Youth culture in a digital world – 2021/2022
Inhoud
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research. Annual
review of psychology, 67, 315-338.........................................................................................................2
McHale, S. M., Dotterer, A., & Kim, J. Y. (2009). An ecological perspective on the media and youth
development. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(8), 1186-1203............................................................4
Slater, M. D. (2015). Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media
content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media Psychology, 18(3), 370-
395..........................................................................................................................................................5
Rentfrow, P. J. (2012). The role of music in everyday life: Current directions in the social psychology
of music. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 402-416.........................................................6
Miranda, D. (2013). The role of music in adolescent development: Much more than the same old
song. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 18(1), 5-22.......................................................8
Bogt, T. T., Hale, W. W., & Becht, A. (2021). “Wild Years”: Rock Music, Problem Behaviors and Mental
Well-being in Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1-14...............10
Harakeh, Z., & Bogt, T. F. T. (2018). The Effect of Rap/Hip-Hop Music on Young Adult Smoking: An
Experimental Study. Substance use & misuse, 53(11), 1819-1825.......................................................12
Slater, M. D., & Henry, K. L. (2013). Prospective influence of music-related media exposure on
adolescent substance-use initiation: A peer group mediation model. Journal of health
communication, 18(3), 291-305...........................................................................................................13
Peeters, M., Koning, I., Lemmens, J., & Eijnden, R. V. D. (2019). Normative, passionate, or
problematic? Identification of adolescent gamer subtypes over time. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 1-12....................................................................................................................................13
Dionysis Alexandridis, Sander C.J. Bakkes, Sanne L. Nijhof, Elise M. van Putte, and Remco C. Veltkamp.
2021. Ruby’s Mission: Towards an applied gaming intervention for reducing loneliness of children
with chronic illness. In The 16th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG)
2021 (FDG’21), August 3–6, 2021, Montreal, QC, Canada. ACM, New York, NY, USA..........................15
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital
age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological
Bulletin, 140, 1073–1137. doi:10.1037/a0035618...............................................................................18
Ouvrein, G., Vandebosch, H., & De Backer, C.J.S. (2020). Online celebrity bashing: Purely relaxation or
stressful confrontation? An experimental study on the effects of exposure to online celebrity bashing
on the emotional responses and physiological arousal among adolescent bystanders.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 23(9), 588-594.....................................................21
Dienlin, T., & Johannes, N. (2020). The impact of digital technology use on adolescent well-being.
Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 22(2), 135-142..............................................................................23
Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network sites enhance
or undermine subjective well‐being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 274-302.
..............................................................................................................................................................25
1
,Boer, M., Stevens, G., Finkenauer, C., & van den Eijnden, R. (2020). Attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder‐symptoms, social media use intensity, and social media use problems in adolescents:
Investigating directionality. Child development, 91(4), e853-e865.......................................................28
2
,Koning, I. M., Peeters, M., Finkenauer, C., & van den Eijnden, R. J. (2018). Bidirectional effects of
Internet-specific parenting practices and compulsive social media and Internet game use. Journal of
Behavioral Addictions, 7(3), 624-632....................................................................................................29
Nielsen, P., Favez, N., Liddle, H., & Rigter, H. (2019). Linking parental mediation practices to
adolescents’ problematic online screen use: A systematic literature review. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 8(4), 649-663......................................................................................................................30
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research.
Annual review of psychology, 67, 315-338.
Mass communication research = umbrella term for research on the effects of media.
Focus only on media reception processes.
Mass self-communication = (Castells, 2007). Increase in individualization and personalization of
media use (form of communication). Media users select media content to serve their own needs (self
selected).
Focus on media reception and generation processes (effects of media generation on the
generators themselves).
Five global features (media effect theories) that may specify the boundary conditions of media
effects:
1. Selectivity of media use – selectivity paradigm: 1. people only attend to a limited number of
messages out of the constellation of messages that can potentially attract their attention and
2. only those messages they select have the potential to influence them.
o People do not randomly attend to media: focus on certain messages (social or
psychological needs/beliefs). E.g. Political preference – ignoring the other.
o Two theoretical perspectives: Uses-and-Gratifications theory (conceptualizes media
users as rational and aware of their selection motives) and Selective Exposure
Theory (argues that media users are often not (fully) aware of their selection
motives).
o It means that individuals, by shaping their own selective media use, also partly shape
their owns media effects. Three factors influence selective media use (Valkenburg &
Peter):
1. Dispositional factors: e.g. temperament, personality, gender. Or e.g. beliefs,
motivations, moods: Sensation seeking – linked to watching violent media.
