Piotrowski YouthDigitalSociety 2024

Amsterdam University Press
Chapter Title: Youth and the Digital Society

Chapter Author(s): Jessica Taylor Piotrowski
Book Title: Communication Research into the Digital Society

Book Subtitle: Fundamental Insights from the Amsterdam School of Communication
Research
Book Editor(s): Theo Araujo, Peter Neijens
Published by: Amsterdam University Press. (2024)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.11895525.8
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license,
visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Amsterdam University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Communication Research into the Digital Society
This content downloaded from 121.7.132.32 on Mon, 29 Apr 2024 06:10:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
5. Youth and the Digital Society
Jessica Taylor Piotrowski
Abstract
The digital transformation has impacted all aspects of society. These
impacts are most acutely seen amongst the youngest generation as they
have been born into a world that looks entirely different than generations
before. For researchers interested in how youth navigate, accommodate,
and shape the digital society, these changes have precipitated a need for
revised theorising; more precise analytic approaches; and a recognition
that many young people lack the skills necessary to fully participate in
this digital society. ASCoR scholars have contributed meaningfully to a
global dialogue about how we can ensure that youth are prepared for the
digital world they live in and remain committed to this dynamic dialogue
in the years ahead.
Keywords: adolescence, children, differential susceptibility, technological

access, digital competence
Introduction
After the introduction of television, E. B. White famously said that television

was “going to be the test of the modern world. We shall stand or fall by the
television—of that I am quite sure” (White, 1950). Fast forward to 2023—and
replace television with digitisation. Every aspect of our mediated world is, or
can be, digital. Access is at one’s fingertips, information should be bite-sized,
experiences should be interactive, narrative should be transportive, and
communication can be through and with human and non-human agents.
The digital transformation has impacted all aspects of society. These impacts
are perhaps most acutely seen amongst the youngest generation as they
have been born into a world that looks entirely different than generations
Piotrowski, J. T. (2024). Youth and the digital society. In T. Araujo & P. Neijens (Eds.), Com-
munication research into the digital society: Fundamental insights from the Amsterdam
School of Communication Research (pp. 87-100). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.
org/10.5117/9789048560592_ch05
88 Jessica Taylor Piotrowski
before. Communication scholars have always identified this group as a

special one for study, but digital transformations have placed this group in
a space of urgency—with society demanding answers regarding the impact
of social media on youth; the extent to which (emerging) technology such as
smartphones, wearables, streaming services, virtual assistants, social robots,
and artificial intelligence might reshape childhood; the ethical ramifications
of the digital society (see Livingstone & Third, 2017), including the right to
participation and representation, the right to (data) protection and online
safety, the right to digital competence, and the right to be forgotten; and
the skills necessary to thrive in this new digital space.
In the past decade, youth and media scholars at ASCoR have worked to
respond to these changing times and these pressing issues. Given that the
digital society has impacted many different echelons of youth and media
scholarship, there is not one theoretical, methodological, or conceptual
development that can be highlighted as pinnacle. Rather, there are a handful
of interconnected developments that together have shaped—and continue
to shape—how ASCoR researchers approach and contribute to the dynamic
topic of youth and media in the digital society.
Theoretical contributions
Perhaps most impactful to the youth and media field has been Valkenburg
and Peter’s (2013) theoretical publication “The Differential Susceptibility
to Media Effects Model.” After only a decade this publication has already
been cited nearly a thousand times and is recognised by scholars globally
as game-changing—both for communication science and for youth and
media scholars specif ically. In this manuscript, Valkenburg and Peter
argue for attention to differential susceptibility—namely, a recognition
that not all media effect all users in the same manner. To that end, they
offer a theoretical model, DSMM, which posits that individual differences
in developmental, dispositional, and social susceptibility impact media
selection and media processing—leading to differential effects.
For certainty, even before the digital transformation, the communication
science field saw us theorising about differential effects to some extent.
But Valkenburg and Peter’s model, whose development not coincidently
occurred as digital technology was fiercely grabbing hold of the youth
media landscape, has pushed scholars to rethink existing practices. In the
analogue media era, most (youth and media) scholars relied on statistical
controls to draw conclusions for all (Piotrowski & Valkenburg, 2015). As a
Youth and the Digital Socie t y 89
result, differential susceptibility was often excluded entirely from analytic

