The effects of urbanization and social media use on individuals’ perceived social isolation

Tyler J. Horan 1 *
More Detail
1 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 14, Issue 1, Article No: e202411.
OPEN ACCESS   753 Views   801 Downloads   Published online: 30 Jan 2024
Download Full Text (PDF)


Social networks have become an integral part of modern life, with billions of people around the world using platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to connect with others and share information and content. However, there is growing concern that social networks can also contribute to social isolation, particularly for individuals who substitute online for offline in person interactions. This study aims to investigate the relationship between the use of social networks and perceived social isolation and how this relationship varies by demographic and level of urbanization. The results showed that, on average, an individual’s sense of social isolation due to social networks increased for each additional hour spent on social networks and decreased for individuals with a high school education, some college education, and living in a suburban area. In particular, the model suggests that people living in suburban areas attribute lower levels of social isolation to the use of social media compared to those living in urban areas.


Horan, T. J. (2024). The effects of urbanization and social media use on individuals’ perceived social isolation. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(1), e202411.


  • AlSobeh, A. M. R., AlAzzam, I., Shatnawi, A. M. J., & Khasawneh, I. (2023). Cybersecurity awareness factors among adolescents in Jordan: Mediation effect of cyber scale and personal factors. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(2), e202312.
  • Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2011). Digital media and the personalization of collective action: Social technology and the organization of protests against the global economic crisis. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 770-799.
  • Bixter, M. T., Blocker, K. A., Mitzner, T. L., Prakash, A., & Rogers, W. A. (2019). Understanding the use and non-use of social communication technologies by older adults: A qualitative test and extension of the UTAUT model. Gerontechnology, 18(2), 70-88.
  • Bruns, A. (2017). Echo chamber? What echo chamber? Reviewing the evidence. In Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Future of Journalism Conference.
  • Bruns, A. (2019). It’s not the technology, stupid: How the ‘echo chamber’ and ‘filter bubble’ metaphors have failed us. International Association for Media and Communication Research.
  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
  • Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1909-1912).
  • Busemeyer, J. R. (1985). Decision making under uncertainty: A comparison of simple scalability, fixed-sample, and sequential-sampling models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(3), 538.
  • Cornwell, B., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(1), 31-48.
  • Dellarocas, C., Zhang, X., & Awad, N. F. (2007). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 53(1), 1407-1424.
  • Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
  • Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213-224.
  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
  • Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., Gonzales-Bailon, S., Kennedy, E., Kim, Y. M., Lazer, D., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Rivera, C. V., Settle, J., Thomas, D. R., …, & Tucker, J. A. (2023). How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science, 381(6656), 398-404.
  • Horan, T. (2022). Meeting up together: Economic embeddedness of social capital in America. Social Sciences, 11(4), 158.
  • Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2017). Reliability and validity of data obtained from alcohol, cannabis, and gambling populations on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 31(1), 85.
  • Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D., Lin, N., Shablack, H., Jonides, J., & Shakeri, H. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e69841.
  • Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? social media innovations and participatory politics. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 757-769.
  • MacLeod, A. (2019). Fake news, Russian bots and Putin’s puppets. In A. MacLeod (Eds.), Propaganda in the information age (pp. 65-83). Routledge.
  • Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university:’ It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141-155.
  • McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT Press.
  • Newman, N. (2011). Mainstream media and the distribution of news in the age of social media.
  • Ohme, J. (2021). Algorithmic social media use and its relationship to attitude reinforcement and issue-specific political participation–The case of the 2015 European immigration movements. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 18(1), 36-54.
  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411-419.
  • Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the united states? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88-127.
  • Pellegrino, A., Abe, M., & Shannon, R. (2022). The dark side of social media: Content effects on the relationship between materialism and consumption behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Touchstone Books by Simon & Schuster.
  • Shavazi, M. A., & Homayoon, P. (2014). Social media and social isolation: A study of relationship between new communication technologies and social isolation. Quarterly of Cultural Studies & Communication, 10(36), 43-66.
  • Swart, J. (2021). Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 20563051211008828.
  • Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
  • Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875-901.
  • Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9(5), 584-590.
  • Yang, Z. (2023). Why adolescents are addicted to social media. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 8, 1430-1436.
  • Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, R. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty-first century. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(1), 121-148.