This study examines how active participation, financial commitment, and passive participation in the leading social live-streaming service, Twitch.tv, relate to individuals’ psychological well-being. The three dimensions of social capital—structural, relational, and cognitive—as well as parasocial relationship are explored as mediators. Cross-sectional survey data from 396 respondents was analyzed by comparing two fully saturated structural equation models. Findings indicate actively participating in a favorite streamers’ Chat is positively associated with increased well-being. Structural social capital, or having more social interaction ties, positively mediates the relationship between active participation and well-being, as well as financial commitment and well-being. Greater cognitive social capital, or shared values and goals with a favorite streamer, is related to decreased well-being. Parasocial relationship does not significantly mediate the relationship between use and well-being. Our results demonstrate the importance of tangible social ties over the perceived relationships or identification with a favorite streamer.
AnsariS.MunirK.GreggT. (2012). Impact at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’: The role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01042.x
2.
ArregleJ. L.HittM. A.SirmonD. G.VeryP. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00665.x
3.
AskK.SpilkerH. S.HansenM. (2019). The politics of user-platform relationships: Co-Scripting live-streaming on twitch. Tv. First Monday, 24(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i7.9648
4.
BaekY. M.BaeY.JangH. (2013). Social and parasocial relationships on social network sites and their differential relationships with users' psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(7), 512–517. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0510
5.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
6.
BaymN. K.ZhangY. B.LinM. C. (2004). Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the internet, telephone and face-to-face. New Media and Society, 6(3), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041438
7.
BekaluM. A.McCloudR. F.ViswanathK. (2019). Association of social media use with social well-being, positive mental health, and self-rated health: Disentangling routine use from emotional connection to use. Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 46(2_suppl), 69S–80S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119863768
8.
BrandtzægP. B.HeimJ. (2009). Why people use social networking sites. In OzokA. A.ZaphirisP. (eds), Lecture notes in computer science Online Communities and Social Computing (pp. 143–152): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_16
9.
BründlS. (2018). Passive, active, or Co-active? The link between synchronous user participation and willingness to pay for premium options. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii, USA, 2018. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2018.063
10.
BründlS.HessT. (2016). Why do users broadcast? Examining individual motives and social capital on social live streaming platforms. Proceedings of the Pacific Asian Conference on Information Systems, Chiayi, Taiwan, 2016. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2016/332/
11.
BurkeM.KrautR. E. (2016). The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12162
12.
BurkeM.MarlowC.LentoT. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1909–1912). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753613
ChenC. Y.ChangS. L. (2019). Moderating effects of information-oriented versus escapism-oriented motivations on the relationship between psychological well-being and problematic use of video game live-streaming services. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 8(3), 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.8.2019.34
15.
ChiuC. M.HsuM. H.WangE. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001
CohenS.MermelsteinR.KamarckT.HobermanH. M. (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In SarasonI. G.SarasonB. R. (eds), Social support: Theory, research and applications (pp. 73–94): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5115-0_5
18.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
19.
DibbleJ. L.HartmannT.RosaenS. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12063
20.
DienerE.LucasR. E.OishiS.HallN.DonnellanM. B. (2018). Advances and open questions in the science of subjective well-being. Collabra. Psychology, 4(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115
21.
DienerE.TayL.OishiS. (2013). Rising income and the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030487
DiwanjiV.ReedA.FerchaudA.SeibertJ.WeinbrechtV.SellersN. (2020). Don’t just watch, join in: Exploring information behavior and copresence on Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106221
24.
DunnE. W.AkninL. B.NortonM. I. (2014). Prosocial spending and happiness: Using money to benefit others pays off. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413512503
25.
EllisonN. B.SteinfieldC.LampeC. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
26.
ErnalaS. K.BurkeM.LeavittA.EllisonN. B. (2020). How well do people report time spent on Facebook? An evaluation of established survey questions with recommendations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25 Apr 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376435
27.
Escobar-VieraC. G.ShensaA.BowmanN. D.SidaniJ. E.KnightJ.JamesA. E.PrimackB. A. (2018). Passive and active social media use and depressive symptoms among United States adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(7), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0668
GeorgenC.DuncanS. C.CookL. (2015). From lurking to participatory spectatorship: Understanding affordances of the Dota 2 noob stream. In LindwallO.HakkinenP.KoschmanT.TschounikineP.LudvigsenS. (eds), Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference (pp. 581–585), International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. https://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/470/1/393.pdf
30.
GersonJ.PlagnolA. C.CorrP. J. (2017). Passive and active Facebook use measure (PAUM): Validation and relationship to the reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.034
31.
Goodman-DeaneJ.MieczakowskiA.JohnsonD.GoldhaberT.ClarksonP. J. (2016). The impact of communication technologies on life and relationship satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.053
32.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
33.
HartmannT. (2016). Parasocial interaction, parasocial relationships, and well-being. In ReineckeL.OliverM. B. (eds), The routledge handbook of media use and well-being (pp. 131–144), Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714752
34.
HartmannT.StukeD.DaschmannG. (2008). Positive parasocial relationships with drivers affect suspense in racing sport spectators. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.20.1.24
35.
Hilvert-BruceZ.NeillJ. T.SjöblomM.HamariJ. (2018). Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.013
36.
HortonD.WohlR. (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
37.
HouF.GuanZ.LiB.ChongA. Y. L. (2019). Factors influencing people’s continuous watching intention and consumption intention in live streaming. Internet Research, 30(1), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-04-2018-0177
38.
HsuC. L.LinJ. C. C.MiaoY. F. (2020). Why are people loyal to live stream channels? The perspectives of uses and gratifications and media richness theories. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(5), 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0547
39.
