This is a meta-analysis of 460 effect sizes, from 66 independent samples, comparing social media usage to a variety of attitudes and beliefs, from the perspective of cultivation theory. We found an overall effect size of .123 and identified several significant moderators. Our analyses revealed higher effects for studies looking at exposure to specific types of content (as compared with general social media use), for younger samples, and for Asian samples. Observed effects were lower when active use was measured. We discuss our results in regard to the applicability of cultivation theory to the study of the effects of social media.
AlsalehDAElliottMTFuFQ, et al. (2019) Cross-cultural differences in the adoption of social media. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing13(1): 119–140.
2.
AmsalemENirL (2021) Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research48(5): 619–641.
3.
ArendtF (2010) Cultivation effects of a newspaper on reality estimates and explicit and implicit attitudes. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications22(4): 147–159.
4.
AwaisMAbbasSAliF, et al. (2020) Media exposure and fear about crime: an application of mediated fear model. The Journal of Social Sciences Research6(7): 720–726.
5.
BaeSSungEKwonO (2021) Accounting for social media effects to improve the accuracy of infection models: combatting the COVID-19 pandemic and infodemic. European Journal of Information Systems30(3): 342–355.
6.
BakshyEMessingSAdamicLA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239): 1130–1132.
7.
BilandzicHBusselleRW (2008) Transportation and transportability in the cultivation of genre-consistent attitudes and estimates. Journal of Communication58(3): 508–529.
8.
BilandzicHBusselleRW (2012) A narrative perspective on genre-specific cultivation. In: MorganMShanahanJSignorielliN (eds) Living with Television Now: Advances in Cultivation Theory and Research. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 261–285.
9.
ChadeeDSmithSFergusonC (2019) Murder she watched: does watching news or fictional media cultivate fear of crime?Psychology of Popular Media Culture8(2): 125–133.
10.
ChengCLauYCChanL, et al. (2021) Prevalence of social media addiction across 32 nations: meta-analysis with subgroup analysis of classification schemes and cultural values. Addictive Behaviors117: 106845.
11.
CheungMWL (2014) Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods19(2): 211–229.
12.
CheungMWL (2015) metaSEM: An R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology5: 1521.
13.
CunninghamSHudsonCCHarknessK (2021) Social media and depression symptoms: a meta-analysis. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology49(2): 241–253.
14.
DoyleELeeY (2016) Context, context, context: Priming theory and attitudes towards corporations in social media. Public Relations Review42(5): 913–919.
15.
EllisonNBVitakJ (2015) Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In: SundarSS (ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 205–227.
16.
ErcegovacI (2017) Influencers as opinion leaders in primary groups on social media and their roles in new media sphere: social media and classic theories of mass communication. Komunikacije, Mediji, Kultura9(9): 251–268.
17.
GearhartSZhangW (2015) “Was it something I said?” “No, it was something you posted!” A study of the spiral of silence theory in social media contexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18(4): 208–213.
18.
GerbnerG (1973) Cultural indicators: the third voice. In: GerbnerGGrossLPMelodyWH (eds) Communications Technology and Social Policy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 555–573.
19.
GerbnerG (1990) Epilogue: advancing on the path of righteousness (maybe). In: SignorielliNMorganM (eds) Ultivation Analysis: New Directions in Media Effects Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 249–262.
20.
GerbnerGGrossL (1976) Living with television: the violence profile. The Journal of Communication26(2): 173–199.
21.
GerbnerGGrossLJackson-BeeckM, et al. (1978) Cultural indicators: violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication28(3): 176–207.
22.
GerbnerGGrossLMorganM, et al. (1980) The “mainstreaming” of America: violence profile. Journal of Communication30(11): 10–29.
23.
GerbnerGGrossLMorganM, et al. (2002) Growing up with television: cultivation processes. In: BryantJZillmanD (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 43–67.
24.
GwetKL (2008) Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology61(1): 29–48.
25.
HermannEEisendMBayónT (2020) Facebook and the cultivation of ethnic diversity perceptions and attitudes. Internet Research30(4): 1123–1141.
26.
