Recommendation
DOI or URL of the report: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/erjvz
Version of the report: 8
, posted 25 Sep 2024, validated 25 Sep 2024Dear Margarita Panayiotou and co-authors,
Thank you for all careful revisisions. I've received re-reviews from all three experts and they consider the study ready for publication now. I agree with them. I have only three very minor things:
1. The title now reads "Stage 2 Registered Report". I believe this is a mistake, as there is no reason to have 'stage 2' in the title. Please check.
2. Please remove or edit the words “analysis process has been documented” which seems to be accidentally forgotten in the middle of a sentence.
3. I cannot find COIs stated in the paper. Please add a statement or correct me if I just fail to find it.
Replying to the above will also give you one more opportunity to proofread the work before final approval. Regarding style, I encourage you to revisit especially parts that refer to measure development; it's not always clear whether you refer to your own measure or global measure development. E.g., "Our study provides important insights into adolescent social media experiences and represents the first stage of a wider endeavour for robust measure development" -- there are certainly earlier efforts to qualitatively map out you people's social media use and wellbeing even in the UK (e.g., Conroy et al. 2023). Such clarificaitons can further improve the work. Looking forward to the final version!
Veli-Matti Karhulahti
Reference
Conroy, D., Chadwick, D., Fullwood, C., & Lloyd, J. (2023). “You have to know how to live with it without getting to the addiction part”: British young adult experiences of smartphone overreliance and disconnectivity. Psychology of Popular Media, 12(4), 471. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000425
I read the revised version of the manuscript with interest and am happy with the author's responses to my points raised.
The study has demonstrated significant advancements and improvements since the initial review, resulting in a well-executed piece of research with substantial contributions to the field of adolescent mental health and social media. The refinements made have notably enhanced both the quality and the impact of the study. I have no further comments.
Jana Papcunová
I am happy with the rewrites that have been made to this version of the paper. My previous review was largely based on comments about structuring the rewriting to make it clear what was addressing the hypotheses and research questions. The authors have clearly made substantial changes to the way the paper is written, including adding a section titled ‘Social media experience: heterogeneity and multidimensionality', and have revised the themes.
DOI or URL of the report: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/erjvz
Version of the report: 6
, posted 02 Jun 2024, validated 02 Jun 2024I enjoyed reviewing this Stage II Registered Report on social media measurement development, after having reviewerd the Stage I. I am not an expert in qualitative methods, so would recommend an additional reviewer with this expertise to examine the manuscript. Overall I found it compelling and measured. My only two points were:
1) At the end of results sub-sections, e.g. line 548-550, the authors sometimes refer back to the scale development in a very off-hand/brief way. It would be good to remind the reader more specifically what these results could show for the scale development, e.g. defining what is meant by 'items' as they might have forgotten that the ultimate aim of this paper is to do scale development.
2) I think a bit more care should be given about talking about age/gender differences due to the small sample size and due to there only being one group for each age group (or two for one) and for the groups often being mixed gender, it might be that this would have changed the results substantially. This should be noted in the limitations, and potentially in the results.
Signed,
Amy Orben
The study is a valuable contribution to the understanding of adolescent social media experiences and their relation to mental health. The authors have laid a solid foundation for future research and measure development. My background as a researcher and practicing psychologist leads me to a few comments.
Experiencing bullying, racism, or other forms of online harassment (ex. Like there’s just people that bully people. Like I actually experienced racism on Roblox, like how is that even possible) may lead to feelings of sadness, anxiety, depression, or low self-esteem. Persistent exposure to such negative experiences can exacerbate these effects over time and contribute to long-term mental health issues.
More to read: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1118736
Furthermore, adolescents may gradually become desensitized to online harassment or discrimination. Phrases like "you get used to it now, so it’s kind of like you don’t care" indicate a normalization of harmful online conduct. The normalization of toxic online behavior is concerning.