Woman: linked to soap, drama, romance.
2. Developmental factors: individuals typically prefer media content that is only
moderately discrepant from their age-related comprehension schemata and
experiences. Media that is too discrepant = less attention (moderate discrepancy
hypotheses).
3. Social context factors: macro level: structural aspects of the media system (e.g.
channel availability) can affect media choices. Micro level: adults can forbid
children to watch violent content. Social identity: converge with the opinions,
values, and norms in the social group(s) to which media users perceive
themselves to belong (so: consume same media as social group). “Social identity
gratifications”.
2. Media properties as predictors – three types of media properties may influence media
effects:
o Modality: e.g. text, auditory, visual, audiovisual. Media affect individuals and society
not by the content delivered, but primarily by their modalities. Now: e.g. a
comparison of the effects of interfaces that differ in their degree of interactivity on
3
, engagement, information processing, and learning or e.g. differential effects of
reading on paper versus screens.
o Content: e.g. violence, fearfulness, type of character, argument strength.
Pollyanna effect = people attach more weight to negative information
because such information probably contrasts with their baseline positive
reactions to social information.
Automatic vigilance = the human tendency to automatically direct more
attention to negative than positive stimuli.
o Structural properties: e.g. special effects, pace, visual surprise. Stimulus driven
automatic attention (our immediate and automatic response to change in our
environment, such as bright flash or light or a sudden noise) is unlikely a sufficient
condition for sustained selective exposure – 1. After a few times attention becomes
weaker, 2. Selective exposure is primarily guided by the goals and experiences of
media users, thus more sensitive than stimulus-driven attention.
3. Media Effects are Indirect – most media effects are indirect rather dan direct.
o Indirect effect = the influence of an independent variable (e.g. media use) on other
variables (e.g. outcomes of media use) works via its influence on one or more
intervening (mediating) variables. Three types of indirect effects:
1. Media use itself acts as an intervening variable between pre-media use variables.
2. The cognitive, emotional, and physiological processes that occur during and
shortly after exposure act as mediators.
3. Post-exposure variables that may themselves be dependent variables, as
mediators of other post-exposure variables.
4. Media effects are conditional – media effects can be enhanced or reduced by individual-
difference and social-context variables.
o Hedonistic fluency hypothesis = the (illusion of) familiarity may in turn enhance
positive affect and aesthetic pleasure.
o Resonance = (Gerbner, 1980) when something experienced in the media is similar to
one’s social environment, it creates a “double dose” of the message, which enhances
the likelihood of media effects.
5. Media effects are transactional – transactional models aim to explain how and why the
[selectivity paradigm] occurs by recognizing that media users can be influenced only by
media content that they selectively use and selectively interpret. Based on at least three
assumptions:
1. Transactions between producers and receivers imply that communication technologies
function as reciprocal mediators between these entities.
2. Producers and receivers of media influence each other. Receivers can change as a result
of their own selective media choices and selective perception processes. Producers can
change because they learn from what they perceive to be audience needs and
preferences.
3. Transactions can be distinguished as interpersonal, that is, the transactions between
producers and receivers, and intrapersonal, that is, the transactions within the cognitive
and affective systems of the producers or receivers themselves.
Computer-mediated communication theories (CMC) = cues-filtered-out theories, tried to compere
the “lean”, text-only applications such as email and online discussion boards with the presumably
richer, face-to-face communication.
Hyperpersonal communication model = CMC message creation encourages communication
partners to present themselves in optimal ways. By exploiting CMC’s capacity for greater
control over self-presentations, they can carefully craft their self portrayals more nicely or
attractively than they generally do, or are able to, in face-to-face interactions. You can fill in
4
, the blanks in your impressions of your partners that the absence of audiovisual cues leave
open, which encourages you to idealize partners.
o Internet enhanced self-disclosure hypothesis (Valkenburg) = much of the time that
adolescents spend with such technologies is used to maintain existing friendships,
which may eventually enhance the closeness of these friendships. due to their
limited audiovisual cues, social media may lead adolescents to perceive that the
internet provides a safe place to disclose intimate information to their friends. The
more adolescents used social media, the more they disclosed themselves online to
their friends. This enhanced online self-disclosure, in turn, Media Effects stimulated
the quality of their friendships, albeit only when adolescents used social media to
communicate primarily with their existing friends and not when they used it
primarily to chat with strangers.
