Peer relationships have always served an important role in adolescent development. The quality of peer relationships is a driving force in adolescents’ academic functioning (Wentzel et al., Reference Wentzel, Jablansky and Scalise2021), sense of self (Bellmore & Cillessen, Reference Bellmore and Cillessen2006), and mental health (La Greca & Harrison, Reference La Greca and Harrison2005). Furthermore, many – if not most – of the core developmental tasks that adolescents must traverse require navigating the peer context. Adolescents obviously cannot establish intimate peer relationships or explore romantic feelings and sexuality without engaging with their peers. Even experimenting with different versions of the self often requires feedback from peers to help understand how the external world will receive a potential internal self (Erikson, Reference Erikson1968).
Digital communication and social media have likely reshaped adolescents’ peer relationships and social environment more than any other force in the 21st century. Digital communication is adolescents’ preferred method for engaging with peers (Anderson & Jiang, Reference Anderson and Jiang2018), beyond even face-to-face interaction (Lenhart et al., Reference Lenhart, Ling, Campbell and Purcell2010). Nearly 90% of adolescents report using social media platforms every single day (Lenhart, Reference Lenhart2015), primarily to interact with the same peers and friends they interact in their offline lives. It is not surprising then that adolescents’ digital peer interactions are related to a range of outcomes similar to in-person peer interactions: self-concept and self-esteem (Steinsbekk et al., Reference Steinsbekk, Wichstrøm, Stenseng, Nesi, Hygen and Skalická2021), involvement in risk behavior (Ehrenreich et al., Reference Ehrenreich, Underwood and Ackerman2014), and mental health (Vannucci & McCauley Ohannessian, Reference Vannucci and McCauley Ohannessian2019). Digital communication is a critically important context that has transformed the way that the peer process unfolds and impacts adolescents (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018a, Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018b).
This chapter will begin with an examination of the features of social media that make it such a powerful context in which peer interaction occurs, briefly reviewing the theoretical underpinnings of this context. We will review recent research on how three important peer constructs unfold and are shaped by digital media: peer influence, social connectedness (vs. isolation), and popularity and social status. We will then discuss challenges and opportunities for studying peer relationships in the context of digital media. Finally, we will conclude with a discussion of the future directions in this field.
Theoretical Considerations
Much of the early research examining how digital communication relates to peer relationships was guided by existing, “offline” developmental theory. This perspective coalesced in co-construction theory (Subrahmanyam et al., Reference Subrahmanyam, Smahel and Greenfield2006), which suggested that adolescents use social interaction in digital spaces as a means to explore the same developmental issues occurring in their offline lives. Accordingly, adolescents are active participants in the construction of the online content that they consume and create, building environments that can facilitate their developmental needs. Subrahmanyam and colleagues viewed these on- and offline environments as being “psychologically continuous” (Subrahmanyam et al., Reference Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechter and Espinoza2008, p. 421). In line with this perspective, many early studies of peer relations in the digital sphere sought to examine whether important peer processes truly did translate between realms. For example, do adolescents’ offline social deficits translate into online spaces (i.e., the rich-get-richer hypothesis) or are online contexts used as a more comfortable space to compensate for their offline deficits (social compensation; Kraut et al., Reference Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay and Scherlis1998, Reference Kraut, Kiesler, Boneva, Cummings, Helgeson and Crawford2002; Valkenburg & Peter, Reference Valkenburg and Peter2007)? Alternatively, considerable research examined the extent to which individuals who engaged in offline bullying behaviors or were subjected to offline victimization were also involved in these aggressive relations online (Kowalski et al., Reference Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder and Lattaner2014), and whether there was similar overlap in offline and online prosocial behavior (Wright & Li, Reference Wright and Li2011).
