Abstract

The current research is aimed at exploring the "Development of SNS as a New Platform of Interaction Among Teenagers and its Consequences on Family Bonding." Data was collected from the teenage students of colleges and Schools. The present research is a survey-based study using Media Dependency and Uses & Gratification as its theoretical foundation keeping in view the major concepts. A sample of 400 respondents is selected using the purposive sampling technique. The main social interaction patterns are Audio Chat, Gif, Messages, and Video Chat. The analysis of findings reveals that WhatsApp more affects teenagers' social interaction patterns (68%). It is observed from the findings that Facebook more frequently affects teenagers' bonding with Friends (61%). A correlation test is applied in this study. The study's findings supported a positive relationship between the frequency of use of social media and the effects on social interaction patterns of teenagers in terms of communication, interaction, gathering and socialization. Social media has significantly affected youngsters in building bondings with friends as more sharing of feelings takes place with friends over distance instead of families.

Key Words

New Media Applications, Teenagers' Interaction Patterns, Social Media and Family Bondings, Facebook Family, WhatsApp Communication

Introduction

The explosion of digital technologies has changed the way individuals interact with each other, but conventional ways of communication are still important and useful in targeting a target audience amid the emergence of websites, blogs, and social media. The traditional methods of communication are face-to-face communication, telephone communication, and broadcast media channels which include television and radio. People also interact with each other through letters. They sent letters to each other. But now, the communication and the methods of interaction are different. People now use SNS to interact with each other (Coleman et al., 2018). Social networking sites have gained a significant role in our daily lives. These sites are contributing not only contributing in our social life but also to religious and political spheres as well. Linking and contacting people has become very easy and simple (Sawyer & Chen, 2012). 

The link between SNS and family relationships is the most important field which has been explored in the whole world. In this aspect, a flourishing concern associated with SNS has been noted to the growing reformation in the behavior and concern of people towards their families. Once a time when people in the world were more aware of relations, family issues, and their companions but the scheme was altered in the late time. Persons who spend more time with their parents and their relatives now spend a lot of time using SNS like TikTok, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and YouTube. It has been a dispute that because of the excessive use of these applications, a lot of families are now missing the close emotional promises that are productive when they have more social contact (Dovidio et al., 2011).

This shows that SNS have an impact lot on family relationships. Significant usage of SNS has been found to take part in the loneliness of teenagers as they are confined to their rooms only and they all skip the family parties. Teenagers who are used to the usage of SNS do not understand the blackness of time. In Pakistan and in the whole globe, a lot of use of SNS is a hazard for teenagers (abid).

The growing vague of SNS are dramatic characteristics of modern human society, especially among teenagers. They are the hugest users of SNS like TikTok, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and YouTube. The most important facts that were in social media statistics observed that in 2014 Instagram was the most important cherished social media application of 23% of teenagers and also the social media statistics of YouTube that were observed in 2014 shows that 40% of teenagers use YouTube on mobile phones. According to McAfee's report (2014), 66% of teenagers use more interest in SNS than in other persons. When they transfer their pictures, 72% of teenagers have a wish that they receive likes from their friends and family circles. 72%  of them feel more excited and they feel that they become famous when they receive more likes and comments and when no one likes their pictures, they become sad (Kumari & Verma, 2015).

Literature Review

With regards to B. Bi. (2013) in this blog post, researcher plan to examine YouTube's design patterns and function to explain impacts among its users on social behavior. Crumlish and Malone (2012) pointed out, to continue with interface patterns, that interaction patterns allow users to communicate with the material and with each other. Therefore, the interface framework of YouTube collaborates with patterns of engagement such as; sign in, subscribe networks, stream operation, messages, tags, chat, suggestions, etc.

Amanda (2020), in his research, explores and addresses how teenagers who use social media who conducted motivations of social interaction directly and indirectly, and the effect on their psychological aspects, have social interactions. Using a qualitative approach to this study, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is the theoretical analysis used. This research examined three instances of teens utilizing social media with an average 7-10 hours of social media use per day. All three examples illustrate how teens utilize social media to communicate. The results show that adolescents participate with constructive motivations such as bonding, group discussion, company, and also language skills development in social interactions. Additionally, two detrimental motivations have been shown, namely vengeance and the urge to go down. High levels of social media use cause a poor standard of direct interaction. Adolescents get more distracted by their mobile phones and don't pay attention to the environment. According to Westenberg (2016), Teenagers now exist in a world of smartphones, so they cannot recall a period before social media. By the age 10, several teenagers are involved in social media. 