More to read: https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2023.2187350
Overall, comments like the ones you described can have significant implications for adolescents' mental health and well-being. It is important to recognize these potential effects and provide support and resources to help adolescents navigate the challenges of online interactions in a healthy and constructive manner. I was just wondering whether “Closure and Feedback” was provided: A debrief session that can offer closure and allow the participants to provide feedback on their experience, including what they found valuable and any concerns they may have.
The methodology employed in the study is robust, focusing on qualitative insights from adolescents in North-West England. The authors have commendably acknowledged the limitations regarding the generalizability of the findings, primarily due to the regional focus on North-West England and the socio-economic background of the participants. To enhance the study's robustness and provide a broader context, it would be beneficial to incorporate comparative data from sources like Eurobarometer or Eurostat. These sources offer extensive data on social media use and mental health across various European regions trends (ex. Eurobarometer, Media & News Survey, Eurostat, Young people and digital world etc), allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of how the findings of the study align or differ from broader European trends.
This is a strong, impressive, and interesting piece of work. A lot of thought and work has clearly gone into the data collection and analysis, and I think it will make a valuable contribution to literature. I was unable to identify any substantial deviation from the Stage 1 report. In general, the data collected appears to be appropriate for answering the RQs, collected over a diverse sample during lengthy focus groups and analysed by a very thorough and transparent process. The introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses are the same as the approved Stage 1 submission, and there are no further unregistered analyses.
There are slight differences in the registered and actual procedures, but I do not believe they make any significant difference to the strength of the study. Namely, participants were recruited through three rather than four secondary schools, with N=26 participants rather than a planned N=32 (this is explained as due to recruitment issues, and makes perfect sense.) The process for analysis and anonymisation also appears to have been followed.
My only significant point is around the organisation of the paper in a way which answers the RQs and tests the hypotheses.
The authors’ hypotheses were twofold:
H1: We expect heterogeneity in the motivations and experiences of social media use and types of platforms used, especially between different age groups.
H2: We expect that social media experience will be multidimensional with key dimensions like cyberbullying, social comparison, fear of missing out, and social support and connection to be discussed.
These are framed as having relevance for all three research questions, which encompass motivations underpinning social media use, social media experiences in light of mental health, and views of risks and benefits associated with using social media.
I did not feel that the two hypotheses were meaningfully addressed or referred to in the text at any point in the results and discussion, beyond one reference to each. I understand that to an extent, their assessment emerges naturally, for instance, with points such as “More broadly, whilst some young people found motivation or inspiration in the content that others shared, others felt demotivated by feeling that they did not match up,” which serves to answer H2. However, the hypotheses have been formulated and presented for a reason, and it feels like they should be referred to continuously throughout the results and discussion, with specific reflection dedicated in text to each hypothesis and whether it has been met. Indeed, how do you decide whether hypothesis 1, for instance, is met? When do you make the decision that heterogeneity does, in fact, exist? More detail on this would be good.
Similarly, I was a little confused by the lack of discussion of social media experiences in light of mental health in the Results section. In terms of the other two RQs, the themes are literally grouped to address them, but mental health is only mentioned within the descriptions of themes which address those other research questions. Given that this is a focus of your work, it would be useful to see mental health more drawn out and highlighted throughout the Results and Discussion sections.
Finally, a very minor point. On page 3, you write, “To add to this landscape, the field is highly polarised with some work arguably aiming to instil a sense of alarm (e.g.,Twenge, 2020).” This is strong language - I’m aware of the polarisation in the field, but do not believe researchers like Twenge carry out their work with the intention of creating alarm, and more likely share a common goal with the rest of us to add to knowledge in the most meaningful way. I would advise rephrasing this sentence.
All in all, like I said, this is a great piece of work and I think it will be an excellent contribution to literature. I really like the methods you’ve chosen, particularly with the involvement of young researchers. Best of luck with this project going forward.
Elena Petrovskaya.