Co-construction was an important advancement, in that it promoted the application of existing developmental theory to the study of adolescents’ online interactions, which had previously functioned with a fractured combination of theories emerging from a variety of disciplines (see Underwood et al., Reference Underwood, Brown, Ehrenreich, Rubin, Bukowski and Laursen2018). However, co-construction theory placed great emphasis on the overlap between adolescents’ on- and offline worlds, highlighting that adolescents are creating these spaces in an effort to fulfill their offline developmental needs (Subrahmanyam et al., Reference Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechter and Espinoza2008). Although co-construction does not suggest that these spaces are the same (despite being psychologically connected), little focus was placed on systematically identifying the ways in which digital communication functionally changes adolescents’ peer interactions. To bridge this gap, the transformational framework (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018a, Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018b), sought to systematically identify specific ways that social media transforms peer experiences, proposing five specific methods. First, social media increases the frequency and immediacy of peer interactions, allowing (and encouraging) near-constant contact with peers. Second, and relating to this, social media also amplifies the demands of peer interactions, creating new expectations to be available and responsive to peers. Third, social media changes the qualitative nature and feel of peer interactions, for example by changing the access to various social cues, and placing a greater emphasis on quantitative peer metrics such as number of likes and followers. Fourth, social media affords youth new opportunities for compensating behaviors, such as the opportunity to maintain relationships despite physical distance. Finally, social media also provides adolescents with the potential to engage in entirely new social behaviors, such as virtually stalking romantic partners, or passively viewing the entire peer network.
Although this recently proposed framework has received limited empirical examination to date, initial findings examining the role of social media on women’s body image have generally supported the model (Choukas-Bradley et al., Reference Choukas-Bradley, Nesi, Widman and Higgins2019). Additional research is needed, but the transformation framework builds on existing developmental theory to highlight specific – and testable – ways that peer interactions should differ in, and be affected by, these digital contexts. Perhaps most importantly for its continued utility, the transformational framework highlights seven specific aspects of the social media environment (asynchronicity, permanence, publicness, availability, cue absence, quantifiability, and visualness) that transcend specific digital media platforms and tools (e.g., Facebook vs. Snapchat vs. text messaging). Given the incredible pace in which digital platforms rise and fall in popularity, emphasizing broader features of these platforms is critically important for a cohesive study of peer interactions in digital spaces over time.
Transformed Peer Constructs in Digital Communication
Guided by co-construction and the transformational framework, researchers have established the importance of digital communication in both promoting and inhibiting a variety of peer processes, and at times fundamentally transforming these processes altogether. In the following sections, we will review recent research on the role of social media on three of these important peer processes and constructs: peer influence, social connectedness versus isolation, and popularity/status. These sections will not serve as a comprehensive review but will instead highlight recent trends and future directions.
Peer Influence in Digital Realms
Susceptibility to peer influence peaks during the adolescent years (Steinberg & Monahan, Reference Steinberg and Monahan2007), due to an increased importance of peer relationships and status during this period (Prinstein & Dodge, Reference Prinstein and Dodge2008), as well as neurological development (Sommerville, Reference Somerville2013; Steinberg, Reference Steinberg2008). Adolescents look to their peers as informative models for what behaviors are considered acceptable and desirable (injunctive norms), and to assess the how frequent various behaviors are (descriptive norms; Kallgren et al., Reference Kallgren, Reno and Cialdini2000). Due to the highly public nature of many social media platforms, adolescents are able to spend hours examining the posted lives of their close friends and more distant peers. Because adolescents’ social media feeds display the content produced by their wide social networks, this could also serve to blur the line between proximal norms (their immediate friends) and more distal or global norms (peers in general). A great deal of research on peer influence has focused on how it can affect the development of problematic behaviors such as substance use (Geusens & Beullens, Reference Geusens and Beullens2017a, Reference Geusens and Beullens2017b). Adolescents who believe that their friends and peers are using substances (or hold positive views of substance use) are more likely to engage in this behavior themselves. Depictions of substance use are viewed on social media by both adolescents (Boyle et al., Reference Boyle, Earle, LaBrie and Ballou2017; Carrotte et al., Reference Carrotte, Dietze, Wright and Lim2016) and college-aged adults (Moewaka Barnes et al., Reference Moewaka Barnes, McCreanor, Goodwin, Lyons, Griffin and Hutton2016; Morgan et al., Reference Morgan, Snelson and Elison-Bowers2010), and these depictions in turn relate to individuals’ perception of injunctive norms (Boyle et al., Reference Boyle, LaBrie, Froidevaux and Witkovic2016; Yoo et al., Reference Yoo, Yang and Cho2016) and their own substance use (Geusens & Beullens, Reference Geusens and Beullens2017b). Substance use presentations on social media likely influence adolescents by changing their perception of the acceptability and prevalence of these behaviors. In one study, viewing peers’ posts about substance use improved the perceived desirability and positive expectancies of substance use behaviors (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Unger and Soto2014). Another study found that viewing friends’ substance use posts on social media predicted elevated drinking one year later, and this relationship was mediated by more positive injunctive peer norms about alcohol (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Rothenberg, Hussong and Jackson2017).