According to Westenberg (2016), the goal of this analysis is to provide a summary of the modern YouTube culture, including the influence Dutch You Tubers have on their adolescent viewers and the degree to which that effect is positive or bad for their lives. Using a semi-structured interview method, this research takes a methodological approach to the review. The research notes and incorporates the findings on both teens and YouTubers. The study involves 16 in-depth interviews, especially with 20 teens and 4 in-depth interviews with 4 YouTubers in general.




Theoretical Framework

Quantitative studies always take insights from existing theoretical perspectives. These theoretical perspectives guide the selection of major concepts and execution of the research study overall. The present study has taken Uses and Gratification mainly because users select different mediums according to their own will and every medium has its unique characteristics which satisfy certain needs of the users. Secondly, media dependency explains about consequences in terms of our perception of the world as a result of our exposure to a different medium. Dependency over certain mediums will bring about a change in our existing value system as social media has emerged as new media where users have a different experience of interaction, sharing, exchange and bondings. The present study, by utilizing these theories, will look for the effects of social networking sites on the lives of teenagers.




Research Design

The present study has used survey research design to study the development of SNS as a new platform of interaction among teenagers and its consequences on family bonding ." Data has been gathered from the students of colleges and schools. A sample of 400 respondents was selected using the purposive sampling technique. 

Findings

Social media usage has been a rising phenomenon, especially after the outbreak of COVID-19. Social networking sites have led youth towards a new form of interaction and communication patterns. The present study is based on the study development of SNS as a new platform of interaction among teenagers and its consequences on family bonding. Major findings of the study are given below:




 

Table 1. Effect of SNS on Social Interaction Patterns

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
Facebook affects our social interaction patterns	Very Much	40	42	39	38	42.4
	Much	25	20	26	26	22.1
	Somewhat	14	20	12	15	11.6
	Little	11	7	12	10	12.2
	Not at all	11	11	11	11	11.0
Instagram affects our social interaction patterns	Very Much	26	22	27	29	21.5
	Much	28	26	28	27	28.5
	Somewhat	16	17	15	13	19.2
	Little	16	17	15	14	17.4
	Not at all	16	19	15	18	13.4
TikTok affects our social interaction patterns	Very Much	39	44	38	39	39.0
	Much	17	11	18	14	19.2
	Somewhat	11	10	12	13	8.7
	Little	11	14	10	11	10.5
	Not at all	23	21	23	23	22.7
WhatsApp affects our social interaction patterns	Very Much	43	44	42	42	43.6
	Much	25	29	23	25	23.8
	Somewhat	13	9	14	11	15.7
	Little	11	11	11	10	12.8
	Not at all	9	6	9	12	4.1
YouTube affects our social interaction patterns	Very Much	26	22	27	29	20.3
	Much	25	20	26	24	25.0
	Somewhat	23	23	23	20	26.2
	Little	16	23	13	11	22.1
	Not at all	12	13	11	15	6.4

*Figure shows the percentage

 




Table 1 shows that SNS affect teenagers' social interaction patterns. Empirical findings reveal that WhatsApp more affects teenagers' social interaction patterns (68%), Facebook (65%), TikTok (56%), Instagram (54%), and YouTube (51%).




Table 2. SNS (Facebook)Effects on Bonding with Family, Relatives, Peers, and Friends

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
Facebook affects bonding with our Family	Very Much	32	39	30	32	32.6
	Much	20	21	20	21	18.0
	Somewhat	12	8	13	8	16.3
	Little	17	21	15	17	16.3
	Not at all	20	11	22	21	16.9
Facebook affects bonding with our friends	Very Much	31	31	31	30	32.0
	Much	30	32	29	30	29.1
	Somewhat	14	13	14	14	13.4
	Little	13	11	13	12	13.4
	Not at all	14	13	14	15	12.2
Facebook affects bonding with our peers	Very Much	14	16	13	14	14.0
	Much	24	23	24	26	20.9
	Somewhat	25	25	25	23	27.9
	Little	18	22	17	19	16.9
	Not at all	19	15	20	18	20.3
Facebook affects bonding with our relatives	Very Much	19	19	19	17	20.9
	Much	17	13	19	19	15.1
	Somewhat	18	22	16	17	18.6
	Little	24	31	21	24	23.3
	Not at all	23	16	25	23	22.1

*Figure shows the percentage                               

 




Table 2 shows SNS affects teenagers' bonding with Family, relatives, peers, and friends. Empirical findings reveal that Facebook more frequently affects teenagers bonding with Friends (61%) as compared to Facebook affecting teenagers bonding with Family (52%), Facebook affects teenagers bonding with Peers (38%), and Facebook affects teenagers bonding with Relatives (36%).




