Abstract
Sadfishing, or the exaggeration of one's emotional state online to generate sympathy, is a maladaptive behavior that can negatively affect mental health. A better understanding of the characteristics of individuals who sadfish could inform tailored interventions to decrease sadfishing and improve quality of life. However, to date, the phenomenon of sadfishing remains understudied. Thus, the current project was designed to identify some of the key psychological and behavioral characteristics that may be associated with sadfishing. Undergraduate college students (N = 374) recruited from introductory psychology courses at a large, Hispanic-serving institution completed an anonymous online survey assessing sadfishing and other online behaviors, psychological characteristics (coping, stress, resilience, and social support), and alcohol use. Both univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted. Results of the binary logistic regression analysis found that students who reported using denial as a coping strategy (p = 0.005), who endorsed the attention-seeking behaviors associated with histrionic personality disorder (p = 0.021), and who used social media while intoxicated (p = 0.017) were most likely to report sadfishing. This study furthers our knowledge of the maladaptive online behavior of sadfishing and identifies several key predictors that could become targets for tailored interventions. In particular, our results highlight the importance of coping skills training for individuals who sadfish.
Keywords: alcohol, coping, personality, sadfishing, social media
Introduction
The term “sadfishing” refers to exaggerating one's emotions online to gain sympathy and attention.1 While it may attract support, this exposure also leaves sadfish vulnerable to predation2,3 and may adversely impact their mental health.4,5 A better understand of sadfishing could illuminate intervention strategies to decrease this behavior.
Milestones such as learning to self-soothe, comfort oneself, and maintain resilience during stress are integral to adult well-being.6 Adults who cannot self-soothe may depend on external feedback for validation.6,7 Thus, sadfishing may be an external, tension-reducing behavior that is used instead of self-soothing to cope with stress, garner rewarding feedback, and enhance resilience. This aligns with findings that people use social media for coping, and that positive reinforcement mechanisms moderate the relationship between stress and problematic social media use.8 Therefore, coping strategies, resilience, and perceived stress are all potential sadfishing predictors.
Sadfishing might be part of a larger, ingrained pattern of behavior seen in histrionic personality disorder (HPD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD). Lengel9 describes manipulative exaggeration, elevated emotional lability, and attention-seeking as HPD traits. Furthermore, the pervasive interpersonal difficulties common in BPD can also be seen in affected individuals' social media behavior, even at a subclinical level.10 Individuals with HPD and/or BPD features may struggle to self-soothe and may use external validation to buoy their self-esteem.11,12 Their maladaptive behaviors may be more likely during stress.13 Treatment often includes increasing distress tolerance, emotional regulation, and interpersonal effectiveness.11,12 Clearly, symptoms of HPD and BPD are relevant to sadfishing.
Social media is itself behaviorally addictive.8 Also, for those who seek social status online, intensely curating their online platform through posts (potentially including sadfishing) may increase danger for other risk behaviors.14 Thus, we included overall social media use as a potential predictor of sadfishing. Furthermore, the association between alcohol and social media use is well-known,15 and even low levels of drinking may disrupt inhibitory control and increase risky behavior.16 Disinhibition also tends to increase intimate disclosure online.17 Therefore, drinking might increase sadfishing.
We predicted that, compared with individuals who do not sadfish, the sadfish would exhibit (H1) less effective coping, (H2) lower resilience, (H3) higher perceived stress, (H4) similar perceived social support, higher BPD (H5) and HPD (H6) characteristics, (H7) greater social media use, and (H8) higher alcohol consumption. Although social support was not a significant predictor in our previous work,18 we have included it here for further validation, yet we have predicted similar levels for both groups. Finally, we asked, “Of these theoretically relevant predictors, which will be most significantly associated with sadfishing?”
Materials and Methods
This study was approved by the University's Institutional Review Board, and research was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Students provided informed consent before participation.