HsuM. H.TienS. W.LinH. C.ChangC. M. (2015). Understanding the roles of cultural differences and socio-economic status in social media continuance intention. Information Technology and People, 28(1), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2014-0007
40.
HuM.ZhangM.WangY. (2017). Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? An explanation of dual identification framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.006
41.
JeongS. W.HaS.LeeK. H. (2020). How to measure social capital in an online brand community? A comparison of three social capital scales. Journal of Business Research, 131, 652–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.051
42.
JohnsonM. R.WoodcockJ. (2019a). The impacts of live streaming and Twitch.tv on the video game industry. Media, Culture and Society, 41(5), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718818363
43.
JohnsonM. R.WoodcockJ. (2019b). “And today’s top donator is”: How live streamers on Twitch. tv monetize and gamify their broadcasts. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 205630511988169. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119881694
44.
JosephJ. J. (2020). Facebook, social comparison, and subjective well-being: An examination of the interaction between active and passive Facebook use on subjective well-being. In DesjarlaisM. (Ed.), The psychology and dynamics behind social media interactions (pp. 268–288). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9412-3.ch011
45.
KimC.ShenC. (2020). Connecting activities on social network sites and life satisfaction: A comparison of older and younger users. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106222
46.
KimH. S.KimM. (2020). Viewing sports online together? Psychological consequences on social live streaming service usage. Sport Management Review, 23(5), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.12.007
47.
KrasnovaH.WenningerH.WidjajaT.BuxmannP. (2013). Envy on Facebook: A hidden threat to users' life satisfaction?Proceedings of the 11th international conference on wirtschaftsinformatik, Leipzig, Germany, 25 Jan 2013. https://doi.org/10.7892/BORIS.47080
48.
KrautR.KieslerS.BonevaB.CummingsJ.HelgesonV.CrawfordA. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00248
49.
KrautR.PattersonM.LundmarkV.KieslerS.MukopadhyayT.ScherlisW. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017
50.
LakeyB.CooperC.CroninA.WhitakerT. (2014). Symbolic providers help people regulate affect relationally: Implications for perceived support. Personal Relationships, 21(3), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12038
51.
LeeS. J. (2009). Online communication and adolescent social ties: Who benefits more from internet use?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 509–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01451.x
52.
LimJ. S.ChoeM. J.ZhangJ.NohG. Y. (2020). The role of wishful identification, emotional engagement, and parasocial relationships in repeated viewing of live-streaming games: A social cognitive theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106327
53.
LinK. Y.LuH. P. (2011). Intention to continue using Facebook fan pages from the perspective of social capital theory. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(10), 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0472
54.
LiuD.BaumeisterR. F.YangC. C.HuB. (2019). Retracted: Digital communication media use and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24(5), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz013
McKennaK. Y. A.BarghJ. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social interaction on the internet: A conceptual framework. Media Psychology, 1(3), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0103_4
57.
MeierA.ReineckeL. (2020). 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
58.
NahapietJ.GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373
59.
NieN. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957277
60.
Oestreicher-SingerG.ZalmansonL. (2009). Paying for content or paying for community?” The effect of social involvement on subscribing to media web sites. International conference on information system proceedings. ACM. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2009/9
61.
PennebakerJ. W.ChungC. K. (2011). Expressive writing: Connections to physical and mental health. In FriedmanH. S. (Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The oxford handbook of health psychology (pp. 417–437), Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342819.013.0018
ReineckeL.TrepteS. (2014). Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.030
64.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
65.
RyffC. D.KeyesC. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
66.
SagioglouC.GreitemeyerT. (2014). Facebook’s emotional consequences: Why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 359–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.003
67.
ScheibeK.FietkiewiczK. J.StockW. G. (2016). Information behavior on social live streaming services. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 4(2), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTAP.2016.4.2.1
68.
ShenC.MongeP.WilliamsD. (2014). Virtual brokerage and closure: Network structure and social capital in a massively multiplayer online game. Communication Research, 41(4), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212455197
SuR.TayL.DienerE. (2014). The development and validation of the comprehensive inventory of thriving (CIT) and the Brief inventory of thriving (BIT). Applied psychology. Health and well-being, 6(3), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027
72.
TamirD. I.MitchellJ. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. In GazzanigaM. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (pp. 8038–8043). National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202129109.21
73.
TomaC. L.HancockJ. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212474694
74.
TsaiW.GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/257085
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1169–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x
77.
VerduynP.LeeD. S.ParkJ.ShablackH.OrvellA.BayerJ.YbarraO.JonidesJ.KrossE. (2015). Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057
78.
VerduynP.YbarraO.RésiboisM.JonidesJ.KrossE. (2017). Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well‐being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 274–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033
79.
WanA.WuL. (2020). Understanding the negative consequences of watching social live streaming among Chinese viewers. International Journal of Communication, 14(2020), 5311–5330. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13294/3249
80.
WilliamsD. (2006). On and off the ’Net: Scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 593–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x
WohnD. Y. (2019). Volunteer moderators in twitch micro communities: How they get involved, the roles they play, and the emotional labor they experience. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300390
83.
WohnD. Y.FreemanG.McLaughlinC. (2018). Explaining viewers' emotional, instrumental, and financial support provision for live streamers. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 20 April 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174048
84.
WollebaekD.SelleP. (2003). The importance of passive membership for social capital formation. In HoogheM.StolleD. (eds), Generating social capital (pp. 67–88): Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403979544_4
85.
WulfT.SchneiderF. M.BeckertS. (2020). Watching players: An exploration of media enjoyment on Twitch. Games and Culture, 15(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412018788161
86.
XuH.TanB. C. (2012). Why do I keep checking Facebook: Effects of message characteristics on the formation of social network services addiction. International conference on information system proceedings (pp. 812–823). ACM. https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/78432
