. (2005). Computers and the Internet: Tools for youth empowerment. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(5), 43–52.

Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their re- lationship to adolescents' well-being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 584–590.

van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M, Meerkerk, G. J., Vermulst, A. A., Spijkerman, R., & Engels, R. C. M. E (2008). Online communication, compulsive internet use, and psychosocial well- being among adolescents: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 655–665.

Vandoninck, S., d'Haenens, L., De Cock, R., & Donoso, V. (2011). Social networking sites and contact risks among Flemish youth. Journal of Child Research, 19(1), 69–85.

Vandoninck, S., d'Haenens, L., & Roe, K. (2013). Online risks: Coping strategies of less re- silient children and teenagers across Europe. Journal of Children and Media, 7(1), 60–78.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1962). General system theory — A critical review. General Systems, 7, 1–20.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426.

Walther, J. B. (1992). Computer mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyper-personal communication. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.

Watts, D. J. (2007). The ‘new’ science of networks. Annual Review Sociology, 30, 243–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.020404.104342.

Williams, A. L., & Merten, M. J. (2008). A review of online social networking profiles by adolescents. Implications for future research and intervention, Adolescence, 32(170), 253–273.

Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults' use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(2), 173–177.

Woodstock, L. (2002). Public journalism's talking cure. Journalism, 3(1), 37–55.