However, social media does not only influence adolescents by allowing them to observe their peers, but also permits adolescents to be observed by their peers as well. Adolescents are heavily influenced by the notion (accurate or inaccurate) that their activities are being viewed and judged by peers. Although the impact of the imaginary audience has been discussed for decades (Elkind, Reference Elkind1967), recent fMRI studies support the neurological underpinnings for this influence process. Simply being in the presence of peers increases adolescents’ susceptibility to peer influence by increasing functioning in the regions of the brain responsible for social cognition and reward seeking (primarily the amygdala, striatum, and prefrontal cortex; Somerville, Reference Somerville2013; Steinberg, Reference Steinberg2008). This increased focus on reward seeking in turn leads to greater risk-taking behavior (Chein et al., Reference Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert and Steinberg2011; O’Brien et al., Reference O’Brien, Albert, Chein and Steinberg2011). In offline contexts, peer presence is a fairly objective variable (for both adolescents themselves and inquiring researchers), but many of the features of social media outlined in the transformation framework (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018a) may amplify this experience. The availability and the publicness of social media means that peers can be “present” even when the adolescent is physically alone. Furthermore, the quantifiability of these networks, with a numeric quantity of followers and likes, could intensify peer influence. Recent fMRI studies have found that the neurological activation patterns underpinning peer influence when peers are physically present (Chein et al., Reference Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert and Steinberg2011, Steinberg, Reference Steinberg2008) also occur when peers are “present” via Instagram (Sherman, Hernandez, et al., Reference Sherman, Hernandez, Greenfield and Dapretto2018; Sherman et al., Reference Sherman, Payton, Hernandez, Greenfield and Dapretto2016), and the impact of digital peer influence is stronger for adolescents compared to young adults (Sherman, Greenfield, et al., Reference Sherman, Hernandez, Greenfield and Dapretto2018).
The studies highlighted above suggest that social media can extend the reach of peer influence beyond physical presence and interaction with peers. Future research can leverage the networked data available on these platforms to better understand the role of proximal and distal peers in influencing adolescents’ behavior, and to operationalize different levels of peer connection and degrees of separation from each other in more detailed ways. For example, frequency of communication with a peer or even frequency of viewing a peer’s posts might objectively and accurately assess proximity to that peer. Alternatively, metrics used in social network analyses such as network closure and centrality can be used to more clearly define proximal and distal peers (Hanneman & Riddle, Reference Hanneman, Riddle, Scott and Carrington2011). This would allow researchers to go beyond simply asking adolescents to identify and rate their friends and peers, to directly assess with whom an adolescent digitally interacts and is connected. Directly assessing interactions (and observation) at the network level could greatly enhance our understanding of peer influence for a variety of important variables such as mental health, academic performance, and body image issues.
Social Connectedness and Isolation via Social Media
The role of social media in promoting (or inhibiting) social connectedness has received increasing research interest over the past several years. Social connectedness and a feeling of belonging is one of the primary benefits of peer relationships during adolescence, promoting positive psychosocial outcomes (Bradley & Inglis, Reference Bradley and Inglis2012) and protecting against both externalizing and internalizing problems (Newman et al., Reference Newman, Lohman and Newman2007). As social media and digital communication increased in popularity, there was a great deal of speculation about whether these technologies would foster intimacy and connection with peers, or if the reductions in face-to-face interaction would actually diminish adolescents’ sense of belongingness with peers (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Ryan, Gray, McInerney and Waters2014). Some proposed that specific features of social media would provide opportunities to better connect with peers. In a series of interviews conducted with adolescents, Davis (Reference Davis2012) identified that frequent communication with friends through a variety of digital platforms promoted a sense of closeness with these peers. The ability to connect with peers despite physical distance is identified by adolescents as one of the primary benefits of digital communication (Ling, Reference Ling, Harper, Palen and Taylor2005). Indeed, adolescents exchange a great deal of emotionally supportive communication via social media (Siriaraya et al., Reference Siriaraya, Tang, Ang, Pfeil and Zaphiris2011), using these platforms to reach out to peers in times of need (Ehrenreich et al., Reference Ehrenreich, Beron, Burnell, Meter and Underwood2020).