 

Table 3. SNS (Insta)Effects on Bonding with Family, Relatives, Peers, and Friends

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
Instagram affects bonding with our Family	Very Much	17	14	17	18	14.5
	Much	14	17	13	16	11.6
	Somewhat	12	10	12	9	15.7
	Little	18	24	16	16	20.3
	Not at all	40	35	41	41	37.8
Instagram affects bonding with our Friends	Very Much	14	15	13	14	12.8
	Much	24	23	24	26	21.5
	Somewhat	11	10	11	8	14.5
	Little	17	22	15	17	17.4
	Not at all	35	30	36	35	33.7
Instagram affects bonding with our Peers	Very Much	9	8	9	9	8.1
	Much	14	16	13	15	12.2
	Somewhat	17	16	17	18	16.3
	Little	19	26	16	17	20.9
	Not at all	42	34	44	42	42.4
Instagram affects bonding with our Relatives	Very Much	10	10	10	11	8.7
	Much	13	14	13	15	9.3
	Somewhat	13	11	14	11	15.7
	Little	22	30	19	18	26.7
	Not at all	42	34	45	44	39.5

*Figure shows the percentage

 




Table 3 shows SNS affect teenagers' bonding with Family, relatives, peers, and friends. Empirical findings reveal that Instagram more frequently affects teenagers bonding with Friends (38%) as compared to Instagram affecting teenagers bonding with Family (31%), and Facebook equally affects teenagers bonding with Peers and Relatives (23%).




 

Table 4. SNS (TikTok)Effects on Bonding with Family, Relatives, Peers, and Friends

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
TikTok affects bonding with our Family	Very Much	21	23	20	25	15.1
	Much	11	6	13	11	10.5
	Somewhat	7	4	8	5	9.9
	Little	12	22	9	11	12.8
	Not at all	50	45	51	48	51.7
TikTok affects bonding with our Friends	Very Much	23	24	22	23	22.7
	Much	17	17	17	18	15.1
	Somewhat	6	5	6	7	4.1
	Little	11	16	9	10	11.6
	Not at all	44	39	46	42	46.5
TikTok affects bonding with our Peers	Very Much	17	18	16	20	12.8
	Much	13	14	13	11	15.7
	Somewhat	9	6	10	8	9.3
	Little	16	21	14	17	15.1
	Not at all	45	42	46	44	47.1
TikTok affects bonding with our Relatives	Very Much	18	18	18	21	14.5
	Much	13	15	13	15	11.0
	Somewhat	10	8	10	9	9.9
	Little	16	22	14	14	18.6
	Not at all	44	38	45	42	45.9

*Figure shows the percentage

 




Table 4 shows SNS affects teenagers' bonding with Family, relatives, peers, and friends. Empirical findings reveal that TikTok more frequently affects teenagers bonding with Friends (40%) as compared to TikTok affecting teenagers bonding with Family (32%), TikTok affects teenagers bonding with Relatives (31%), and TikTok affects teenagers bonding with Peers (30%).




 

Table 5. SNS (WhatsApp)Effects on Bonding with Family, Relatives, Peers, and Friends

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
WhatsApp affects bonding with our Family	Very Much	47	58	44	44	51.2
	Much	21	20	21	20	22.1
	Somewhat	11	7	12	11	11.0
	Little	7	7	7	10	3.5
	Not at all	14	7	16	15	12.2
WhatsApp affects bonding with our Friends	Very Much	50	56	48	50	50.6
	Much	16	18	15	17	15.1
	Somewhat	13	11	13	11	15.7
	Little	9	9	9	11	5.8
	Not at all	12	5	14	11	12.8
WhatsApp affects bonding with our Peers	Very Much	27	26	28	30	23.8
	Much	20	19	20	19	20.3
	Somewhat	23	28	21	21	25.0
	Little	15	17	14	14	15.1
	Not at all	16	10	18	17	15.7
WhatsApp affects bonding with our Relatives	Very Much	32	34	31	33	29.1
	Much	22	26	21	21	22.7
	Somewhat	19	20	18	15	23.8
	Little	12	11	12	14	8.7
	Not at all	16	8	18	16	15.7

*Figure shows the percentage

 




Table 5 shows SNS affects teenagers' bonding with Family, relatives, peers, and friends. Empirical findings reveal that WhatsApp more frequently affects teenagers bonding with Family (68%) as compared to WhatsApp affects teenagers bonding with Friends (66%), WhatsApp affects teenagers bonding with Relatives (54%), and WhatsApp affects teenagers bonding with Peers (47%).