Participants and procedures
Students were recruited from the Introduction to Psychology course (a general core course option for all undergraduate students) at a large Hispanic-serving institution in the Southcentral United States using the SONA human subject pool and were compensated with class credit. They completed an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey administered via Qualtrics. Participants were grouped as sadfish (n = 67) or non-sadfish (n = 307) based on their yes/no responses to “Have you ever exaggerated your emotional state online in order to get sympathy?”
Questionnaires
Demographics
Demographic questions assessed gender, age, ethnicity, and race.
Coping
The Brief COPE (α = 0.89) has 28 statements and a four-point scale.19 Subscales include self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, emotional support, instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Higher scores indicate greater strategy use. The subscales have acceptable internal consistency.19
Resilience
The Adolescent Resilience Questionnaire (Short Form; α = 0.77) has 49 statements and a five-point scale.20 It has good internal consistency.20,21 The total resilience score was positive (confidence, emotional insight, social skills, empathy/tolerance) minus negative subscales (negative cognition). Higher scores indicate greater resilience.
Stress
The Perceived Stress Scale (α = 0.83) assesses past-month feelings using 10 items and a five-point scale.22 Higher scores indicate greater stress. It has adequate reliability and is a better predictor than life-event scores.22,23
Social support
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (α = 0.94) measures support from family, friends, and significant others using 12 items and a seven-point scale.24,25 Higher scores indicate greater support. It has good internal reliability.25
Personality
The Brief Histrionic Personality Scale (α = 0.88), based on the DSM-5,26 has 11 statements and a four-point scale. There are two subscales: seductiveness and attention seeking. Higher scores indicate greater HPD traits. It has acceptable internal consistency.26
The BPD (α = 0.91) items from the larger Personality Belief Questionnaire consisted of 14 statements on a four-point scale.27 Higher scores indicate greater BPD traits. It has moderately high internal consistency.27
Social media use
Participants reported their favorite social media platform and average past-week social media use (hours per day, any platform). Participants indicated on a four-point scale how often they used social media while intoxicated.28 Higher scores indicate greater endorsement.
Alcohol use
Using standard drink sizes for alcoholic beverages, participants reported their average number of drinks per typical week and any lifetime binge drinking.29
Data analysis
Data were examined for outliers, skewness, and kurtosis. Drinks per week was square root transformed. Univariate comparisons assessed differences in demographics and other characteristics between sadfish and non-sadfish (Hypotheses H1–H8). To do this, chi-square tests of independence compared categorical variables, and independent t tests compared continuous variables. Pairwise deletion was used for missing data. To test the final research question, a binary logistic regression model was developed to determine the key characteristics associated with sadfishing. Listwise deletion accounted for missing data. Only variables significant at the univariable level were included in the model. Due to multicollinearity, humor, seductiveness, and BPD were excluded. To determine significance, two-tailed tests with an alpha level = 0.05 were used.
A post hoc power analysis was conducted based on an independent t test, with alpha = 0.05 and a small-to-moderate effect size (d = 0.4), which exhibited sufficient obtained power (1-β) = 0.84. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY).
Results
Table 1 shows demographics and psychological and behavioral characteristics.
Table 1.