Beyond using social media to directly interact with peers, there is also some evidence that posting broadly to social media platforms without directly connecting with a specific peer (such as a tweet or a status post on Facebook) can reduce loneliness in undergraduate samples (große Deters & Mehl, Reference große Deters and Mehl2013; Lou et al., Reference Lou, Yan, Nickerson and McMorris2012). These findings highlight that the availability of the peer network that social media affords adolescents translates into increases in connection and belongingness, and reductions in loneliness. Indeed, a meta-analysis examining 63 studies found that social media use was positively correlated with perceived social resources from peers (Domahidi, Reference Domahidi2018). Interestingly, a recent study examining specific features of social media platforms found that image-based platforms in particular (e.g., Instagram and Snapchat) reduced users’ loneliness (Pittman & Reich, Reference Pittman and Reich2016). The authors speculate that the emphasis on images facilitates the sense of a “social presence” with peers that is better able to promote connection, aligning with the perspective that the visualness of social media (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018a) may be an important feature for subsequent research into the role of social media in connection.
In contrast to the potential benefits of social media on adolescents’ peer connection, a separate body of research has suggested that smartphones and social media use are actually reducing social connection and well-being, and account for overall increases in social isolation and loneliness among adolescents (Twenge, Reference Twenge2019). Population-level studies have indeed identified increasing trends in both suicidality and depression over the past decade (Mojtabai et al., Reference Mojtabai, Olfson and Han2016) that coincided with similar rises in cellphone ownership and social media use (Twenge et al., Reference Twenge, Joiner, Rogers and Martin2018). One meta-analysis found that social media use does indeed correlate with perceived loneliness (although the authors suggest that loneliness predicting social media use is the most likely direction of effect; Song et al., Reference Song, Hayeon and Anne2014). One large-scale cross-sectional study of young adults found that social media usage was a significant predictor of social isolation (Primack et al., Reference Primack, Shensa and Sidani2017), and a micro-longitudinal study also found that time spent on social media predicts momentary feelings of social isolation (Kross et al., Reference Kross, Verduyn and Demiralp2013). Furthermore, a few experimental studies have also supported the hypothesis that social media causally predicts maladjustment. College students who were instructed to limit their social media use to no more than 30 minutes per day reported lower levels of depression and loneliness compared to the control group (Hunt et al., Reference Hunt, Marx, Lipson and Young2018). Similarly, individuals randomly assigned to abstain from Facebook for one week reported being happier and less depressed by the end of the week (Tromholdt, Reference Tromholt2016).
Although the immediate and constant connection that social media provides is appealing to adolescents (Davis, Reference Davis2012), there is concern that time spent on these digital platforms comes at the cost of more intimate and socially valuable face-to-face time (Kraut et al., Reference Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay and Scherlis1998). The conflicting evidence on the role of social media in supporting or inhibiting social connection likely reflects methodological limitations for disentangling direction of effect (but see George et al., Reference George, Beron, Vollet, Burnell, Ehrenreich and Underwood2021 and Twenge, Reference Twenge2019 for contrasting perspectives on this). However, it also likely reflects the reality that the way adolescents are using these technologies may be more important than the overall time spent online. In particular, it appears passive social media use (time spent scrolling through peers’ posts without actually interacting or engaging with peers) may be especially harmful for adolescents’ well-being and sense of connection, compared to actively engaging with peers via social media. Time spent passively viewing peers’ social media content indeed predicts reductions in perceived peer support (Frison & Eggermont, Reference Frison and Eggermont2015), increases in social loneliness (Amichai-Hamgurger & Ben-Artzi, Reference Amichai-Hamburger and Ben-Artzi2003; Matook et al., Reference Matook, Cummings and Bala2015) and a sense of disconnection from peers (Amichai-Hamgurger & Ben-Artzi, Reference Amichai-Hamburger and Ben-Artzi2003) that likely grows out of feelings of envy and negative social comparison (de Vries et al., Reference de Vries, Möller, Wieringa, Eigenraam and Hamelink2018; Vogel et al., Reference Vogel, Rose, Okdie, Eckles and Franz2015; Weinstein, Reference Weinstein2017).