 

Table 6. SNS (YouTube) Effects on Bonding with Family, Relatives, Peers, and Friends

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
YouTube effects bonding with our Family	Very Much	20	17	20	21	17.4
	Much	12	9	13	13	10.5
	Somewhat	14	18	13	14	14.0
	Little	18	27	14	14	22.7
	Not at all	37	29	39	38	35.5
YouTube effects bonding with our Friends	Very Much	15	10	17	18	11.0
	Much	20	25	19	23	16.3
	Somewhat	17	19	17	16	18.6
	Little	13	16	12	10	16.9
	Not at all	34	30	36	32	37.2
YouTube effects bonding with our Peers	Very Much	14	14	14	16	12.2
	Much	8	11	7	8	8.1
	Somewhat	20	21	19	19	20.3
	Little	19	23	17	18	19.2
	Not at all	39	31	42	39	40.1
YouTube effects bonding with our Relatives	Very Much	13	15	13	16	9.3
	Much	10	9	10	11	7.6
	Somewhat	17	13	18	17	17.4
	Little	21	30	18	19	23.8
	Not at all	39	33	41	37	41.9

*Figure shows the percentage

 




Table 6 shows SNS affects teenagers bonding with Family, relatives, peers, and friends. Empirical findings reveal that YouTube more frequently affects teenagers bonding with Friends (35%) as compared to YouTube affects teenagers bonding with Family (32%), YouTube affects teenagers bonding with Relatives (23%), and YouTube affects teenagers bonding with Peers (22%).




 

Table 7. SNS and Relationship Problems

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
Aggression	Very Much	26	24	27	26	26.2
	Much	24	24	24	24	23.8
	Somewhat	25	28	23	22	27.9
	Little	13	9	13	12	12.8
	Not at all	13	15	12	15	9.3
Communication Gap	Very Much	21	16	22	24	16.3
	Much	37	41	36	36	37.2
	Somewhat	18	16	18	17	19.2
	Little	13	17	12	10	16.3
	Not at all	12	11	13	13	11.0
Isolation Problem	Very Much	19	23	18	18	19.8
	Much	25	22	25	27	20.9
	Somewhat	22	18	23	21	22.7
	Little	18	20	17	16	20.3
	Not at all	17	18	17	18	16.3
Understanding your Family	Very Much	21	19	21	23	17.4
	Much	30	29	31	29	31.4
	Somewhat	21	19	21	21	20.9
	Little	17	18	16	14	20.3
	Not at all	12	16	11	13	9.9
Understanding your Peers	Very Much	13	9	14	16	8.1
	Much	25	22	25	24	25.0
	Somewhat	22	22	21	21	22.7
	Little	22	26	20	20	24.4
	Not at all	20	21	19	19	19.8

*Figure shows the percentage

 




Table 7 depicts the relationship problems faced by teenagers as a result of frequent interaction on SNS. Empirical findings reveal that teenagers face the Communication Gap problem by spending more time using SNS (58%) as compared to Understanding with Family (51%), Aggressiveness (50%), Isolation (44%), and Understanding with Peers (38%).




 

Table 8. Ways of Social Interaction on SNS

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
The extent of interacting socially through Audio Chat	Very Much	27	24	28	25	29.7
	Much	26	23	27	25	27.3
	Somewhat	19	23	18	17	21.5
	Little	12	15	12	11	14.0
	Not at all	16	16	15	21	7.6
The extent of interaction socially through Gif	Very Much	12	13	12	12	11.0
	Much	12	14	12	12	12.2
	Somewhat	20	22	19	17	23.8
	Little	24	24	24	21	27.9
	Not at all	32	28	34	38	25.0
The extent of interacting socially through Messages	Very Much	57	59	57	54	61.0
	Much	26	23	26	29	20.9
	Somewhat	8	11	6	7	8.7
	Little	6	4	7	5	7.0
	Not at all	4	2	4	5	2.3
The extent of interacting socially through Video Chat	Very Much	19	24	17	19	18.0
	Much	20	25	19	21	19.8
	Somewhat	18	14	19	11	26.7
	Little	20	20	20	21	17.4
	Not at all	23	18	25	27	18.0

*Figure shows the percentage                               

 




Table 8 shows the methods that teenagers use to interact socially on SNS. Empirical findings reveal that teenagers more use the method of Messages to interact socially on SNS (83%) as compared to Audio Chat (53%), Video Chat (39%), and Gif (24%).