Participant Characteristics
| Sadfish (n = 67) | Non-Sadfish (n = 307) | Significance, p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||
| Age | 19.4 (1.1) | 19.5 (1.3) | ns |
| Percent female | 63 (42) | 76 (234) | 0.02 |
| Percent Hispanic | 40 (27) | 42 (128) | ns |
| Percent white | 73 (49) | 71 (218) | ns |
| Coping strategies | |||
| Self-distraction | 5.52 (1.39) | 5.45 (1.34) | ns |
| Active coping | 5.47 (1.20) | 5.36 (1.36) | ns |
| Denial | 4.36 (1.82) | 3.63 (1.52) | 0.005 |
| Substance use | 4.33 (1.89) | 3.70 (1.86) | 0.02 |
| Use of emotional support | 5.35 (1.55) | 5.19 (1.61) | ns |
| Use of instrumental support | 5.53 (1.57) | 5.11 (1.68) | ns |
| Behavioral disengagement | 4.21 (1.39) | 4.04 (1.44) | ns |
| Venting | 4.95 (1.58) | 4.67 (1.43) | ns |
| Positive reframing | 5.39 (1.41) | 5.30 (1.61) | ns |
| Planning | 5.50 (1.66) | 5.46 (1.57) | ns |
| Humor | 6.23 (1.71) | 5.58 (1.72) | 0.01 |
| Acceptance | 5.79 (1.48) | 5.65 (1.42) | ns |
| Religion | 4.87 (1.95) | 4.56 (1.95) | ns |
| Self-blame | 5.75 (1.48) | 5.60 (1.58) | ns |
| Resilience | 41.61 (12.20) | 42.79 (11.99) | ns |
| Perceived stress | 21.92 (5.69) | 21.58 (6.40) | ns |
| Perceived social support | 61.30 (13.64) | 62.46 (15.27) | ns |
| Personality | |||
| Seductiveness | 14.10 (3.32) | 12.20 (3.31) | <0.001 |
| Attention-seeking | 12.00 (3.38) | 10.36 (3.13) | <0.001 |
| Borderline | 32.18 (8.54) | 29.02 (7.72) | 0.004 |
| Social media | |||
| Hours per day | 5.5 (2.5) | 4.9 (2.9) | ns |
| While intoxicated | 3.39 (1.51) | 2.61 (1.32) | <0.001 |
| Alcohol consumption | |||
| Drinks per weeka | 5.9 (10.0) | 3.0 (5.2) | 0.001 |
| Binge drinking | 73 (49) | 54 (165) | 0.004 |
Mean (standard deviation) or percent (n).
Drinks per week (means and standard deviations) are presented here in their raw form, however, transformed data were used for statistical analyses.
n.s., not significant.
Demographics
Average age was 19.4 years (SD = 1.3, range = 18–23). Groups did not differ on age (p = 0.63). Seventy-four percent of participants were female and 26 percent were male. Gender distribution differed between groups (χ2(1) = 5.21, p = 0.02). Sixty-three percent of sadfish were female, while 76 percent of non-sadfish were female. Forty-one percent of participants were Hispanic. Groups did not differ on Hispanic ethnicity (p = 0.82). Three percent of participants were American Indian or Alaska Native, 3 percent were Asian, 8 percent were black or African American, 71 percent were white, 13 percent were multiracial, and 1 percent preferred not to answer. Groups did not differ on race (p = 0.91).
Psychological and behavioral characteristics
Sadfish (vs. non-sadfish) used more denial (t(351) = 2.92, p = 0.005), substance use (t(350) = 3.00, p = 0.02), and humor (t(343) = 2.58, p = 0.01) for coping. There were no other coping differences (ps > 0.07). Groups did not differ on resilience (p = 0.48), perceived stress (p = 0.70), or perceived social support (p = 0.58). Sadfish had more HPD (seductiveness: t(351) = 4.11, p < 0.001; attention-seeking: t(353) = 3.71, p < 0.001) and BPD (t(353) = 2.87, p = 0.004) features. Groups did not differ on their favorite platforms (p = 0.29) or hours per day spent using social media (p = 0.15).
Snapchat was ranked #1 by 36 percent of participants, followed by Instagram (28 percent), TikTok (21 percent), and Other or Could not decide (15 percent). Sadfish reported more use of social media while intoxicated (t(369) = 4.25, p < 0.001). Sadfish consumed more drinks per week (t(343) = 3.25, p < 0.001) and reported a greater history of binge drinking (ꭓ2(1) = 8.15, p = 0.004).
