Submitted:
01 February 2024
Posted:
02 February 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Summary
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Procedure and participants
2.2. Instruments
2.2.1. Facebook data
2.2.2. Quality of Life measures
2.3. Data analysis
3. Results
3.1. Model fit
3.2. Longitudinal patterns of online activity on Facebook and links with QoL dimensions
Discussion
Declaration of AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process
Authors Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dixon, S. J. (2023, October 27). Global social networks ranked by number of users 2023. Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.
- Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., ... & Ybarra, O. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e69841. [CrossRef]
- Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 721-727. [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.-Y., & Yu, C.-P. (2013). Can Facebook use induce well-being? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 674-678. [CrossRef]
- Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48, 369-380. [CrossRef]
- Marengo, D., Azucar, D., Longobardi, C., & Settanni, M. (2021a). Mining Facebook data for Quality of Life assessment. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(6), 597-607. [CrossRef]
- Marengo, D., Montag, C., Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D., & Settanni, M. (2021b). Examining the links between active Facebook use, received likes, self-esteem and happiness: A study using objective social media data. Telematics and Informatics, 58, 101523. [CrossRef]
- Shakya, H. B., & Christakis, N. A. (2017). Association of Facebook use with compromised well-being: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 185(3), 203-211. [CrossRef]
- Marengo, D., Poletti, I., & Settanni, M. (2020). The interplay between neuroticism, extraversion, and social media addiction in young adult Facebook users: Testing the mediating role of online activity using objective data. Addictive behaviors, 102, 106150. [CrossRef]
- Marengo, D., Montag, C., Mignogna, A., & Settanni, M. (2022a). Mining digital traces of Facebook activity for the prediction of individual differences in tendencies toward social networks use disorder: A machine learning approach. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 830120. [CrossRef]
- Marengo, D., Settanni, M., & Montag, C. (2022b). Dataset on individual differences in self-reported personality and inferred emotional expression in profile pictures of Italian Facebook users. Data in Brief, 41, 107899. [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. 2018. "HRQoL Measuring Quality of Life." http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ whoqol-qualityoflife/en/.
- Curran, P. J., Howard, A. L., Bainter, S. A., Lane, S. T., & McGinley, J. S. (2014). The separation of between-person and within-person components of individual change over time: a latent curve model with structured residuals. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 82(5), 879. [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238. [CrossRef]
- Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10. [CrossRef]
- Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. [CrossRef]
- Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural equation modeling, 11(3), 320-341. [CrossRef]
- Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2019). Mplus: A General Latent Variable Modeling Program.
- Enders, C. K. (2011). Missing not at random models for latent growth curve analyses. Psychological methods, 16(1), 1. [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications.


| Timepoint | Variable | Mean | SD | Min | Max | N |
| 1 | % Verbal Status updates | 54.61 | 33.72 | 0 | 100 | 1315 |
| 2 | % Verbal Status updates | 55.05 | 33.63 | 0 | 100 | 1391 |
| 3 | % Verbal Status updates | 54.96 | 33.71 | 0 | 100 | 1482 |
| 4 | % Verbal Status updates | 55.47 | 33.09 | 0 | 100 | 1522 |
| 5 | % Verbal Status updates | 54.44 | 33.66 | 0 | 100 | 1514 |
| 6 | % Verbal Status updates | 54.61 | 33.48 | 0 | 100 | 1491 |
| 7 | % Verbal Status updates | 54.88 | 34.28 | 0 | 100 | 1493 |
| 8 | % Verbal Status updates | 54.09 | 34.33 | 0 | 100 | 1485 |
| 9 | % Verbal Status updates | 53.63 | 34.52 | 0 | 100 | 1493 |
| 10 | % Verbal Status updates | 52.79 | 34.94 | 0 | 100 | 1482 |
| 11 | % Verbal Status updates | 52.85 | 34.43 | 0 | 100 | 1444 |
| 12 | % Verbal Status updates | 53.89 | 36.73 | 0 | 100 | 1279 |
| 1 | Average Received Likes | 12.22 | 14.01 | 0 | 84.50 | 1315 |
| 2 | Average Received Likes | 13.52 | 15.04 | 0 | 83.2 | 1391 |
| 3 | Average Received Likes | 13.48 | 14.84 | 0 | 81.00 | 1482 |
| 4 | Average Received Likes | 13.09 | 15.12 | 0 | 84.00 | 1522 |
| 5 | Average Received Likes | 13.22 | 15.39 | 0 | 83.50 | 1514 |
| 6 | Average Received Likes | 12.25 | 14.22 | 0 | 77.00 | 1491 |
| 7 | Average Received Likes | 11.93 | 13.93 | 0 | 73.00 | 1493 |
| 8 | Average Received Likes | 10.79 | 13.14 | 0 | 67.67 | 1485 |
| 9 | Average Received Likes | 10.43 | 11.67 | 0 | 64.00 | 1493 |
| 10 | Average Received Likes | 11.61 | 13.22 | 0 | 66.00 | 1482 |
| 11 | Average Received Likes | 11.31 | 13.03 | 0 | 72.00 | 1444 |
| 12 | Average Received Likes | 11.30 | 14.15 | 0 | 71.00 | 1279 |
| Mean | Current QoL | QoL Change | |
| % Verbal Status Updates – Intercept (Ix) | 55.321 [ 54.009, 56.761] |
.093 [.024, .163] |
.067 [-.003, .136] |
| % Verbal Status Updates – Slope (Sx) | -0.186 [ -0.317, -0.061] |
-.027 [-.150, .108] |
.011 [-.117, .139] |
| Avg. Received Likes – Intercept (Iy) | 13.150 [12.504, 13.779] |
.196 [.127, .269] |
.054 [-.023, .124] |
| Avg. Received Likes – Slope (Sy) | -0.195 [-0.248, -0.136] |
-.031 [-.163, .084] |
.175 [.047, .319] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).