Mass self-communication and expression effects = (Catells, 2007) a new form of socialized
communication. Can potentially reach a global audience, but “it is self-generated in content, self-
directed in emission” and typically focuses on self-related information.
McHale, S. M., Dotterer, A., & Kim, J. Y. (2009). An ecological perspective on the media and
youth development. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(8), 1186-1203.
Bronfenbrenner (1979): daily activities are a reflection of development in that the everyday lives of
youth who differ in age or who grow up in different places and times vary considerably. Daily ‘molar’
activities are important influences on development (skills and abilities, social relationships and
behavior, identity development).
Molar activities are both cause and consequence of development. Youth makes choices in
how to spend their time, but contextual influences play a role as well: growing up in different
circumstances.
Weisner (1989): activity settings are the forum within which “culture is instantiated”. He identified
key dimensions of activity settings:
- The nature of the “task”, or what activities youth undertake (e.g., leisure versus instrumental
activities, play video games versus do homework).
- The “personnel present”, or who else is involved in youth’s activities (i.e., are activities
undertaken alone? With peers? With adult supervision?
- The “cultural scripts” that are incorporated into the activity, or how the activity is carried out
(e.g., who initiates the activity, the kinds of social interactions that characterize the activity).
- The “goal requirements” of the activity (particularly socialization goals) or why the activity is
carried oud (e.g., to develop skills, to express rebellion, to keep children occupied when
adults are busy)
Ecological perspective: measure not only what youth do with their time, but also who, how,
and why.
Daily activities have been described as:
- An opportunity for knowledge and skill acquisition
o Development of abilities ranging from cognitive/intellectual to perceptual-motor to
social-emotional competencies.
- A forum for self expression and identity development
o Erikson: in the middle of childhood, children give rise to the sense of identity that
emerges in adolescence. Waterman (1984): “personal expressiveness” in daily
activities is a basis for identity development.
- A setting for building social ties
5
, o Youth’s activities may bring them into contact with peers and adults who share their
enthusiasms, and joint involvement in activities, in turn, may foster feelings of
closeness and affiliation which are central in psychological well-being.
- A chance to develop affiliations with social institutions
o Family, school, or a political and economic system. E.g., participating on school sports
team, youth may develop a stronger sense of affiliation with their school. This kan
motivate youth to achieve academically.
- Given that time is finite, a constraint on involvement in alternative activities
o Participation in one activity can set constrains on youth’s involvement in other
activities. Media-oriented activities may limit youth’s knowledge and skill
development, their social relationship development, and their direct contact with
social institutions.
Ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner): youth are seen as subject to contextual forces ranging form
the proximal influences that operate in their everyday activity settings, to increasingly distal (and
abstract) contextual forces.
Environments are not entities, but rather reflect processes of influence.
Children are not passive recipients of contextual influences. They are playing an active role in
their own experiences and development. E.g., children’s interests in particular kinds of
activities.
“Niche picking”: children acquire increasing autonomy and begin to make more deliberate
choices about their daily activities.
Ecological model (Bronfenbrenner):
- Microsystem (settings in which youth are directly involved)
o Features of the family concept: e.g., the number of television sets in the house or
family rules about media use.
- Mesosytem (points of connection between children’s everyday contexts)
o E.g., when a child is the only one in his peer group whose parents’ set limits on the
television programming he may watch etc., he may be teased or even ostracized by
peers.
- Exosystem (influences that they do not experience directly)
o E.g., parents’ experiences at work have implications for their children’s experiences
at home: long hours may affect.
- Macrosystem (larger and more abstract. Cultural values and attitudes)
o E.g., laws that privilege children’s well-being and safety over an industry’s ability to
make money, status accruing to individuals based on their purchasing power or
ownership of particular possessions, etc.
Slater, M. D. (2015). Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between
media content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media
Psychology, 18(3), 370-395.
The reinforcing spirals model (RSM) = Proposes social cognitive mechanisms that may be responsible
for attitude maintenance and reinforcement. Two primary purposes:
- Provides a general framework for conceptualizing media use as part of a dynamic,
endogenous process combining selective exposure and media effects that may be drawn on
by theorists concerned with a variety of social processes and effects.
- Utilizes a systems-theory perspective to describe how patterns of mediated and
interpersonal communication contribute to the development and maintenance of social
6