Multivariate analyses
Table 2 shows the correlation matrix of variables considered for the multivariate binary logistic regression model. The overall model was significant, χ2(6) = 30.865, p < 0.001, with a -2LL = 259.630 and Nagelkerke R2 = 0.154 (Table 3). Denial was significantly associated with sadfishing. For each unit increase in the frequency of denial, individuals are 35.6 percent more likely to sadfish (p = 0.005). Attention-seeking was also significantly related to sadfishing. For each unit increase in attention-seeking, individuals are 12.0 percent more likely to sadfish (p = 0.021). Lastly, using social media while intoxicated was significantly associated with sadfishing. For each unit increase in the frequency of social media intoxication, there is a 33.4 percent increase in the likelihood of sadfishing (p = 0.017).
Table 2.
Pearson Correlation Matrix for Predictors of Sadfishing
| Denial | Substance use | Humor | Seductiveness | Attention-seeking | Borderline | SM while intoxicated | Drinks per week | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coping | ||||||||
| Denial | 1 | 0.484a | 0.213a | 0.288a | 0.154a | 0.367a | 0.146a | 0.100 |
| Substance use | 1 | 0.154a | 0.286a | 0.173a | 0.270a | 0.346a | 0.280a | |
| Humor | 1 | 0.212a | 0.173a | 0.165a | 0.193a | −0.067 | ||
| Personality | ||||||||
| Seductiveness | 1 | 0.677a | 0.271a | 0.292a | 0.261a | |||
| Attention-seeking | 1 | 0.026 | 0.204a | 0.221a | ||||
| Borderline | 1 | 0.103 | 0.143a | |||||
| Social media | ||||||||
| While intoxicated | 1 | 0.361a | ||||||
| Alcohol use | ||||||||
| Drinks per week | 1 | |||||||
Correlation significant at the p = 0.01 level. SM, social media.
Table 3.
Binary Logistic Regression—Factors Associated with Sadfishing
| B | SE | Wald | Sig | OR | 95 percent CI lower | 95 percent CI upper | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male gender | 0.262 | 0.356 | 0.544 | 0.461 | 1.300 | 0.647 | 2.610 |
| Denial—coping | 0.305 | 0.108 | 7.917 | 0.005 | 1.356 | 1.097 | 1.677 |
| Substance use—coping | −0.092 | 0.103 | 0.791 | 0.374 | 0.912 | 0.745 | 1.117 |
| Attention seeking | 0.113 | 0.049 | 5.313 | 0.021 | 1.120 | 1.017 | 1.232 |
| Social media while intoxicated | 0.288 | 0.121 | 5.646 | 0.017 | 1.334 | 1.052 | 1.692 |
| Drinks per week (transformed) | 0.124 | 0.129 | 0.923 | 0.337 | 1.131 | 0.879 | 1.456 |
| Constant | −4.826 | 0.761 | 40.233 | 0.000 | 0.008 |
B, beta; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; Sig, p-value; Wald, chi-square value.
Discussion
Ours is among the first studies of the predictors of sadfishing. The results largely supported our hypotheses. Compared with non-sadfish, sadfish engaged in less effective coping strategies (H1), including denial and substance use, although they also used humor. Sadfish had more BPD (H4) and HPD (H5) features, such as seductiveness and attention-seeking. Sadfish reported greater alcohol use (H7), including more drinks per week, use of social media while intoxicated, and binge drinking history. Perceived social support (H8) did not differ between groups, which replicates our previous work.18 Some of our hypotheses were not supported; for example, groups did not differ on resilience (H2), perceived stress (H3), or overall social media use (H6). Finally, by using a multiple regression model, our study moves the literature beyond simple group comparisons on individual variables and identifies factors that are most significantly related to sadfishing: denial, attention-seeking, and using social media while intoxicated.
Coping
Sadfish coped by using denial, substance use, and humor. While the negative effects of substance use are well documented, and humor is often considered positive, the role of denial may be more nuanced. Historically, denial has been considered maladaptive.30 When faced with an unacceptable threat or consequence, deniers cope by refusing to consciously acknowledge the significance of their circumstances.31 However, there are situations, such as during a traumatic event, when denial offers some degree of psychological protection and/or relief from stress until assistance becomes available.31,32 Exploration of the effectiveness of different coping strategies is beyond our scope, however, denial might be an important clue to identify sadfish.
