This paper studies how the experience and perceptions of social media are related to the emission and reception of online prosocial behavior (OPB), using a cross-sectional survey study with 1,299 adolescents. Our results indicated that females and non-binary individuals showed a higher frequency of OPB than males. The use of instant messaging and emoticons, the feeling of having an audience, and positive experiences all favor the emission of OPB. The frequent use of social networks and public profiles contribute to the perception of greater support, consolation, and online help from others. The anonymity provided by social networks is a factor that may inhibit online prosociality.
AhmedA. (2014). Self-presentation strategies among users of social networking sites. International Journal of Interactive Communication Systems and Technologies, 4(2), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICST.2014070105
2.
AldunateN.González-IbáñezR. (2017). An integrated review of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2061. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02061
3.
AlfieriT.RubleD. N.HigginsE. T. (1996). Gender stereotypes during adolescence: Developmental changes and the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1129
4.
Armstrong-CarterE.TelzerE. H. (2021). Advancing measurement and research on youths’ prosocial behavior in the digital age. Child Development Perspectives, 15(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12396
5.
BosancianuC.PowellS.BratovićE. (2013). Social capital and pro-social behavior online and offline. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1), 49–68. https://shorturl.at/hWw23
6.
Callegaro-BorsaJ.Figueiredo-DamásioB.Ruschel-BandeiraD. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paidéia, 22(53), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-863X2012000300014
7.
Cebollero-SalinasA. (2021). Aprendizaje socioemocional en la comunicación online a través de la metodología de Aprendizaje-Servicio en adolescentes. Edutec. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa [Socio-emotional learning in online communication through the Service-Learning methodology in adolescents], 78(78), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2021.78.2193
8.
ChenY.HuoY.LiuJ. (2022). Impact of online anonymity on aggression in ostracized grandiose and vulnerable narcissists. Personality and Individual Differences, 188, 111448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111448
9.
DarleyJ. M.LatanéB. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589
10.
DufourM.BrunelleN.TremblayJ.LeclercD.CousineauM. M.KhazaalY.LégaréA. A.RousseauM.BerbicheD. (2016). Gender difference in internet use and internet problems among Quebec high school students. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 61(10), 663–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743716640755
11.
DurbeejN.AbrahamssonN.PapadopoulosF. C.BeijerK.SalariR.SarkadiA. (2019). Outside the norm: Mental health, school adjustment and community engagement in non-binary youth. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(5), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494819890994
12.
DzurickA. (2018). Social media, Iphones, ipads & identity. Media impact on the coming out process for LGTB Youth. In StewartC. (Ed.), Lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender americans at risk (pp. 185–204). Praeger.
13.
Eberly-LewisM. B.CoetzeeT. M. (2015). Dimensionality in adolescent prosocial tendencies: Individual differences in serving others versus serving the self. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.032
14.
EisenbergN.SpinradT.Knafo-NoamA. (2015). Prosocial development. In LernerR. M.LibenL. S.MuellerU. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, cognitive processes (pp. 1–47). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15.
ErreygersS.VandeboschH.VranjesI.BaillienE.De WitteH. (2018). Development of a measure of adolescents‘online prosocial behavior. Journal of Children and Media, 12(4), 1–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2018.1431558
FaliagkaE.TsakalidisA.VaikousiD. (2011). Teenagers’ use of social network websites and privacy concerns: A survey [Conference session]. 15th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (pp. 207–211). https://doi.org/10.1109/PCI.2011.17
18.
GeorgeD.MalleryM. (Eds.). (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.
19.
GoffmanE. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life. Penguin.
20.
GruzdA.Hernández-GarcíaÁ. (2018). Privacy concerns and self-disclosure in private and public uses of social media. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(7), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0709
21.
HayesB.JamesA.BarnR.WatlingD. (2022). Children’s risk and benefit behaviours on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 130, 107147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107147
22.
KrämerN.WinterS. (2008). Impression Management 2.0: The Relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106
23.
LapierreK. R.DaneA. V. (2022). Early adolescents’ involvement in anonymous relational and cyber aggression: An evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 17(4), 446–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000294
24.
LavertuL.MarderB.ErzA.AngellR. (2020). The extended warming effect of social media: Examining whether the cognition of online audiences offline drives prosocial behavior in ‘real life. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106389
25.
LiW.HeQ. F.LanJ. Z.RehmanA. U.GeM. W.ShenL. T.HuF. H.JiaY. J.ChenH. L. (2024). Empathy as a mediator of the relation between peer influence and prosocial behavior in adolescence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-02079-3
26.
López-SáezM. Á.PlateroR. L. (2022). Spanish youth at the crossroads of gender and sexuality during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Women s Studies, 29(1_suppl), 90S–915S. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068221076319
27.
LysenstøenC.BøeT.HjetlandG. J.SkogenJ. C. (2021). A review of the relationship between social media use and online prosocial behavior among adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 579347. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579347
28.
MarderB.JoinsonA.ShankarA.HoughtonD. (2016). The extended ‘chilling’ effect of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 582–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.097
29.