In contrast to the consistently negative correlates of passive social media use, active social media use (posting and directly interacting with peers) appears to have much more positive outcomes. Adolescents’ public Facebook posts elicit positive feedback from peers, which in turn increases the perception of peer support (Frison & Eggermont, Reference Frison and Eggermont2015). Similarly, experimentally increasing the frequency of posting publicly on Facebook reduced loneliness among college students (große Deters & Mehl, Reference große Deters and Mehl2013). Social media can also facilitate more private, dyadic interactions among peers, which in turn predicts social connection and support (Frison et al., Reference Frison, Bastin, Bijttebier and Eggermont2019; Frison & Eggermont, Reference Frison and Eggermont2015). It is not surprising that the opportunities for actual peer interaction (active use) promote feelings of connection and support among adolescents; indeed this was identified by adolescents as a primary benefit (Davis, Reference Davis2012). However, the conflicting findings between social media contributing to connection versus isolation highlights the importance of how adolescents are using these media. Future research must continue to focus on the specific online behaviors and usage patterns that foster connection, rather than simply assessing the amount of time spent using these platforms. The transformational framework model (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018a) may be especially useful in disentangling the conflicting findings that have emerged in this research area. By focusing on the specific features of social media platforms that may be shaping peer interactions in these contexts, researchers can better understand what promotes a sense of connection and peer support, and what may undermine it.
Popularity and Social Status
Because of its highly public nature and constant availability, social media may be especially important in shaping adolescent social status (Nesi & Prinstein, Reference Nesi and Prinstein2019). Although social status has always been an important component of adolescent peer relationships (Harter et al., Reference Harter, Stocker and Robinson1996), social media both intensifies that importance and salience of peer status, and also provides new tools for managing and promoting status (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018b). The quantifiability of social networks makes social media especially important for adolescents’ perceptions of status. Adolescents are highly aware of a variety of social media metrics assessing popularity (e.g., number of friends, number of likes or retweets; Madden et al., Reference Madden, Lenhart and Cortesi2013).
Indeed, the preoccupation with popularity on social media may have reframed adolescents’ traditional desire for popularity into aspirations for fame and stardom. Content analysis of movies and television viewed by adolescents has found that fame is increasingly portrayed as an important – and achievable – goal (Uhls & Greenfield, Reference Uhls and Greenfield2012), and adolescents who use social networking sites more frequently report a greater emphasis on the value of fame (Uhls et al., Reference Uhls, Zgourou and Greenfield2014). This emphasis on fame is somewhat attributable to the rise in popularity of reality television, wherein “ordinary people” ostensibly become famous for simply living their day-to-day lives (Rui & Stefanone, Reference Rui and Stefanone2016). But adolescents are also highly cognizant of the potential to achieve celebrity simply by acquiring enough social media followers (e.g., “Instagram famous”; Marwick, Reference Marwick2015).
Although social media has made peer status and popularity much more salient, it has also provided a variety of tools adolescents can use in their attempt to improve their status. Prior to the advent of social media, many adolescents no doubt spent their free time envisioning moving up the social hierarchy. However, with the help of smartphones and social networking sites, adolescents can actively work toward improving their number of friends, and curating their self-presentation at all times. Adolescents are quite strategic in leveraging social media to promote a positive and popular image. Many adolescents go to great lengths to ensure that their self-presentation on social media receives positive peer response, including taking numerous photos to select the best image for posting (Yau & Reich, Reference Yau and Reich2019), heavily editing photos to present an attractive image (Bell, Reference Bell2019), curating the activities they disclose to create a fun and glamorous identity (Fardouly & Vartanian, Reference Fardouly and Vartanian2016), and timing posts to maximize peer likes (Nesi & Prinstein, Reference Nesi and Prinstein2019). Indeed in her analyses of adolescents’ digital presentations, Marwick (Reference Marwick2013) suggests adolescents are engaging in “self-branding,” designed to market themselves using techniques similar to consumer products.
Although social media may provide a variety of new tools for managing one’s social status, that does not mean that all adolescents leverage social media to achieve higher status. Using social media in ways that will promote one’s social status requires a significant amount of social competence (Reich, Reference Reich2017) and a great deal of effort (Yau & Reich, Reference Yau and Reich2019). Popular adolescents are more likely to engage with their peers in ways that will promote their existing status, including both positive and aggressive behaviors. Furthermore, popular adolescents who are better able to self-monitor and regulate the online interactions are less likely to be the target of cybervictimization (Ranney & Troop-Gordon, Reference Ranney and Troop-Gordon2020).
