CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Impact of Technology on AdolescentsBullying, Victimization, and AggressionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Getting Fewer “Likes” Than Others on Social Media Elicits Emotional Distress Among Victimized Adolescents

Open access
Lee, Hae Yeon, Jamieson, Jeremy P, Reis, Harry T, Beevers, Christopher G, Josephs, Robert A, Mullarkey, Michael C, O’Brien, Joseph M, Yeager, David S·2020·Child Development
DOI 10.1111/cdev.13422PMC PMC7722198
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Three studies examined the effects of receiving fewer signs of positive feedback than others on social media. In Study 1, adolescents (N = 613, Mage = 14.3 years) who were randomly assigned to receive few (vs. many) likes during a standardized social media interaction felt more strongly rejected, and reported more negative affect and more negative thoughts about themselves. In Study 2 (N = 145), negative responses to receiving fewer likes were associated with greater depressive symptoms reported day-to-day and at the end of the school year. Study 3 (N = 579) replicated Study 1’s main effect of receiving fewer likes and showed that adolescents who already experienced peer victimization at school were the most vulnerable. The findings raise the possibility that technology which makes it easier for adolescents to compare their social status online—even when there is no chance to share explicitly negative comments—could be a risk factor that accelerates the onset of internalizing symptoms among vulnerable youth.

Verified 2026-10-10 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Across three studies with ninth graders, receiving fewer likes than others in a standardized social media task caused greater rejection feelings and negative affect/self-cognitions, even without explicit negative feedback. In a subsample, these rejection feelings predicted poorer daily stress reactivity and increased depressive symptoms 8 months later, and previously victimized adolescents were most vulnerable.

Key findings

  • Study 1 (N = 613): adolescents randomly assigned to receive few vs. many likes reported stronger rejection, M = 3.51 vs. 2.05, t(596) = 8.97, p < .001, d = .84; more negative affect, M = 1.94 vs. 1.61, d = .37; and more negative self-referent cognitions, M = 2.13 vs. 1.69, d = .57.
  • Study 2 (N = 145 in the few-likes condition): rejection feelings after few likes predicted stronger daily stressor–negative affect, b = 0.08, p = .015, and stressor–negative cognition, b = 0.12, p = .013, associations; they also predicted 8-month increases in depressive symptoms, b = 1.12, p = .025, β = 0.20, and clinically significant depression at follow-up, OR = 2.72, 95% CI [1.19, 7.22].
  • Study 3 (N = 579): replicated Study 1’s main effects, with few-likes vs. many-likes differences in rejection, M = 3.79 vs. 2.30, d = .87; negative affect, d = .44; lower state self-esteem, d = −.29; and more characterological trait attributions, d = .32. Prior peer victimization moderated these effects: rejection interaction b = 0.99, p = .002; negative affect b = 0.42, p = .004; negative self-referent cognitions b = 0.55, p = .004.
  • Study 1 found no moderation by gender or race/ethnicity, though girls reported more negative internalizing responses overall.

Methods

  • Three studies with ninth-grade adolescents. Study 1 (N = 613, M age = 14.3) used random assignment to a standardized 3-minute “Get-to-Know-People” social media task with computer-scripted confederates: few likes (N = 454) vs. many likes (N = 159), followed by post-task surveys.
  • Study 2 tracked a subsample from two Study 1 schools (N = 145 assigned to few likes) with 10 days of daily diary reports and an 8-month follow-up using the Children’s Depression Inventory; analyses used multilevel models and regression.
  • Study 3 (N = 579, M age = 15.3) replicated the randomized likes task (few likes N = 279; many likes N = 300) and tested prior peer victimization, measured with six overt/relational victimization items (α = .74), as a moderator.

Limitations

  • Stated: the likes manipulation involved only 11 people, so effects may be conservative relative to real-world social media networks; the study induced only a single occasion of insufficient validation, leaving cumulative effects untested.
  • Stated: the sufficient-likes longitudinal comparison in Study 2 was exploratory and limited by a small sample (N = 24).
  • Evident from the text: the longitudinal daily-diary and 8-month depression analyses were restricted to a subsample from two schools and to adolescents in the few-likes condition, and all key outcomes relied on self-report measures.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cdev.13422

Cites

64 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 46 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, racial/ethnic minority status did not significantly moderate how adolescents responded to insufficient positive feedback on the social media task.

    “Consistent with our expectation, we did not find significant moderation effects by adolescents’ racial/ethnic minority status (such as, being identified as non-White/other racial or ethnic groups), interaction ps > .15.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 2, among adolescents with higher rejection feelings (+1 SD) after the social media task, days with more negative social stressors were accompanied by greater negative affect.