Personality
Multicollinearity excluded several personality features from the regression analysis. Ultimately, attention-seeking emerged as a key predictor, which aligns with the sadfishing definition of exaggerating negative emotional states online for attention.1,8 Social media users who place a high value on this recognition may be more willing to engage in increasingly risky behavior to achieve it.33 Thus, sadfishing might escalate over time, an issue that has not previously been investigated. Interventions to improve self-soothing and coping for individuals with these personality features might decrease sadfishing.
Social media while intoxicated
Alcohol is disinhibitory and may increase intimate disclosures.16,17 Sadfish reported riskier drinking, and using social media while intoxicated significantly predicted sadfishing. Social media use may encourage a culture of intoxication and normalize heavy drinking through peer exchanges and algorithmically mediated interaction with alcohol advertisements.34–36 Qualitative studies of intoxication online reveal a sense of “drunken regret” linked to an intoxication-related loss of control over self-presentation.34 For sadfishing, this aspect of online intoxication might increase negative consequences. This is a topic for future studies.
Limitations and future directions
This self-report study is potentially limited by social desirability bias, and the results from our collegiate sample have imperfect generalizability. Furthermore, while the lack of a validated sadfishing instrument is a limitation, our results may guide the future development of a multifaceted questionnaire highlighting the nuances of sadfishing behaviors. Other suggestions for future research include objective longitudinal assessments, ecological momentary assessments, and a broader participant sample. Self-identified motivations for sadfishing and participants' general self-awareness of their motivations are other potential future topics.
Conclusions
Our results point to three targets for intervention in sadfishing: (a) developing healthier coping strategies, (b) managing unhealthy personality characteristics, and (c) changing social media habits by either avoiding social media while intoxicated or avoiding alcohol while using social media. Overall, sadfish would benefit from cultivating emotional regulation, stress tolerance, and self-soothing. This might lessen their dependence on external validation from social media.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
No funding was received for this study.
References
- 1. Coughlan S. ‘Sadfishing’ social media warning from school heads. BBC News. 2019. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-49883030 [Last accessed: June 1, 2023].
- 2. Mahmood B. ‘Sadfishing’ is playing into hands of pedophiles and bullies. Metro. 2019. Available from: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/01/sadfishing-playing-hands-paedophiles-bullies-10838350/ [Last accessed: June 1, 2023].
- 3. Weale S. Young people who seek support online being accused of ‘sadfishing’. The Guardian. 2019. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/01/young-people-seeking-support-online-accused-sadfishing-bullying-report [Last accessed: June 1, 2023].