HermannEMorganMShanahanJ (2021) Television, continuity, and change: a meta-analysis of five decades of cultivation research. Journal of Communication71(4): 515–544.
27.
HigginsJPTThompsonSGDeeksJJ, et al. (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ327(7414): 557–560.
28.
HoHShinWLwinMO (2019) Social networking site use and materialistic values among youth: the safeguarding role of the parent-child relationship and self-regulation. Communication Research46(8): 1119–1144.
29.
HofstedeG (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
HuangC (2017) Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: a meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking20(6): 346–354.
31.
HuangQPengWAhnS (2021) When media become the mirror: a meta-analysis on media and body image. Media Psychology24(4): 437–489.
32.
ImYHKimEMKimK, et al. (2011) The emerging mediascape, same old theories? A case study of online news diffusion in Korea. new media & society13(4): 605–625.
33.
IntraviaJWolffKTPaezR, et al. (2017) Investigating the relationship between social media consumption and fear of crime: a partial analysis of mostly young adults. Computers in Human Behavior77: 158–168.
34.
KleinnijenhuisJVan HoofAMVan AtteveldtW (2019) The combined effects of mass media and social media on political perceptions and preferences. Journal of Communication69(6): 650–673.
35.
MatthesJKnollJvon SikorskiC (2018) The “spiral of silence” revisited: a meta-analysis on the relationship between perceptions of opinion support and political opinion expression. Communication Research45(1): 3–33.
36.
MingoiaJHutchinsonADWilsonC, et al. (2017) The relationship between social networking site use and the internalization of a thin ideal in females: a meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology8: 1351.
37.
MorganMShanahanJ (2010) The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media54(2): 337–355.
38.
NadkarniAHofmannSG (2012) Why do people use Facebook?Personality and Individual Differences52: 243–249.
39.
PetersonRABrownSP (2005) On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology90(1): 175–181.
40.
RiceREWilliamsF (1984) Theories old and new: the study of new media. In: RiceRE (ed.) The New Media. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 55–80.
41.
RosenbergerJSDierenfeldtRIngleH (2021) Media consumption and fear of crime: evidence of the need for an intersectional approach. Victims & Offenders. Epub ahead of print 20 October. DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2021.1991069.
RothPLLeHOhIS, et al. (2018) Using beta coefficients to impute missing correlations in meta-analysis research: reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology103(6): 644–658.
44.
SchwarzerGCarpenterJRRückerG (2015) Meta-analysis with R. New York: Springer.
45.
ShanahanJMorganM (1999) Television and Its Viewers: Cultivation Theory and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
ShrumLJ (1995) Assessing the social influence of television: a social cognition perspective on cultivation effects. Communication Research22(4): 402–429.
47.
SignorielliNMorganMShanahanJ (2019) The violence profile: five decades of cultural indicators research. Mass Communication and Society22(1): 1–28.
48.
StanleyTD (2017) Limitations of PET-PEESE and other meta-analysis methods. Social Psychological and Personality Science8(5): 581–591.
49.
StanleyTDDoucouliagosCH (2014) Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods5(1): 60–78.
50.
Tsay-VogelMShanahanJESignorielliN (2018) Social media cultivating perceptions of privacy: a five-year longitudinal analysis of privacy attitudes and self-disclosure behaviors among Facebook users. new media & society20(1): 141–161.
51.
van AertRCMWichertsJMvan AssenMALM (2019) Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: a meta-meta-analysis. PLoS ONE14(4): e0215052.
52.
Van den NoortgateWLópez-LópezJAMarín-MartínezF, et al. (2013) Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods45(2): 576–594.
53.
VannucciASimpsonEGGagnonS, et al. (2020) Social media use and risky behaviors in adolescents: a meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence79: 258–274.
54.
VoronovMSingerJA (2002) The myth of individualism-collectivism: a critical review. The Journal of Social Psychology142(4): 461–480.
WongYJWangSYKlannEM (2018) The emperor with no clothes: a critique of collectivism and individualism. Archives of Scientific Psychology6(1): 251–260.
57.
XuJHanR (2019) The influence of place attachment on pro-environmental behaviors: The moderating effect of social media. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health16(24): Article 5100.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