 

Table 9. Preference of social media over traditional media

Variable	Scale	Overall	13-16 y	17-19 y	Male	Female
Because of Anonymity, prefer social media over traditional media	Very Much	17	16	17	19	14.0
	Much	23	23	23	20	26.7
	Somewhat	25	25	25	25	26.2
	Little	11	9	11	11	10.5
	Not at all	25	27	24	26	22.7
Because of Easy to Communicate prefer social media over traditional media	Very Much	38	36	38	41	34.3
	Much	41	43	40	39	43.0
	Somewhat	12	13	12	11	14.0
	Little	5	4	5	5	4.7
	Not at all	5	4	5	5	4.1
Because Freedom of Expression prefer social media over traditional media.	Very Much	39	41	38	37	41.3
	Much	34	39	33	35	33.1
	Somewhat	14	14	13	14	13.4
	Little	8	4	9	7	8.7
	Not at all	6	3	7	8	3.5
Because Speedy Information Transfer prefer social media over traditional media.	Very Much	48	43	50	48	48.8
	Much	33	39	31	33	31.4
	Somewhat	10	11	10	9	12.2
	Little	4	2	4	4	3.5
	Not at all	5	5	5	6	4.1
Because of Time Saving, prefer social media over traditional media	Very Much	39	41	39	42	35.5
	Much	32	32	32	32	33.1
	Somewhat	10	8	11	10	10.5
	Little	8	9	7	5	11.0
	Not at all	11	9	11	11	9.9
Because of User Friendly prefer social media over traditional media	Very Much	33	29	34	31	34.9
	Much	38	47	35	37	38.4
	Somewhat	11	8	12	11	9.9
	Little	9	9	9	8	9.9
	Not at all	10	6	11	12	7.0

*Figure shows the percentage

 




Table 9 shows the preference for social media over traditional media. The empirical finding reveals that teenagers prefer social media over traditional media because social media has the feature of Speedy Information Transfer (81%) as compared to Ease to communicate (79%), Freedom of Expression (73%), Time Saving (71%), User Friendly (71%) and Anonymity (40%).




 

		SIP	Bonding	Relationship	liking	Interaction	Reduced Activities
Frequency USM App	Pearson Correlation	.157**	.188**	.125*	.263**	.267**	.033
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.002	.000	.012	.000	.000	.510
	N	399	400	400	400	400	400
**. “Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).”
*. “Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).”

Table 10. Correlation Test

 




USM = “using of SNS”, SIP = “social interaction patterns”, SM = “social media”, TM = “traditional media”

 

Results suggest that there is a positive relationship between the frequency of usage of social networking sites and its effect on social interaction, family bondings, relationship issues and interaction with Family and peers. Similarly, social media contribute to the reduction of physical or out door activities. 

Summary and Discussion

The present study has used survey research design to study the development of SNS as a new platform of interaction among teenagers and its consequences on family bonding." Data was collected from the students at colleges and Schools. A sample of 400 respondents was selected using the purposive sampling technique. The present study has taken Uses and Gratification mainly because users select different mediums according to their own will and every medium has its unique characteristics which satisfy certain needs of the users. Secondly, media dependency explains about consequences in terms of our perception of the world as a result of our exposure to a different medium. Dependency over certain mediums will bring about a change in our existing value system as social media has emerged as new media where users have a different experience of interaction, sharing, exchange and bondings. The present study, by utilizing these theories, will look for the effects of social networking sites on the lives of teenagers.

The traditional methods of communication are face-to-face communication, telephone communication, and broadcast media channels which include television and radio. People also interact with each other through letters. They sent letters to each other. But now, the communication and the methods of interaction are totally different. People now use SNS to interact with each other.

