Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40008336›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Social media usage and cyberbullying: the moderating role of tie strength.

Jinru Ni, Hongyu Fu, Yajing Zhu, Zewen Li, Shuyi Wang, Haoran Su

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jinru NiSchool of Journalism and Communication, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.
Hongyu FuSchool of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.
Yajing ZhuSchool of Journalism and Communication, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.
Zewen LiSchool of Economics and Statistics, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.
Shuyi WangSchool of Mathematics and Information, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.
Haoran SuSchool of Journalism and Communication, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cyberbullying is a pervasive issue in the digital age, closely linked to social media usage. However, existing research has largely overlooked the role of tie strength on social media platforms in shaping cyberbullying dynamics. This study, grounded in tie strength theory and medium theory, investigates the association between social media usage and cyberbullying, focusing on how tie strength moderates this relationship. Methods: A sample of 813 healthy adults (M Results: (1) Tie strength varies from platform to platform. The order of tie strength between users and the four platforms is as follows: WeChat > Bilibili > Weibo > Douyin. (2) Strong-tie social media platforms exhibited higher levels of users'social media engagement compared to those with weak ties. (3) Weak ties significantly moderated the relationship between social media usage and cyberbullying, whereas strong ties did not. Increased social media usage was associated with a higher likelihood of both engaging in and being a victim of cyberbullying on weak-tie platforms, while strong-tie platforms showed a lower likelihood of both engaging in or being a victim of cyberbullying with increased usage. Conclusion: These findings highlight the interplay between tie strength theory and medium theory in explaining cyberbullying dynamics and underscore the need for platform-specific interventions to address this pervasive issue.

Indexed as

cyberbullyingmedia usagemedium theorymoderate effecttie strength

Identifiers

PMID40008336
PMCPMC11850326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.