MarwickA. E.BoydD. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
30.
McKennaK. Y. A.BarghJ. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6
31.
MegíasI.AmezagaA.GarcíaM.KuricS.MoradoR.OrgazC. (2020). Romper cadenas de odio, tejer redes de apoyo: los y las jóvenes ante los discursos de odio en la red. Centro Reina Sofia sobre Adolescencia y Juventud [Breaking chains of hatred, weaving networks of support: young people in the face of online hate speech]. Fundación Ayuda contra la Drogadicción (FAD). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4288486
32.
OrbenA.PrzybylskiA. K. (2019). Screens, teens and psychological well-being: Evidence from three time-use-diary studies. Psychological Science, 30(5), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761983032
33.
Padilla-WalkerL. M.FraserA. M. (2014). How much is it going to cost me? Bidirectional relations between adolescents’ moral personality and prosocial behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 37(7), 993–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.07.008
34.
PastorY.HiharaS.Martínez-íñigoD.Pérez-TorresV.Guazzelli-WilliamsonV.ErreygersS.Magis-WeinbergL.IwasaY. (2024). Online prosocial behavior during adolescence: Cross-national and gender invariance and differences in four countries. Journal of Children and Media, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2024.2404525
35.
PastorY.Pérez-TorresV.Thomas-CurrásH.Lobato-RincónL. L.López SáezM. Á.GarcíaA. (2024). A study of the influence of altruism, social responsibility, reciprocity, and the subjective norm on online prosocial behavior in adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 154, 108156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108156
36.
PlateroR. L.López-SáezM. Á. (2022). Spanish LGBTQ+ youth and the role of online networks during the first wave of Covid-19. Social Inclusion, 10(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v10i2.4950
37.
PouwelsJ. L.ValkenburgP. M.BeyensI.van DrielIIKeijsersL. (2021). Social media use and friendship closeness in adolescents’ daily lives: An experience sampling study. Developmental Psychology, 57(2), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001148
38.
RanziniG.HoekE. (2017). To you who (I think) are listening: Imaginary audience and impression management on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.047
39.
RedmanP. (2021). Too much, too young? Social media, moral panics and young people’s mental health. In PerriamJ.CarterS. (Eds.), Understanding digital societies (pp. 387–422). Sage/The Open University. https://oro.open.ac.uk/81919/
SaramandiA.AuY. K.KoukoutsakisA.ZhengC. Y.GodwinA.Bianchi-BerthouzeN.JewittC.JenkinsonP. M.FotopoulouA. (2024). Tactile emoticons: Conveying social emotions and intentions with manual and robotic tactile feedback during social media communications. PLoS One, 19(6), e0304417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304417
42.
SchønningV.HjetlandG. J.AarøL. E.SkogenJ. C. (2020). Social media use and mental health and well-being among adolescents - a scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1949. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01949
43.
SequeiraG. M.KiddK. M.RankineJ.MillerE.RayK. N.FortenberryJ. D.RichardsonL. P. (2022). Gender-diverse youth’s experiences and satisfaction with telemedicine for gender-affirming care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Transgender Health, 7(2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2020.0148
44.
SultanM.ScholzC.van Den BosW. (2023). Leaving traces behind: Using social media digital trace data to study adolescent wellbeing. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100281
45.
ThompsonC. G.KimR. S.AloeA. M.BeckerB. J. (2017). Extracting the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics from typical regression results. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1277529
46.
TownerE.GrintJ.LevyT.BlakemoreS. J.TomovaL. (2022). Revealing the self in a digital world: A systematic review of adolescent online and offline self-disclosure. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101309
47.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2009). The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents’ existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01405.x
48.
Van der GraaffJ.CarloG.CrocettiE.KootH. M.BranjeS. (2018). Prosocial behavior in adolescence: Gender differences in development and links with empathy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 1086–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0786-1
49.
VenterE. (2019). Challenges for meaningful interpersonal communication in a digital era. Theological Studies, 75(1), a5339. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i1.5339
50.
VogelE. A.RoseJ. P.RobertsL. R.EcklesK. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000047
51.
WalraveM.VanwesenbeeckI.HeirmanW. (2012). Connecting and protecting? Comparing predictors of self-disclosure and privacy settings use between adolescents and adults. Cyberpsychology, 6(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2012-1-3
52.
WeberM.ViehmannC.ZiegeleM.SchemerC. (2020). Online hate does not stay online – How implicit and explicit attitudes mediate the effect of civil negativity and hate in user comments on prosocial behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106192
XiaoS. X.HashiE. C.KorousK. M.EisenbergN. (2019). Gender differences across multiple types of prosocial behavior in adolescence: A meta-analysis of the prosocial tendency measure-revised (PTM-R). Journal of Adolescence, 77(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.09.003
55.
ZilkaG. C. (2021). Attitudes, emotions, and the use of emoji in social networking apps by children, adolescents, and young adults. Interchange, 52(3), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021-09439-z