- 4. Malik S. Cysterstalking and self-harm behavior among college students: Depression as mediator. EEO 2021;20(4):3078–3084. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Varghese ME, Pistole MC. College student cyberbullying: Self-esteem depression, loneliness, and attachment. J Coll Couns 2017;20:7–21. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Gallop R. Failure of the capacity for self-soothing in women who have a history of abuse and self-harm. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 2022;8:20–26. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Winnicot D. The capacity to be alone. In: The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment. (Winnicot D. ed.) Hogarth Press: London; 1965; pp. 29–36. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Moretta T, Buodo G, Santucci VG, et al. Problematic social media use is statistically predicted by using social media for coping motives and by positive reinforcement processes in individuals with high COVID-19-related stress levels. J Psychiatr Res 2023;158:104–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Lengel GJ. Histrionic personality disorder. In: The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. (Carducci BJ, Nave CS, Mio JS, Riggio RE. eds.) Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA; 2020; pp. 187–191. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Ooi J, Michael J, Lemola S, et al. Interpersonal functioning in Borderline Personality Disorder traits: A social media perspective. Sci Rep 2020;10:1068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. French JH, Shrestha S.. Histrionic Personality Disorder. StatPearls Publishing: Tampa, FL, USA; 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Van der Kolk BA, Hostetler A, Herron N, et al. Trauma and the development of borderline personality disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1994;17(40):715–730. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Cramer P. Personality, personality disorders, and defense mechanisms. J Pers 1999;67(3):535–554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Vannucci A, Simpson EG, Gagnon S, et al. Social media use and risky behaviors in adolescents: A meta-analysis. J Adolesc 2020;79:258–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Alhabash S, Park Su, Smith S, et al. Social media use and alcohol consumption: A 10-year systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(18):11796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Weafer J, Fillmore MT. Low-dose alcohol effects on measures in inhibitory control, delay discounting, and risk-taking. Curr Addict Rep 2016;3:75–84. [Google Scholar]
- 17. Joinson AN. Disinhibition and the internet. In: Psychology and the Internet, Second Edition. (Gackenbach, J. ed.) Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; 2007; pp. 75–92. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Petrofes C, Howard K, Mayberry A, et al. Sad-fishing: Understanding a maladaptive social media behavior in college students. J Am Coll Health 2022; doi: 10.1080/07448481.2022.2132110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Carver CS. You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: Consider the Brief COPE. Int J Behav Med 1997;4:92–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Anderson JR, Killian M, Hughes JL, et al. The adolescent resilience questionnaire: Validation of a shortened version in U.S. youths. Front Psychol 2020;11:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Gartland D, Bond L, Olsson CA, et al. Development of a multi-dimensional measure of resilience in adolescents: The Adolescent Resilience Questionnaire. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11(134):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Social Behav 1983;24:386–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Cohen S, Williamson G.. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In: The Social Psychology of Health. (Spacapan S, Oskamp S. eds.) Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA; 1988; pp. 31–67. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, et al. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess 1988;52:30–41. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Dahlem NW, Zimet GD, Walker RR. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support: A confirmation study. J Clin Psych 1991;47(6):756–761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Ferguson CJ, Negy C. Development of a brief screening questionnaire for histrionic personality symptoms. Pers Indiv Diff 2014;66:124–127. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Butler AC, Brown GK, Beck AT, et al. (2002). Assessment of dysfunctional beliefs in borderline personality disorder. Behav Res Ther 2002;40:1231–1240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Ceballos NA, Howard K, Dailey S, et al. (2018). Collegiate binge drinking and social media use among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2018:79(6):868–875. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Cranford JA, McCabe SE, Boyd CJ. A new measure of binge drinking: Prevalence and correlates in a probability sample of undergraduates. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2006;30:1896–1905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Marcus ER. Modern ego psychology. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 1999;47:843–871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Fang XY, Albarqouni L, von Eisenhart Rothe AF, et al. Is denial a maladaptive coping mechanism which prolongs pre-hospital delay in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction? J Psychosom Res 2016;91:68–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Esteve LG, Valdes M, Reisco N, et al. Denial mechanisms in myocardial infarction: Their relations with psychological variables and short-term outcome. J Psychosom Res 1992;36:491–496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Shabahang R, Ghaemi Z, Aruguete MS, et al. Measuring gratification from and consequences of likes. J Media Psychol 2022;34(6):395–400. [Google Scholar]
- 34. Barnes HM, McCreanor T, Goodwin I, et al. Alcohol and social media: Drinking and drunkenness while online. Crit Public Health 2016;26(1):62–76. [Google Scholar]
- 35. Measham F, Brain K. ‘Binge’ drinking, British alcohol policy and the new culture of intoxication. Crime Media Cult 2005;1:262–283. [Google Scholar]
- 36. McCreanor T, Lyons A, Griffin C, et al. Youth drinking cultures, social networking and alcohol marketing: Implications for public health. Crit Public Health 2013;23:110–120. [Google Scholar]