skip to main content
10.1145/3292522.3326009acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Dogs Good, Trump Bad: The Impact of Social Media Content on Sense of Well-Being

Published:26 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Social media can impact how people feel both in the short and long term. Most studies in this area have focused on longer-term feelings of happiness and life satisfaction, but the immediate impact on users' sense of well-being and anxiety levels are not well studied. In this work, we had 1,880 subjects complete surveys about their immediate sense of well-being and contentment and then view one of three possible social media pages: a collection of happy dog pictures and videos; a collection of non-dog related images and videos that generally were funny, non-political, and popular; and Donald Trump's Twitter account. After viewing this content, they were re-surveyed on their sense of well-being. We found viewing dogs led to a large and significant increase in the sense of well-being, viewing popular content led to a smaller but still significant improvement, and viewing Donald Trump's Twitter account led to a very large decrease in sense of well-being. This work has implications for recommender systems, which may consider these results as a step toward optimizing user well-being rather than simply engagement, and for users who may want to manage their own happiness through social media channels and following patterns.

References

  1. 2019. Washington Post-ABC News poll Jan. 21--24, 2019. Washington Post (Feb 2019). https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/polling/donald-trump-approvedisapprove-president/2019/02/07/ 3bba9b70--20cf-11e9-a759--2b8541bbbe20_page.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Karen Allen, Barbara E Shykoff, and Joseph L Izzo Jr. 2001. Pet ownership, but not ACE inhibitor therapy, blunts home blood pressure responses to mental stress. Hypertension 38, 4 (2001), 815--820.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Karen M Allen, Jim Blascovich, Joe Tomaka, and Robert M Kelsey. 1991. Presence of human friends and pet dogs as moderators of autonomic responses to stress in women. Journal of personality and social psychology 61, 4 (1991), 582.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Paul Best, Roger Manktelow, and Brian Taylor. 2014. Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review 41 (2014), 27--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Stoney Brooks. 2015. Does personal social media usage affect efficiency and well-being? Computers in Human Behavior 46 (2015), 26--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Moira Burke, Cameron Marlow, and Thomas Lento. 2010. Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1909--1912. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Stevie Chancellor, Zhiyuan Jerry Lin, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2016. This Post Will Just Get Taken Down: Characterizing Removed Pro-Eating Disorder Social Media Content. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1157--1162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Munmun De Choudhury, Emre Kiciman, Mark Dredze, Glen Coppersmith, and Mrinal Kumar. 2016. Discovering shifts to suicidal ideation from mental health content in social media. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2098--2110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Erika Friedmann, Aaron H Katcher, James J Lynch, and Sue Ann Thomas. 1980. Animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public health reports 95, 4 (1980), 307.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sophie Susannah Hall, Nancy R Gee, and Daniel Simon Mills. 2016. Children reading to dogs: A systematic review of the literature. PloS one 11, 2 (2016), e0149759.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Bruce Headey, Fu Na, and Richard Zheng. 2008. Pet dogs benefit owners health: A natural experimentin China. Social Indicators Research 87, 3 (2008), 481--493.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Bronwyn A Kingwell, Andrea Lomdahl, and Warwick P Anderson. 2001. Presence of a pet dog and human cardiovascular responses to mild mental stress. Clinical Autonomic Research 11, 5 (2001), 313--317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hiroshi Nittono, Michiko Fukushima, Akihiro Yano, and Hiroki Moriya. 2012. The power of kawaii: Viewing cute images promotes a careful behavior and narrows attentional focus. PloS one 7, 9 (2012), e46362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Edin Smailhodzic, Wyanda Hooijsma, Albert Boonstra, and David J Langley. 2016. Social media use in healthcare: a systematic review of effects on patients and on their relationship with healthcare professionals. BMC health services research 16, 1 (2016), 442.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Antonius J Van Rooij, Christopher J Ferguson, Dike Van de Mheen, and Tim M Schoenmakers. 2017. Time to abandon Internet Addiction? Predicting problematic Internet, game, and social media use from psychosocial well-being and application use. Clinical Neuropsychiatry 14, 1 (2017), 113--121.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. AM Williams, Leanne Lester, Caroline Bulsara, Anna Petterson, Kellie Bennett, E Allen, and David Joske. 2017. Patient Evaluation of Emotional Comfort Experienced (PEECE): developing and testing a measurement instrument. BMJ open 7, 1 (2017), e012999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Dogs Good, Trump Bad: The Impact of Social Media Content on Sense of Well-Being

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WebSci '19: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science
      June 2019
      395 pages
      ISBN:9781450362023
      DOI:10.1145/3292522

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 June 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      WebSci '19 Paper Acceptance Rate41of130submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate218of875submissions,25%

      Upcoming Conference

      Websci '24
      16th ACM Web Science Conference
      May 21 - 24, 2024
      Stuttgart , Germany

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader