This research project addresses the role algorithms play in curating meaningful social connections on social media by examining perceived algorithm responsiveness (PAR) and perceived algorithm insensitivity (PAI) within the framework of the bidirectional model of social internet use and loneliness. In study 1, a cross-sectional survey found that PAR and PAI on Instagram are both associated with loneliness, and that the association for PAR depends upon age. In study 2, a 3-wave longitudinal survey replicates these associations. Online relational maintenance behaviors explained the negative relationship between PAR and loneliness but not the positive relationship for PAI and loneliness. Loneliness at wave t-1 predicted perceptions of algorithm responsiveness at wave t but not vice versa. This research contributes to social media uses and effects by theorizing and empirically testing the connection of algorithms with loneliness, finding that perceptions of social media algorithms are associated with perceived social isolation.
AncuM. (2012). Older adults on Facebook: A survey examination of motives and use of social networking by people 50 and older. Florida Communication Journal, 40(2), 1–12
BhandariA.BimoS. (2022). Why’s everyone on TikTok now? The algorithmized self and the future of self-making on social media. Social Media + Society, 8(1), 205630512210862. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221086241
5.
BirnbaumG. E.MizrahiM.HoffmanG.ReisH. T.FinkelE. J.SassO. (2016). What robots can teach us about intimacy: The reassuring effects of robot responsiveness to human disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.064
6.
BrewerR. N.SchoenebeckS.LeeK.SuryadevaraH. (2021). Challenging passive social media use: Older adults as caregivers online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1145/3449197
7.
BucherT. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2016.1154086
8.
BurkeM.KrautR. E. (2014). Growing closer on Facebook: Changes in tie strength through social network site use. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4187–4196. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557094.
9.
CacioppoJ. T.CacioppoS. (2018). Loneliness in the modern age: An Evolutionary theory of loneliness (ETL). In OlsonJ. M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 58, pp. 127–197). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2018.03.003.
10.
ChangP. F.ChoiY. H.BazarovaN. N.LöckenhoffC. E. (2015). Age differences in online social networking: Extending socioemotional selectivity theory to social network sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1029126
11.
ChoiM.ChoungH. (2021). Mediated communication matters during the COVID-19 pandemic: The use of interpersonal and masspersonal media and psychological well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(8), 2397–2418. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211029378
12.
ChoiM.TomaC. L. (2022). An experiment on the effects of self-disclosure on perceived partner responsiveness and intimacy in zero-acquaintance relationships. Communication Studies, 73(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2022.2084429
13.
CrastaD.RoggeR. D.ManiaciM. R.ReisH. T. (2021). Toward an optimized measure of perceived partner responsiveness: Development and validation of the perceived responsiveness and insensitivity scale. Psychological Assessment, 33(4), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000986
14.
JiangL. C.HancockJ. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships: Long-distance intimacy process. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12029
15.
DeVitoM. A. (2021). Adaptive folk theorization as a path to algorithmic literacy on changing platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476080
16.
DeVitoM. A., (2022). How transfeminine TikTok creators navigate the algorithmic trap of visibility via folk theorization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555105
17.
DogruelL.MasurP.JoeckelS. (2021). Development and validation of an algorithm literacy scale for internet users. Communication Methods and Measures, 16(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2021.1968361
18.
EllisonN. B.TriệuP.SchoenebeckS.BrewerR.IsraniA. (2020). Why we don’t click: Interrogating the relationship between viewing and clicking in social media contexts by exploring the “non-click.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(6), 402–426. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa013
19.
EslamiM.KarahaliosK.SandvigC.VaccaroK.RickmanA.HamiltonK.KirlikA. (2016). First I “like” it, then I hide it: Folk theories of social feeds. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 7–12 May 2016, 2371–2382. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858494
20.
FoxJ.McEwanB. (2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418
21.
FrisonE.EggermontS. (2020). Toward an integrated and differential approach to the relationships between loneliness, different types of facebook use, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Communication Research, 47(5), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215617506
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.