considerations, and instead the tradition leaned towards either saying, “Yes,
effect for all” or “No, no effect for all.” But the digital transformations in the
field—moving, for example, from analogue television, books, and radio to
social media, games, interactive television, social robots, virtual assistants,
and (personal) smart devices—made it clear that the field needed to consider
“Yes, for some” as a plausible (and likely) outcome.
Consider social media, such as TikTok or YouTube, for a moment. The
uptick of social media use among youth (who are among the earliest adopters
and most frequent users of social media across all age groups) has been a
field-changer for youth and media scholars. Youth today choose amongst
an array of social media spaces where they then co-construct a unique
experience that is all their own. Both TikTok and YouTube offer a video
viewing experience, both offer opportunities for short form video content,
and both offer opportunities for social comments. Yet, they offer a very
different experience when compared to each other. Even more, within
TikTok or YouTube, teens will have a very different experience depending
upon the choices they make. Inasmuch, simply offering a “Yes” or a “No”
as to whether social media impacts young people is illogical. We need to
understand which youth choose which social media, how they use this social
media, what responses they experience when using this social media, and
what effects occur thereafter.
The DSMM is the first comprehensive theory to provide theoretical space
for these questions, and ASCoR scholars gave the DSMM its first voice via a
pair of studies. First, in a longitudinal study with adolescents, ASCoR scholars
were interested in nuancing the debate regarding (digital and analogue)
media violence and aggressive behaviour. Rather than “Yes” or “No,” they
found “Yes, for some.” Specifically, they demonstrated that children growing
up in families with higher conflict are more susceptible to the impact of
media violence as these teens experience greater arousal when consuming
violent media content and, as a result, demonstrate increased aggressive
tendencies (Fikkers, 2016; Fikkers et al., 2013; Fikkers et al., 2016). Similarly, in
a parallel longitudinal study with younger children, ASCoR researchers asked
about the relationship between ADHD behaviour and violent/scary media.
Here, too, a “Yes, for some” relationship was found. Boys with increased
ADHD behaviour were found to consume more violent/scary media and
demonstrated differences in arousal and attention to violent/scary media.
Moreover, the use of autonomy-supportive parenting was associated with
fewer ADHD behaviours and less violent/scary media consumption, and
lastly, ADHD behaviours longitudinally predicted violent/scary media
content consumption which then increased ADHD behaviours (Nikkelen

et al., 2014; Nikkelen et al., 2015).
These two case studies were foundational examples of the utility of the
DSMM in the digital society. And, since that time, the use of the model
across the field has exploded—paralleling the explosion of the use of digital
media throughout childhood and adolescence. ASCoR scholars have been
at the forefront of this explosion—asking precisely when, for whom, and
how the digital society impacts young people. This work has touched upon
multitasking, virtual assistants, sexual internet content, and more. For
example, Baumgartner and colleagues found longitudinal evidence for a
potential detrimental long‐term effect of media multitasking on attention
problems for early adolescents (Baumgartner et al., 2017; see also van der
Schuur et al., 2015). Van Oosten (2016) demonstrated that the link between
sexually explicit internet use and sexual uncertainty was only present
among girls with low hyper-gendered orientation and a high impersonal
sex orientation. Wald and colleagues (Wald, Piotrowski, van Oosten, et al.,
2023) found that differences in technology confidence, internet literacy, and
preferred style of media mediation best characterise whether families have
(34%) smart speakers in their homes. And Meier et al. (2022) showed that
while more automatic social media use and more frequent phone checking
predicted procrastination for teens, this occurred only in a minority of
adolescents.
Methodological contributions
Just as the theorising has shifted to encourage more nuanced answers