Findings regarding the research question about the SNS affect our social interaction patterns revealed that WhatsApp more affects our social interaction patterns (see Table 1). Among the age group, WhatsApp has more affects social interaction patterns on 13–16-year teenagers. It is also observed that WhatsApp has more effects on females' social interaction patterns than on male teenagers' social interaction patterns.

Findings regarding the research question to which extent the use of SNS affects your bonding with your Family, relatives, peers and friends revealed that Facebook more frequently affects teenagers bonding with friends (see Table 2). Among the age group, Facebook more frequently affects 13-16 year teenagers bonding with Friends as compared to17-19 year teenagers bonding with Friends. It is also observed that Facebook more frequently affects females bonding with Friends than male teenagers bonding with Friends.

Findings regarding the research question to which extent the use of SNS affects your bonding with your Family, relatives, peers and friends revealed that Instagram more frequently affects teenagers bonding with friends (see Table 3). Among the age group, Instagram more frequently affects on 13-16 year teenagers bonding with Friends as compared to17-19 year teenagers bonding with Friends. It is also observed that Instagram more frequently affects on males bonding with Friends than female teenagers bonding with Friends.

Findings regarding the research question to which extent the use of SNS affects your bonding with your Family, relatives, peers and friends revealed that TikTok more frequently affects teenagers bonding with friends (see Table 4). Among the age group, TikTok more frequently affects 13-16 year teenagers bonding with Friends as compared to17-19 year teenagers bonding with Friends. It is also observed that TikTok more frequently affects males bonding with Friends than female teenagers bonding with Friends.

Findings regarding the research question to which extent the use of SNS affects your bonding with your Family, relatives, peers and friends revealed that WhatsApp more frequently effects teenagers bonding with Family (see Table 5). Among the age group, WhatsApp more frequently affects 13-16 year teenagers bonding with Family as compared to17-19 year teenagers bonding with Family. It is also observed that WhatsApp more frequently affects females bonding with families than male teenagers bonding with families.

Findings regarding the research question to which extent the following relationship problems you face by spending more time on using SNS  revealed that teenagers more face Communication Gap problem by spending more time on using SNS (see Table 7). Among the age group, 17-19 year teenagers face more Communication Gap problems by spending more time using SNS as compared to13-16 year teenagers. It is also observed that males face more Communication Gap problems by spending more time using SNS than female teenagers.

Findings regarding the research question the question to what extent do you prefer social media over traditional media revealed that teenagers prefer social media over traditional media because social media has the feature of Speedy Information Transfer (see Table 8). Among the age group, 13-16 year teenagers prefer social media over traditional media because of Speedy Information Transfer as compared to17-19 year teenagers. It is also observed that males prefer social media over traditional media because social media has Speedy Information Transfer than female teenagers' preference.

It can be concluded from the findings of the present study that Social media has significantly affected youngsters in building bondings with friends as more sharing of feelings take place with friends over distance instead of Family. 

References

• Amanda, N. R. (2020). Social Interaction Among Adolescents Who Use Social Media. Proceedings of the 5th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and Humanities (ACPCH 2019). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200120.025
• Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can You See the Real Me? Activation and Expression of the “True Self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33– 48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00247
• Bi, B. (2013). Social Media: Redefining Journalism. https://socialmediauppsala.wordpress.com/20 13/10/07/social-media-redefining-
• Coleman, B. C., Pettit, S. K., & Buning, M. M. (2018). Social media use in higher education: do members of the academy recognize any advantages?. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 7(1), 420-442.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
• Dovidio, J. F., Eller, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group processes & intergroup relations, 14(2), 147-160.
• Kumari, A., & Verma, J. (2015). Impact of social networking sites on social interaction-a study of college students. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 55-62.
• Lin, Y. (2008). Media dependency theory. Kaid, LL, Bacha, H., Encyclopedia of Political Communication (eds.) Sage Publications Inc.
• Malone, M. (2012). Tweeting history: an inquiry into aspects of social media in the Egyptian revolution. In Learning and education for a better world: the role of social movements, 169-182.
• Mäntymäki, M., & Islam, A. N. (2016). The Janus face of Facebook: Positive and negative sides of social networking site use. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 14-26.
• Sawyer, R., & Chen, G. M. (2012). The impact of social media on intercultural adaptation. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/com_facpubs/ 15/
• Westenberg, W. M. (2016). The influence of YouTubers on teenagers: a descriptive research about the role YouTubers play in the life of their teenage viewers , Master's thesis, University of Twente.