24.
HayesA. F.RockwoodN. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859633
KrossE.VerduynP.DemiralpE.ParkJ.LeeD. S.LinN.ShablackH.JonidesJ.YbarraO. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS ONE, 8(8), Article e69841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841
27.
LawrenceD.HunterS. C.CunneenR.HoughtonS. J.ZadowC.RosenbergM.WoodL.ShiltonT. (2022). Reciprocal relationships between trajectories of loneliness and screen media use during adolescence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(5), 1306–1317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02066-3
28.
LeeA. Y.MieczkowskiH.EllisonN. B.HancockJ. T. (2022). The algorithmic crystal: Conceptualizing the self through algorithmic personalization on TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, CSCW2, 6, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1145/3555601
29.
McEwanB. (2013). Sharing, caring, and surveilling: An actor–partner interdependence model examination of facebook relational maintenance strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16(12), 863–869. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0717
30.
McEwanB.CarpenterC. J. (2020). Networked maintenance: The effect of Facebook relational maintenance on network centrality. Communication Studies, 71(2), 187–202. https://doi-org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1725081
31.
McEwanB.SumnerE.EdenJ.FletcherJ. (2018). The effects of Facebook relational maintenance on friendship quality: An investigation of the Facebook relational maintenance measure. Communication Research Reports, 35(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1361393
32.
MeierA.ReineckeL. (2021). Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review. Communication Research, 48(8), 1182–1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220958224
33.
MengJ.DaiY. N. (2021). Emotional support from AI Chatbots: Should a supportive partner self-disclose or not?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(4), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab005
NowlandR.NeckaE. A.CacioppoJ. T. (2018). Loneliness and social internet use: Pathways to reconnection in a digital world?Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 13(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617713052
36.
OrbenA. (2020). Teenagers, screens and social media: A narrative review of reviews and key studies. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(4), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01825-4
37.
PenningtonN.HallJ. A. (2021). Does Facebook-enabled communication influence weak-tie relationships over time? A longitudinal investigation into mediated relationship maintenance. Communication Monographs, 88(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1854476
38.
RainsS. A.PavlichC. A.TsetsiE.AkersC. (2020). Evaluating the scope and theoretical mechanisms of person-centered social support: The Case of the comforting computer program. Communication Research, 47(4), 512–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219852554
RussellD. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2
41.
SelcukE.GunaydinG.OngA. D.AlmeidaD. M. (2016). Does partner responsiveness predict hedonic and eudaimonic well-being? A 10-year longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 78(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12272
42.
SimpsonE.SemaanB. (2021). For you, or for"you"?: Everyday LGBTQ+ encounters with TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, CSCW3, 4, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432951
43.
SundarS. S. (2020). Rise of machine agency: A framework for studying the psychology of human–ai interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026
44.
TaylorS. H.BazarovaN. N. (2018). Revisiting media multiplexity: A longitudinal analysis of media use in romantic relationships. Journal of Communication, 68(6), 1104–1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy055
45.
TaylorS. H.ChoiM. (2022). An initial conceptualization of algorithm responsiveness: Comparing algorithm perceptions across social media platforms. Social Media + Society, 8(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221144322
46.
TaylorS. H.ZhaoP.BazarovaN. N. (2022). Social media and close relationships: A puzzle of connection and disconnection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.12.004
47.
TwengeJ. M.SpitzbergB. H.CampbellW. K. (2019). Less in-person social interaction with peers among U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6), 1892–1913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519836170
48.
ValkenburgP. M.van DrielI. I.BeyensI. (2022). The associations of active and passive social media use with well-being: A critical scoping review. New Media & Society, 24(2), 530–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211065425
49.
ZaroualiB.BoermanS. C.de VreeseC. H. (2021). Is this recommended by an algorithm? The development and validation of the algorithmic media content awareness scale (AMCA-scale). Telematics and Informatics, 62, 101607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101607
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