Opportunities and Challenges for Studying Peer Relationships in Digital Communication
As social media increases as an important context for adolescents to interact with their peers, it presents both opportunities and challenges for researchers seeking to better understand peer relationships. Perhaps the greatest advantage of social media is that it permits researchers to connect with adolescents where their peer interactions are unfolding. While observing peer interactions used to require artificial lab settings (Piehler & Dishion, Reference Piehler and Dishion2007) or naturalistic observation that was restricted in time and location (Snyder et al., Reference Snyder, McEachern and Schrepferman2010), researchers can now potentially observe peer interactions in digital spaces unobtrusively for extended periods of weeks, months, or years (Hendriks et al., Reference Hendriks, Van den Putte, Gebhardt and Moreno2018; Underwood et al., Reference Underwood, Rosen, More, Ehrenreich and Gentsch2012). Furthermore, because much of adolescents’ digital communication is centered around their smartphones, a variety of additional data collection technologies can be connected with peer relationships and interactions, including ecological momentary assessment (Duvenage et al., Reference Duvenage, Uink, Zimmer‐Gembeck, Barber, Donovan and Modecki2019), geolocation (Boettner et al., Reference Boettner, Browning and Calder2019), and even physical functioning such as sleep patterns (George et al., Reference George, Rivenbark, Russell, Ng’eno, Hoyle and Odgers2019). These technologies provide researchers with a unique opportunity to stitch together a more comprehensive understanding of how peer relationships are impacting adolescents’ functioning and development.
Although the potential for these research methods is truly exciting, they are not without challenges and risk. First, there are important ethical considerations for researchers to capture the volume of data available in adolescents’ digital spaces. Although adolescents seem fairly comfortable with digital observation (Meter et al., Reference Meter, Ehrenreich, Carker, Flynn and Underwood2019), capturing digital communication nonetheless involves novel ethical considerations. Because this data collection can be conducted subtly from smartphones and social media apps, it is important that researchers clearly explain the details of digital data collection. Similarly, since social media data is inherently networked information, challenges arise for navigating when it is necessary to obtain peer consent (and whether that is even possible). This may require a dialogue with IRBs and granting institutions to better reflect the digital contexts in which adolescents live their lives. With tens of millions of adolescents permitting third parties to observe their social media data, these research activities are likely the very definition of minimal risk (see Ehrenreich et al., Reference Ehrenreich, George, Burnell and Underwood2021 for a discussion about this).
Another challenge for researchers is understanding the hidden, guiding hand of the algorithms that decide what is presented on social media platforms. These algorithms constantly evaluate the adolescents’ social media behavior to provide a stream of content tailored to the adolescent (and the marketing forces underlying many of these platforms). The role of these artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms obfuscates peer processes occurring in these platforms. For example, one long-running research inquiry has examined whether adolescents’ similarity to peers is best explained by socialization (learning how to behave from our peers) or selection (choosing peers who behave as we do). Evidence suggests that both of these processes likely work in tandem: adolescents select peers who are similar to them, who in turn further socialize their attitudes and behaviors. However, on social media these two processes become further intertwined (and blurred), as the content an adolescent views and posts themselves will in turn affect who and what is highlighted in their social media feeds. In this way, the content that is socializing the adolescent is also being used to select the peers who will be suggested to them or featured on their feed, and the selection of this network is in turn dictating what content will be presented (and will thus socialize the adolescent further). And all of these “decisions” are being conducted by computer algorithms that are likely hidden to the adolescent. Indeed, much of TikTok’s explosion in popularity during 2020 is attributed to the advanced artificial intelligence recommendation engine that rapidly tailors what videos are suggested based on the user’s previous preferences (see Wang, Reference Wang2020 for an overview of this technology). Much of the research outlined above highlights investigations into how social media features and content impact adolescents peer relationships. But why adolescents are exposed to features and content (e.g., why this specific video is presented at the top of their feed) is being guided by algorithms that are likely poorly understood by both adolescents and developmental scientists.