about today’s digital society, this theorising—combined with a quickly
changing media landscape—has necessitated a shift in methods as well.
The digital society affords (and often assumes) that the user is an active
contributor in the experience—engaging via and with technology. Children
and teens engage with digital games (Lemmens et al., 2015); they text with
friends (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009); they post images on Instagram and
comments on YouTube (de Vries et al., 2018; Möller et al., 2021); they play
with apps (Broekman et al., 2018); they talk to virtual assistants (Wald,
Piotrowski, Araujo, et al., 2023); they high-five robots (Peter & Kühne, 2018);
and they are surrounded by others using digital media throughout their
everyday lives (Wolfers et al., 2020). Youth are among the first adopters of
changing technologies, and these technologies have left us asking: What are
the differential impacts? and How do we measure the impact? In a space
where simply posting a status update can impact one’s own sense of self
(Valkenburg, 2017), the digital society has required scholars to reconsider
our measurement and analytic approaches.
In this book, Trilling and colleagues (2024) highlight the so-called
computational turn at ASCoR—demonstrating how the digital society
has pushed ASCoR scholars to leverage computational methodology to
answer key questions of our time. This computational turn has also been
felt in the youth and media sector, with scholars relying on computational
methodology (via public data scraping and personal data donation) to assess
large corpuses of (media) content. For example, computational approaches
have been used to assess the types of sexual information that adolescents
locate online; total amount of smartphone use (Baumgartner et al., 2023);
and the types of behaviours engaged in during social media usage (van
Driel et al., 2022). These approaches have been a valuable addition in an
age of big data, handheld devices, and personalised experiences. They help
us understand aspects of the so-called black box (Fikkers & Piotrowski,
2020)—namely, what individuals are consuming as well as where and how
they are responding to this information (see also Araujo et al., 2022). Yet,
while these computational methods provide us the opportunity to gather
more precise insight into the media experience, they do not by default
capitalise on this precision—leaving incomplete answers to key questions
in the field.
Specif ically, the media effects f ield—within and outside youth and
media—has long suffered with a mismatch between theorising and analysis.
Theoretically, the media effects tradition acknowledges that media ef-
fects occur within a person and that the type of effects depend upon the
interaction between person, content, and context characteristics (i.e.,
DSMM predictions). Yet historically, analyses have primarily looked for
differences between persons. Indeed, a look across the youth and media
space (e.g., Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017) shows that the great majority of
(quantitative) studies have either compared one group with another group
via (quasi-)experiments or relied on a single (occasionally ±3 data points) for
a single participant in survey/longitudinal research. With such relatively
limited datasets, it was only possible to statistically compare—and make
conclusions—between people. And for the most part, this was sufficient,
particularly with analogue media where the content was largely known,
limited in scope, and interactivity was non-existent.
The digital society, however, brings with it nearly limitless media
experiences that are often precipitated upon the types of interactivi-
ties involved. The increased accessibility of computational methods and
in-depth measurement (e.g., experience sampling) (see Siebers et al., 2022;

Verbeij et al., 2022) offers researchers the statistical and computational
power to zoom into an individual participant’s data and actually uncover
within-person relationships between predictors and outcomes. Meier’s
work, for example, capitalised on 22,809 assessments from 312 adolescents
(Meier et al., 2022). With such data, it is increasingly possible to study the
very relationships that scientists have been theorising about all along;
enabling scholars to augment existing work by looking within (many)
persons and, in doing so, obtaining richer detail about for whom these
relationships exist or not.
ASCoR scholars have responded to this opportunity by encouraging the
youth and media field to consider the use of person-specific approaches
(Valkenburg et al., 2021) to precisely understand what the relationship
between youth and the digital society is, and how the digital society is (re)
shaping childhood and adolescence. For example, ASCoR scholars in Project
AWeSome implemented a person-specific analytic paradigm to test how
each young person is impacted. Rather than concluding a null relationship,
which would have been the case with former approaches, they found that
the majority of adolescents (88%) experience little to no effect of social
media use on self-esteem but 4% experienced positive effects and 8%
experienced negative effects (Valkenburg et al., 2021). At a societal level,
this is a meaningful distinction. And, indeed, similar patterns have been
echoed with analyses on well-being with 45% of adolescents experiencing
no changes in well-being due to social media use, 28% experiencing declines
in well-being, and 26% experiencing increases in well-being (Beyens et al.,
2021). This work, and others like it from ASCoR scholars, has helped shift
the dialogue about effects in the digital society from “Is there an effect?” to
“For whom is there which effect?”—making a strong argument for including
more advanced person-specific approaches in digital society scholarship.
Conceptual developments
While theorising and methodological approaches have evolved alongside

