The Impact of Parasocial Relationships and Subjective Economic Status on Online Social Anxiety and Peer Loneliness Among Freshmen from the Perspective of Uncertainty Reduction Theory: An Empirical Study Based on Network Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/hga2hv64Keywords:
Uncertainty reduction theory, Parasocial relationships, Online social anxietyAbstract
This study explored the network structural relationships among parasocial relationships, subjective economic status, online social anxiety, and peer loneliness in freshmen (N=385). Gender difference analysis revealed that females scored significantly higher than males in online social anxiety (social recognition anxiety, interaction anxiety, privacy anxiety) and peer loneliness (p<0.05), while males scored significantly higher in parasocial relationships (cognitive, emotional, behavioral dimensions; p<0.01). Further network analysis showed that the emotional dimension of parasocial relationships was negatively correlated with online interaction anxiety (weight = -0.03), and subjective economic status was negatively correlated with social anxiety (weight = -0.06) and peer loneliness (weight = -0.11, more pronounced in females). Social recognition anxiety (e.g., fear of others’ evaluations) emerged as the most central node (highest strength centrality) in the network. This study is the first to integrate uncertainty reduction theory with network analysis, revealing dynamic associations among variables and providing precise intervention targets (e.g., key node interventions) for college students’ mental health. Future research could longitudinally track network evolution or conduct cross-cultural comparisons to validate generalizability.
Downloads
References
[1] Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586 - 592.
[2] American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
[3] Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573 - 590.
[4] Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99 - 112.
[5] Bond, B., & Drogos, K. (2012). The social compensation hypothesis revisited: Facebook use, shyness, and the expansion of social capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (6), 2159 - 2166.
[6] Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61 - million - person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295 - 298.
[7] Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer - Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210 - 230.
[8] Cohen, J. (2009, November 17). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245-264.
[9] Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., & Fried, E. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195-212.
[10] Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279 - 305.
[11] Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67(1), 1 - 13.
[12] Heatherton, T. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2000). Interpersonal evaluation in the self - regulation of eating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 70 - 87.
[13] Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
[14] Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para - social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215 - 229.
[15] Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self - disclosure in computer - mediated communication: The role of self - awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177 - 192.
[16] Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59 - 68.
[17] Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 216 - 233.
[18] Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well - being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017 - 1031.
[19] Lee, B. W., Stapinski, L. A., & Teesson, M. (2020). Anxiety and loneliness during COVID-19: The role of extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110102.
[20] McPherson, M., Smith - Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353 - 375.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