Future Directions
In their presentation of the transformational framework, Nesi and colleagues (Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018a, Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018b) highlight seven features of the social media context that are important to understanding how peer relationships operate in these environments (asynchronicity, permanence, publicness, availability, cue absence, quantifiability, and visualness). Future research must move away from examining specific social media platforms, and instead focus on their features. Not only do social media platforms rise and fall in popularity, but they also change their form and features over time. Not only is Facebook less popular among adolescents than it was in 2012 (Rideout & Robb, Reference Rideout and Robb2018), but the platform itself is also quite different, with new features constantly being added. By focusing on features of social media that can be assessed on a variety of platforms (e.g., the emphasis on visual content versus textual, the degree of asynchronicity; Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018a), researchers can better understand how the broader social media context is shaping adolescents’ peer relationships, and these impacts can be assessed more consistently across time.
But the importance of these features of the social media context may not just be limited to assessing the social media platforms themselves. Perhaps some (or all) of these features of the context are now reflected in fundamental changes in the relationships themselves. For example, prior to the advent of social media, moving into new stages of life often meant losing contact with peers from previous stages. Although an adult may have retained friends from middle or high school, it was perhaps unlikely that they kept tabs on the broader peer network from those years. However, with Facebook, Instagram, and other social networking sites, it is quite common for individuals to maintain a (perhaps tenuous) connection with these earlier peer networks. Although the transformational framework suggests that a feature of the Facebook context is its permanence (e.g., photos and subsequent comments are retained indefinitely), by extension, relationships themselves may now reflect this feature (the relationship itself is now retained indefinitely).
It is possible that other features of social media may be redefining the features of peer relationships as well. For example, perhaps the cue absence permitted in social media is redefining how adolescents want to experience all relationship interactions. Alternatively, perhaps the publicness of social media has fostered the perception that relationships themselves should be experienced publicly. If this were the case, it would challenge the conventional adolescent developmental task of navigating intimate relationships traditionally characterized as a dyadic process. Similarly, there has been a great deal of concern about how digital communication may be undermining youth’s development of more general social skills, such as navigating small talk and interpersonal interactions (Turkle, Reference Turkle2012). Whereas periods of downtime (e.g., waiting for a class to begin, standing in line at the supermarket) used to be opportunities to strike up a conversation with the stranger next to you, these moments are now often spent checking in with peers on one’s phone. A student of mine once shared that she used her phone to avoid getting drawn into a conversation with her classmates, because she worried she wouldn’t be able to end the conversation if it was awkward or boring. While the asynchronicity and availability of digital communication may permit adolescents to have social interactions on their own terms, perhaps it comes at the cost of learning to navigate challenging, awkward (and even boring) interactions. The seven features of social media outlined by the transformation framework (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018a, Reference Nesi, Choukas-Bradley and Prinstein2018b) provide an important advancement for the study of adolescents’ interactions occurring via digital media, but they also provide guidance for future research seeking to understand how peer relationships themselves are fundamentally changing.
Finally, future research must increasingly focus on the behaviors and processes that are occurring in these platforms. In many ways, researchers’ initial focus on the quantity of social media use has obfuscated our understanding of these contexts (such as the conflicting associations between social media and subsequent loneliness and mental health). Current research is illuminating the fact that time spent on social media is less important than how adolescents are using these platforms (e.g., Swirsky, Rosie & Xie, Reference Swirsky, Rosie and Xie2021). Researchers must continue to move away from overly simplistic metrics of social media use. Examinations about the amount of time spent on social media should be reframed into how time is spent on social media. Evaluating the number of friends and followers is likely less important than evaluating the interactions (and observation) of those peer networks. Luckily social media platforms provide a unique opportunity to naturalistically observe adolescents in these more nuanced ways.
Conclusion
Social media platforms have become an increasingly important context for adolescents’ peer relationships. These platforms are reshaping the way that adolescents interact with and observe their peers. In many ways, social media has accomplished what social scientists have sought to do for years: it has established a platform that makes peer relationships quantifiable, networked, available to outside observers, and permanent so interactions can be scrutinized and analyzed after the fact. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that the features that make these platforms ideal for studying peer relationships are driving many of the changes occurring in these relationships. The publicness of these data allows researchers to observe teens more easily but does it come at the cost of intimate connections with peers? The quantifiability of social media may allow researchers to better understand social status hierarchies. But in doing so, does it change what these hierarchies mean to adolescents? Researchers are now presented with the opportunity to leverage these powerful new social tools to better understand adolescents’ relationships but must simultaneously address how these tools are shifting how these relationships unfold and impact adolescents.
Open access