changes in the digital society, so have the conversations about what it means
for youth to thrive in the digital society. Here, too, ASCoR scholars have
been actively engaging in scholarship to understand the protective and
empowering factors that may be unique to this space. One topic that has
entered the lexicon of many ASCoR scholars is digital competence—namely,
the digital knowledge and digital skills needed (for youth) to thrive in the
digital environment.
Note that the phrase “for youth” is indicated parenthetically as the concept
is truly a lifespan concept. The digital society is a powerfully beneficial force
for some individuals in some contexts. But these benefits are neither uniform
nor equitable. There are groups who remain excluded or marginalised
because of a lack of access to technology transformations. And, even within
a prosperous country such as the Netherlands, data collected in ASCoR’s
Digital Competence (DIGCOM) Project shows that technology access is
not equal (e.g., de Vries et al., 2022b). At the same time, nearly half of the
European population lacks the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive
in the digital world (Clifford et al., 2020; European Union, n.d.). Without
the right skills, the opportunities of the digital society are unlikely to be
experienced. Instead, the pitfalls—privacy and security leaks; mental health
and well-being degradation; digital addiction, and more—risk becoming
the hallmark of the digital society.
This is an urgent problem, which will only be exacerbated as artificial
intelligence advances at rapid speed. Solving the problem requires interven-
tion at numerous societal levels, with youth considered a critical point of
impact. In the Netherlands, for example, there is a robust dialogue about the
degree to which digital competence should be a required learning outcome
in early education. But enacting such a policy means understanding precisely
what digital competence is, and what knowledge and capacities youth do
(and do not) have. Only then is it possible to investigate digital diversity:
namely, who requires support, what type of support is needed, and how
best to offer it (de Vries et al., 2023).
As first step, ASCoR researchers have contributed to this dialogue by
creating the DigIQ®—a psychometrically valid assessment tool to assess
digital competence that covers the full dimension of digital competence
(strategic information; critical information; netiquette; digital content
creation; safety and control of information and devices; digital health and
well-being; sustainable/green technology; artificial intelligence), captures
variability, and facilitates comparisons across age (de Vries et al., 2022a). Even
more, this tool provides connections to local resources to help individuals
bolster their skills and is now part of a national dialogue about ways to
monitor and support digital competence. By formalising and elevating
the concept of digital competence to the (inter)national agenda, ASCoR
researchers have offered a critical foundation for future dialogue on thriving
in the digital society.
Next steps
At ASCoR, this foundational conversation of digital competence is already