    “Among adolescents with higher rejection feelings (+1 SD) after the social media task, days with more negative social stressors were accompanied by greater negative affect, b= 0.25, SE= 0.04, t(106)= 5.90, p < .001, and negative cognitions, b= 0.51, SE= 0.06, t(119)= 8.06, p < .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, random assignment to the few likes condition caused no long-term changes in global self-esteem at 8 months.

    “As expected, analyses found no long-term manipulation effects, b= 0.03, p= .765 for 8-month global self-esteem; b= −0.48, p= .424 for 8-month global stress, consistent with the conclusion that receiving few likes was meaningful in the moment (and therefore useful for testing the hypotheses), but does not cause enduring harm.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 2, there was a Daily Stressor × Social Media Feelings of Rejection cross-level interaction predicting daily negative cognitions.

    “Next, there was a Daily Stressor (Level-1) × Social Media Feelings of Rejection (Level-2) cross-level interaction predicting daily negative affect, b= 0.08, SE=0.03, t(95)= 2.48, p= .015, and daily negative cognitions, b= 0.12, SE=0.05, t(109)= 2.53, p= .013.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, gender did not moderate the effect of the likes manipulation on negative responses.

    “However, girls and boys were not differentially impacted by the manipulation (that is, few likes), interaction ps > .20.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • May combine two claims. 17

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In Study 1, girls reported greater negative affect than boys.

    “As in past research (Hankin & Abramson, 2001; Nesi & Prinstein, 2015), girls exhibited more negative internalizing responses overall: Feelings of rejection (Mboys= 2.83, SDboys= 1.78; Mgirls= 3.37, SDgirls= 1.89, t(589)= 3.47, p < .001), negative affect (Mboys= 1.70, SDboys= 0.91; Mgirls= 1.97, SDgirls= 0.91, t(596)= 3.51, p < .001), and negative self-referent cognitions (Mboys= 1.92, SDboys= 0.83”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, daily negative affect and negative cognitions repeatedly assessed over ten days in naturalistic social settings were associated with concurrent depressive symptoms.

    “As a preliminary matter, daily negative affect and negative cognitions repeatedly assessed over ten days in naturalistic social settings were associated with concurrent depressive symptoms, rs = .35 ~ .37, ps < .001, as expected.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Adolescents with no face-to-face peer victimization reported a significant but weaker effect of few likes on negative affect (simple effect b=0.20, t=2.59, p=.01).

    “simple effect at 1, b= 0.20, t= 2.59, p= .01).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Acute rejection feelings after insufficient likes predicted a binary outcome of clinically significant depression at 8-month follow-up (CDI sum >19), b=1.00, SE=0.45, z=2.21, p=.027, OR=2.72, 95% CI[1.19, 7.22].

    “Second, a logistic regression found that acute rejection feelings after insufficient likes significantly predicted a binary outcome of clinically significant depression at 8-month follow-up (coded 1 if the 8-month CDI sum scores were above a standard cutoff score of 19 out of 52, which is suitable for non-clinical samples; Timbremont, Braet, & Dreessen, 2004), b= 1.00, SE= 0.45, z= 2.21, p= .027,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Timbremont, Braet, & Dreessen, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Previously victimized adolescents reported stronger rejection feelings, more negative internalizing-type affect, and greater characterological self-trait attributions in response to receiving few likes from unacquainted others.

    “Study 3 found that previously victimized adolescents reported stronger rejection feelings, more negative internalizing-type affect, and greater characterological self-trait attributions (e.g., “maybe I am not a likable person”) in response to receiving few likes from unacquainted others (Study 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, the completion rate for the daily surveys was satisfactory (80%-100% across days).

    “The completion rate for the daily surveys was satisfactory (80% ~ 100% across days, see Table S8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, research assistants were blind to condition assignment and to hypotheses.

    “Research assistants blind to condition assignment and to hypotheses verbally informed participants that they could skip any questions or withdraw from the study at any phase without penalty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Receiving few likes was meaningful in the moment but does not cause enduring harm.

    “As expected, analyses found no long-term manipulation effects, b= 0.03, p= .765 for 8-month global self-esteem; b= −0.48, p= .424 for 8-month global stress, consistent with the conclusion that receiving few likes was meaningful in the moment (and therefore useful for testing the hypotheses), but does not cause enduring harm.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, the sample size was determined by the attempt to recruit a maximum number of active consent students, and the decision to stop data collection was made without knowledge of the results.

    “The sample size was determined by our attempt to recruit a maximum number of active consent students from the schools during the 2015–2017 school years; the decision to stop data collection was made without knowledge of the results of the studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, 27 of 613 participants (4.4%) were coded as expressing suspicion about the task, which is a low rate.

    “27 out of total 613 participants (4.4%) were coded as expressing suspicion about the task—e.g., asking whether other people were real—which is a low rate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The Study 2 subsample did not differ from Study 1 participants in demographics and baseline depressive symptoms.

    “The subsample of Study 2 participants did not differ from Study 1 participants in terms of demographics and baseline depressive symptoms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many status-relevant experiences are negative, such as being excluded, ignored, rejected, or humiliated, and are risk factors for internalizing mental health problems.

    “However many status-relevant experiences are negative (being excluded, ignored, rejected, or humiliated), and are risk factors for internalizing mental health problems (Crone & Dahl, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Crone & Dahl, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Getting another person to like one's self-expression elicits feelings of validation, confers positive status and regard, and leads to positive emotions.

    “Likes on social media are quantifiable, public signs of status (see Nesi & Prinstein, 2018 for digital status-seeking on social media), and so getting another person to like one’s self-expression elicits feelings of validation, conferring positive status and regard, and thus leads to positive emotions (Davey, Allen, Harrison, Dwyer, & Yücel, 2009; Gunther Moor, van Leijenhorst, Rombouts, Crone, &”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Davey, Allen, Harrison, Dwyer, & Yücel, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gunther Moor, van Leijenhorst, Rombouts, Crone, & Van der Molen, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Research on the need-threat model has shown that ostracism can elicit negative affect and reduce self-esteem even in the absence of active, targeted negative feedback such as bullying, harassment, or aggression.

    “Research on the need-threat model has shown that ostracism can elicit negative affect (Sebastian et al., 2010), and reduce self-esteem (Jamieson, Harkins, & Williams, 2010; Leary, Terdal, Tambor, & Downs, 1995) even in the absence of active, targeted negative feedback such as bullying, harassment, or aggression.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sebastian et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jamieson, Harkins, & Williams, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Leary, Terdal, Tambor, & Downs, 1995 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Random assignment in Study 3 was successful; no pre-existing group differences were detected.

    “Supplementary analyses indicated that the random assignment was successful, no pre-existing group differences were detected (see Table S12).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Insufficient validation on social media is a modern form of ostracism that may elicit feelings of rejection, a sign that adolescents' developmentally salient need for status and acceptance has been threatened.

    “Insufficient validation on social media is a modern form of ostracism that may elicit feelings of rejection, a sign that adolescents’ developmentally salient need for status and acceptance have been threatened (Crone & Dahl, 2012; Dahl, Allen, Wilbrecht, & Suleiman, 2018; Yeager et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Crone & Dahl, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dahl, Allen, Wilbrecht, & Suleiman, 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Yeager et al., 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Negative affect was assessed with a composite score of four items (feeling stressful, sad, anxious, and embarrassed), α=.74.

    “Negative affect was assessed with a composite score of four items: feeling stressful, sad, anxious, and embarrassed (1=Not at all ~ 5= A great deal), α = .74; rs = .37 ~ .54, ps < .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents are thought to be more vulnerable to status-relevant feedback and stress-induced internalizing disorders than adults.

    “However, no prior studies have administered this task or similar social media-like interaction paradigms with adolescents, who are thought to be more vulnerable to status-relevant feedback and stress-induced internalizing disorders than adults (Crone & Dahl, 2012; Hammen, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Crone & Dahl, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hammen, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Prior peer victimization was measured with six items from the overt and relational victimization scale, with a composite score averaging all six items (α=.74).

    “For moderation analyses, we used a composite score averaging all six items (α= .74; M= 1.30, SD= 0.45, Min 1 ~ Max 3.83, 53% adolescents with non-zero experience of face-to-face peer victimization in the past two weeks), in which a higher score indicates more frequent exposures to peer victimization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Negative state self-esteem was measured with three items, α=.97.

    “negative state self-esteem (Thomaes et al., 2010), with three items (e.g., I feel satisfied with/ I feel good about/ I am proud of myself right now; 1=Not at all ~ 5= A great deal; reverse-coded), α = .97; rs = .85 ~ .95, ps < .001;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Thomaes et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Characterological trait attributions were measured with two items, α=.80.