being complemented by research on growing up in a digital society. From
asking how and whether children form relationships with social robots
(de Jong et al., 2019; Peter et al., 2019; Peter & Kühne, 2018; van Straten et
al., 2022), to asking about their interaction and accommodation of virtual
assistants (Wald, Piotrowski, Araujo, et al., 2023), to questions about youth
multitasking online (Baumgartner et al., 2017), to studying the degree to
which digital spaces support healthy solitude (Keessen et al., 2022)—ASCoR
researchers continue to make clear that young people are confronted with
a world that their (grand)parents never experienced.
It will take all of us—including the developers of this digital space (as
argued by Dekker et al., 2023)—to ensure the road ahead does more good
than harm. This means pushing for a responsible tech agenda, including
ethics by design (e.g., Helberger et al., 2018; Palomar-Garcia et al., 2023;
Slater et al., 2020). Too long have developers taken an agnostic approach to
the effects of their technology—advancing the position that they are not
responsible for how their technology is used. Yet, they are also responsible.
They are in possession of a wealth of data that informs them about how
users respond to their content—including how “like” features, stopping cues,
editing features, time indicators, data privacy tools, and more influence the
experience and safety of users. Developers can use this data to improve the
media ecosystem, and in doing so, benefit all of us. It is a choice to allow
algorithmic recommendations to reflect and reinforce inequalities in our
social system (Helberger et al., 2018). It is a choice to prioritise and push
persuasive influencer content to teens (van Reijmersdal & van Dam, 2020).
It is a choice to create platforms that are addictive (Lemmens & Hendriks,
2016). The future involves holding developers accountable, too. Developers,
researchers, policymakers, and youth themselves—all need to sit at the
same table. ASCoR researchers are ready to play their part. Just recently,
for example, Sindy Sumter, Chei Billedo, and Irene van Driel launched
SeeMeBeMe—an initiative in which ASCoR researchers are engaging with
youth, developers, and policymakers to share research insights on how youth
experience media to better ensure that “future media products … support
ALL young people in today’s digital, hyperdiverse society” (SeeMeBeMe,
2023).
At the same time, the future also involves concretely operationalising the
in vogue term “digital well-being.” At the time of this writing, it functions
as an omnibus term for any positive integration of technology into one’s
life—and, in that regard, there is real opportunity to refine and nuance this
concept. A cursory review of the literature suggests that digital well-being
refers to the state of one’s physical, mental, and emotional health in relation
to one’s use of technology and digital devices (e.g., Burr et al., 2020; Orben
& Przybylski, 2019; Vanden Abeele, 2021). It is said to involve f inding a
balance between the benefits and risks associated with digital technology
and is often connected to practices such as setting boundaries for screen
time, taking technology breaks, using technology in a responsible way, and
developing healthy habits around technology use. While on its face this is
an interesting concept, there is much to be gained in specifying this concept
and its sub-concepts—both for measurement and intervention.
Lastly, and perhaps most difficult, the future requires changing the field’s
current reactive stance to a proactive one whereby scholarship asks how
we can ensure that youth are prepared for the next digital development.
Historically, communication science has demonstrated that—with each new
technology—society first experiences fear and panic, with the so-called
few “innovators” excitedly trying the technology (Livingstone, 2002). This
is often followed by resistance and scepticism, as people question the value
added. With time, integration often occurs—and then discussions about
limits and boundaries emerge. But as history has shown, particularly as
it relates to ethics and privacy, these discussions are often too late. These
discussions need to be at the forefront so that the process of technological
accommodation keeps humans in the loop throughout the process, not
only after.
References
Araujo, T., Ausloos, J., van Atteveldt, W., Loecherbach, F., Moeller, J., Ohme, J.,
Trilling, D., van de Velde, B., de Vreese, C., & Welbers, K. (2022). OSD2F: An
open-source data donation framework. Computational Communication Research,
4(2), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2022.2.001.ARAU
Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., Petkevič, V., & Wiradhany, W. (2023). A novel iOS
data donation approach: Automatic processing, compliance, and reactivity in
a longitudinal study. Social Science Computer Review, 41(4), 1456–1472. https://
doi.org/10.1177/08944393211071068
Baumgartner, S. E., van der Schuur, W. A., Lemmens, J. S., & te Poel, F. (2017). The
relationship between media multitasking and attention problems in adolescents:
Results of two longitudinal studies. Human Communication Research, 44(1),
3–30. https://doi.org/10/gfw9jg
Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I. I., Keijsers, L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2021). Social
media use and adolescents’ well-being: Developing a typology of person-specific
effect patterns. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1177/00936502211038196
Broekman, F. L., Piotrowski, J. T., Beentjes, H. W., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). App
features that fulfill parents’ needs in apps for children. Mobile Media & Com-
munication, 6(3), 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157918759571
Burr, C., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of digital well-being: A thematic
review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2313–2343. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11948-020-00175-8
Clifford, I., Kluzer, S., Troia, S., Jakobsome, S., & Zandbergs, U. (2020). DigCompSat:
A self-reflection tool for the European digital framework for citizens. Publications
Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/77437
de Jong, C., Kühne, R., Peter, J., van Straten, C. L., & Barco, A. (2019). What do
children want from a social robot? Toward gratifications measures for child–
robot interaction. Proceedings of the 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on
Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), India, 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956319
Dekker, C., A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Ohme, J. (2023, September 20–23).
Improving digital well-being: Findings from two intervention studies targeting
smartphone behavior [Poster session]. 2023 Digital Media and Developing Minds
International Scientific Congress, Washington, DC.
de Vries, D. A., Möller, A. M., Wieringa, M. S., Eigenraam, A. W., & Hamelink, K.
(2018). Social comparison as the thief of joy: Emotional consequences of viewing
strangers’ Instagram posts. Media Psychology, 21(2), 222–245. https://doi.org/10
.1080/15213269.2016.1267647
de Vries, D. A., Piotrowski, J. T., & de Vreese, C. (2022a, December 8). DigIQ. OSF.
https://osf.io/dfvqb
de Vries, D. A., Piotrowski, J. T., & de Vreese, C. (2022b). Resultaten onderzoek
digitale competenties (DIGCOM). University of Amsterdam. https://osf.io/7sn6q/
de Vries, D. A., Piotrowski, J. T., & de Vreese, C. (2023). Developing DigIQ: A measure
of digital competence [Manuscript in preparation]. Amsterdam School of Com-
munication Research, University of Amsterdam.
European Union. (n.d.). Digital competence framework for educators (DigCompEdu).
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu
Fikkers, K. M. (2016). A different(ial) perspective: How social context influences the
media violence–aggression relationship among early adolescents (Publication
no. 9789462039681) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam]. UvA-
DARE. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.512223
Fikkers, K. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2020). Content and person effects in media
research: Studying differences in cognitive, emotional, and arousal responses
to media content. Media Psychology, 23(4), 493–520. https://doi.org/10/ggkz53
Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). Beyond the lab: Investigat-
ing early adolescents’ cognitive, emotional, and arousal responses to violent
games. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2016.02.055
Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Weeda, W. D., Vossen, H. G. M., & Valkenburg,
P. M. (2013). Double dose: High family conflict enhances the effect of media
violence exposure on adolescents’ aggression. Societies, 3(3), 280–292. https://
doi.org/10/gcftnk
Helberger, N., Karppinen, K., & D’Acunto, L. (2018). Exposure diversity as a design
principle for recommender systems. Information, Communication & Society,
21(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10/gfkn39
Keessen, L., Piotrowski, J. T., Sumter, S. R., & van Oosten, J. M. F. (2022, June 19–23).
Me-time in the digital age: Development and validation of the need for solitude
scale [Paper presentation]. 26th Biennial Meeting of the International Society
for the Study of Behavioural Development, Rhodes, Greece.
Lemmens, J. S., & Hendriks, S. J. F. (2016). Addictive online games: Examining the
relationship between game genres and internet gaming disorder. Cyberpsychol-
ogy, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(4), 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1089/
cyber.2015.0415
Lemmens, J. S., Valkenburg, P. M., & Gentile, D. A. (2015). The internet gaming
disorder scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 567–582. https://doi.org/10/f7gfs4
Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing
media environment. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446219522
Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital
age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1461444816686318
Meier, A., Beyens, I., Siebers, T., Pouwels, J. L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2022). Habitual
social media and smartphone use are linked to procrastination for some, but
not all, adolescents. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/y9fuv
Möller, A. M., Baumgartner, S. E., Kühne, R., & Peter, J. (2021). Sharing the fun?
How social information affects viewers’ video enjoyment and video evaluations.
Human Communication Research, 47(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/
hqaa013
Nikkelen, S. W. C., Vossen, H. G., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Children’s television
viewing and ADHD-related behaviors: Evidence from the Netherlands. Journal of
Children and Media, 9(4), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1088872
Nikkelen, S. W. C., Vossen, H. G. M., Valkenburg, P. M., Velders, F. P., Windhorst, D. A.,
Jaddoe, V. W. V., Hofman, A., Verhulst, F. C., & Tiemeier, H. (2014). Media violence
and children’s ADHD-related behaviors: A genetic susceptibility perspective.
Journal of Communication, 64(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10/f57fkp
Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being
and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 173–182. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1
Palomar-Garcia, C., Fernández-Planells, A., & Sora-Domenjó, C. (2023). Uses and
abuses of User-Centered Design: Literature review and proposal of a tool for
evaluating ethics in the design of mobile applications. Digital Creativity, 34(1),
37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2023.2165107
Peter, J., & Kühne, R. (2018). The new frontier in communication research: Why
we should study social robots. Media and Communication, 6(3), 73–76. https://
doi.org/10/ggkjf3
Peter, J., Kühne, R., Barco, A., de Jong, C., & van Straten, C. L. (2019). Asking today
the crucial questions of tomorrow: Social robots and the internet of toys. In G.
Mascheroni & D. Holloway (Eds.), The internet of toys: Practices, affordances and
the political economy of children’s smart play (pp. 25–46). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10898-4_2
Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Finding orchids in a field of dandelions:
Understanding children’s differential susceptibility to media effects. American