    “characterological trait attributions (adapted from Schacter, White, Chang, & Juvonen, 2015), two items (e.g., Maybe I’m not a likable person; Kids like me are just not meant to be popular; 1= Strongly disagree ~ 7= Strongly agree), α = .80; r = .66, p < .001.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schacter, White, Chang, & Juvonen, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The Study 3 sample size yielded >99% power to detect the effect size for feelings of rejection in Study 1 (d=.84) at p<.05.

    “This sample size yielded >99% power to detect the effect size for feelings of rejection in Study 1 (d= .84) at p < .05.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The exploratory analysis within the sufficient likes condition is limited due to small sample size (N=24).

    “However, this exploratory analysis within sufficient likes condition is limited due to small sample size (N=24).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Insufficient validation may trigger negative affect and negative self-relevant cognitions, which are known risk factors for depression.

    “Insufficient validation may then trigger consequences of this need threat, such as negative affect (e.g., feeling distressed, sad, anxious, or embarrassed), and negative self-relevant cognitions (viewing oneself as less worthy, or less likable), which are known risk factors for depression (Hankin & Abramson, 2001; Masten et al., 2011; Slavich, O’Donovan, Epel, & Kemeny, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hankin & Abramson, 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Masten et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Slavich, O’Donovan, Epel, & Kemeny, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The moderating effect of victimization was not due to victimized youth expecting not to be liked; rather, when insufficiently liked, they were differentially harmed by the experience.

    “It was not that victimized youth were expecting not to be liked; it was that, when insufficiently liked, they were differentially harmed by the experience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    These findings are in line with previous research showing that adolescents' affective sensitivity to peer rejection events is associated with prospective risk for depression.

    “And these findings are in line with previous research showing that adolescents’ affective sensitivity to peer rejection events is associated with prospective risk for depression (Masten et al., 2011; Nolan, Flynn, & Garber, 2003; Silk et al., 2014; Slavich et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Masten et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Nolan, Flynn, & Garber, 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Silk et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Insufficient validation on social media was a brief yet powerful emotional event that threatened adolescents' social status and elicited emotional distress.

    “Our studies found that insufficient validation on social media was a brief yet powerful emotional event that threatened adolescents’ social status and elicited emotional distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Adolescents are highly attuned to symbolic social status cues communicated through differing amounts of positive evaluative feedback on social media and experience emotional distress when their momentary social status does not measure up to others.

    “It suggests that adolescents are highly attuned to symbolic social status cues communicated through differing amounts of positive evaluative feedback on social media and experience emotional distress when their momentary social status does not measure up to others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some social media applications have begun to acknowledge possible negative psychological consequences of quantified evaluative feedback, and have modified (or considered doing so) platforms to not displaying real-time, quantified social validation to mitigate users' psychological pressures.

    “For instance, it is encouraging that some social media applications have begun to acknowledge the possible negative psychological consequences of quantified evaluative feedback, and have modified (or considered doing so) platforms to not displaying real-time, quantified social validation to mitigate users’ psychological pressures (Newcomb, 2019, May 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Newcomb, 2019, May 1

      Not checked in the free run.

29 of 29

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Adolescents who felt worse and thought more poorly of themselves when socially stressful events happened could be characterized as coping poorly.

    “We assumed that adolescents who felt worse and thought more poorly of themselves when socially stressful events happened could be characterized as coping poorly.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Insufficient positive validation on social media is attributionally ambiguous; it is rarely obvious why others did not like one’s post.

    “First, insufficient positive validation is attributionally-ambiguous, in that it is rarely obvious to a person why others did not like one’s post.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Peer victimization in face-to-face contexts might increase sensitivity to any experience relevant to social status.

    “Second, peer victimization in face-to-face contexts might increase sensitivity to any experience relevant to social status, and therefore enhance the effects of insufficient validation on social media.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The vast majority of studies in this area have used correlational designs that preclude direct claims about the causal effect of social media.

    “This was important because the vast majority of studies in this area have used correlational designs that preclude direct claims about the causal effect of social media.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    All past research on peer rejection focused on peer rejection events that involved explicitly negative feedback.

    “However, all past research on this topic focused on peer rejection events that involved explicitly negative feedback (e.g., dislike, exclusion).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prior experimental work on adolescents has not examined a network of people posting self-disclosures and exchanging likes as a means to gain public, quantifiable signs of social status.

    “Prior experimental work on adolescents has not examined a network of people posting self-disclosures and exchanging “likes” as a means to gain public, quantifiable signs of social status as is done on typical social media platforms.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior studies have administered this task or similar social media-like interaction paradigms with adolescents.

    “However, no prior studies have administered this task or similar social media-like interaction paradigms with adolescents, who are thought to be more vulnerable to status-relevant feedback and stress-induced internalizing disorders than adults (Crone & Dahl, 2012; Hammen, 2005).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No evidence-based interventions are currently available to address adolescents’ social and emotional struggles with social media feedback.

    “To our knowledge, no evidence-based interventions are currently available to address adolescents’ social and emotional struggles with social media feedback.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most programs are not tailored to educate adolescents in terms of how to make sense of immense amounts of social status comparison cues on social media.

    “Nor are most programs tailored to educate adolescents in terms of how to make sense of immense amounts of social status comparison cues on social media.”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a recent experimental study, U.S. adolescents who received fewer 'likes' reported more negative affect and negative thoughts about themselves, and those who experienced more negative reactions in the experiment reported greater depressive symptoms over time.

    “In a recent experimental study, U.S. adolescents who received fewer 'likes' reported more negative affect and negative thoughts about themselves, and those who experienced more negative reactions in the experiment reported greater depressive symptoms over time (Lee et al., 2020).”

    From The Perfect Storm: A Developmental-Sociocultural Framework for the Role of Social Media in Adolescent Girls' Body Image Concerns and Mental Health. (2022) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2020

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(596) = 8.97reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(596) = 8.97, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(604) = 3.94reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(604)= 3.94, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(599) = 6.08reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(599) = 6.08, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(589) = 3.47reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(589)= 3.47, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(596) = 3.51reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(596)= 3.51, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(592) = 2.34reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020

    “t(592)= 2.34, p = .02”

  • Consistentt(95) = 2.48reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .015

    “t(95)= 2.48, p = .015”

  • Consistentt(109) = 2.53reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013

    “t(109)= 2.53, p = .013”

  • Consistentt(106) = 5.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(106)= 5.90, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(119) = 8.06reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(119)= 8.06, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(84) = 2.34reported p = .021 · recomputed p = .022

    “t(84)= 2.34, p = .021”

  • Consistentt(95) = 4.37reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(95)= 4.37, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(122) = 2.28reported p = .025 · recomputed p = .024

    “t(122)= 2.28, p = .025”

  • Consistentt(121) = 2.33reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .021

    “t(121)= 2.33, p = .022”

  • Consistentz = 2.21reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .027

    “z= 2.21, p = .027”

  • Consistentz = 2.29reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .022

    “z= 2.29, p = .022”

  • Consistentt(21) = -0.85reported p = .406 · recomputed p = .405

    “t(21)= −0.85, p = .406”

  • Consistentz = -1.11reported p = .267 · recomputed p = .267

    “z= −1.11, p = .267”

  • Consistentt(575) = 10.5reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(575)= 10.50, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(575) = 5.23reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(575)= 5.23, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(575) = -3.44reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(575)= −3.44, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(573) = 3.81reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(573)= 3.81, p < .001”

22 of 22

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Study 2 regression coefficient and standard error do not match the reported t statistic

    Minor

    The reported coefficient divided by its standard error is 1.00 / 0.47 = 2.13, not 2.33. Rounding the coefficient and standard error to two decimal places cannot account for the difference.

    Reported 2.33 · recomputed 2.12766

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Kovacs, 1992, Children’s Depression Inventory: Manual
  2. Kuznetsova, 2015, lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models (Version 2.0-29)
  3. Newcomb, 2019, Twitter and Instagram are starting to imagine a world without “likes
  4. Williams, 2009, Advances in experimental social psychology, 275

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lee, H. Y., Jamieson, J. P., Reis, H. T., Beevers, C. G., Josephs, R. A., Mullarkey, M. C., O’Brien, J. M., & Yeager, D. S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Corresponding author
  • Lee, Hae Yeon
  • Yeager, David S
ORCID
Venue
Child Development
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2020-11-01
Volume
91
Issue
6
Pages
2141-2159
ISSN
  • 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8624
DOI
10.1111/cdev.13422
PMC
PMC7722198
OpenAlex
W3083032891
Semantic Scholar
8cc1c87e738a94859db1a04cf494e95ec6aab5f6
Cited by
122
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
15.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University) (submittedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD042849, R01 HD084772-01, R01 HD084772‐01)
  • William T. Grant Foundation
  • The Society for Research in Child Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
social media likes, peer victimization, adolescents, emotional distress, depressive symptoms, perceived rejection, internalizing problems
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, Adolescent, Psychology, Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Peer Group, Schools, Psychological Distance, Crime Victims, Bullying, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review