Behavioral Scientist, 59(14), 1776–1789. https://doi.org/10/ggh73t
SeeMeBeMe (2023). Vision. https://seemebeme.org/about-2/
Siebers, T., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2022). Explaining variation
in adolescents’ social media-related distraction: The role of social connectivity
and disconnectivity factors. Current Psychology. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03844-y
Slater, M., Gonzalez-Liencres, C., Haggard, P., Vinkers, C., Gregory-Clarke, R., Jelley,
S., Watson, Z., Breen, G., Schwarz, R., Steptoe, W., Szostak, D., Halan, S., Fox,
D., & Silver, J. (2020). The ethics of realism in virtual and augmented reality.
Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 1, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.00001
Trilling, D., Araujo, T., Kroon, A., Möller, A. M., Strycharz, J., & Vermeer, S. (2024).
Computational communication science in a digital society. In T. Araujo & P.
Neijens (Eds.), Communication research into the digital society: Fundamental
insights from the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (pp. 247-263).
Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789048560592_ch15
Valkenburg, P. M. (2017). Understanding self-effects in social media: Self-effects
in social media. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 477–490. https://doi.
org/10/gcmcjm
Valkenburg, P. M., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I. I., & Keijsers, L. (2021).
Social media use and adolescents’ self-esteem: Heading for a person-specific
media effects paradigm. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 56–78. https://doi.
org/10.1093/joc/jqaa039
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the internet for ado-
lescents: A decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1),
1–5. https://doi.org/10/cwrkk7
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media ef-
fects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcom.12024
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged in: How media attract and
affect youth. Yale University Press.
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P. (2021). Digital wellbeing as a dynamic construct. Com-
munication Theory, 31(4), 932–955. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa024
van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015).
The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in
Human Behavior, 53, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.035
van Driel, I. I., Giachanou, A., Pouwels, J. L., Boeschoten, L., Beyens, I., & Valkenburg,
P. M. (2022). Promises and pitfalls of social media data donations. Communication
Methods and Measures, 16(4), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2022.2109608
van Oosten, J. M. F. (2016). Sexually explicit internet material and adolescents’
sexual uncertainty: The role of disposition-content congruency. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 45(4), 1011–1022. https://doi.org/10/f65z36
van Reijmersdal, E. A., & van Dam, S. (2020). How age and disclosures of sponsored
influencer videos affect adolescents’ knowledge of persuasion and persua-
sion. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(7), 1531–1544. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-019-01191-z
van Straten, C. L., Peter, J., Kühne, R., & Barco, A. (2022). On sharing and caring:
Investigating the effects of a robot’s self-disclosure and question-asking on
children’s robot perceptions and child–robot relationship formation. Computers
in Human Behavior, 129, Article 107135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107135
Verbeij, T., Pouwels, J. L., Beyens, I., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2022). Experience sam-
pling self-reports of social media use have comparable predictive validity to
digital trace measures. Scientific Reports, 12, Article 7611. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-022-11510-3
Wald, R., Piotrowski, J. T., Araujo, T., & van Oosten, J. M. F. (2023). Virtual assistants
in the family home. Understanding parents’ motivations to use virtual assistants
with their child(dren). Computers in Human Behavior, 139, Article 107526. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107526
Wald, R., Piotrowski, J. T., van Oosten, J. M. F., & Araujo, T. (2023). Who are the (non-)
adopters of smart speakers? A cross-sectional survey study of Dutch families.
Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.5117/TCW2023.X.001.WALD
White, E. B. (1950). One man’s meat. Harper and Brothers.
Wolfers, L. N., Kitzmann, S., Sauer, S., & Sommer, N. (2020). Phone use while parent-
ing: An observational study to assess the association of maternal sensitivity
and smartphone use in a playground setting. Computers in Human Behavior,
102, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.013
About the author
Jessica Taylor Piotrowski is a Full Professor at ASCoR, where she holds the
Chair in Communication in the Digital Society. As a media psychologist,
she focuses on identifying risk, resiliency, and enhancement factors that
allow youth to become engaged digital citizens. E-mail: J.Piotrowski@uva.nl

Piotrowski YouthDigitalSociety 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Piotrowski YouthDigitalSociety 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Piotrowski YouthDigitalSociety 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amsterdam University Press

Chapter Title: Youth and the Digital Society

Book Title: Communication Research into the Digital Society

This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

Keywords: adolescence, children, differential susceptibility, technological

After the introduction of television, E. B. White famously said that television

before. Communication scholars have always identified this group as a

result, differential susceptibility was often excluded entirely from analytic

content consumption which then increased ADHD behaviours (Nikkelen

Just as the theorising has shifted to encourage more nuanced answers

in-depth measurement (e.g., experience sampling) (see Siebers et al., 2022;

While theorising and methodological approaches have evolved alongside

At ASCoR, this foundational conversation of digital competence is already

About the author

You might also like