Explore the vast range of titles available.

數位時代裡使用社群媒體與人互動、分享訊息，已成為生活的日常。社群媒體使用有其正向功能，但也可能帶來負面作用，讓人歡喜也讓人憂。社群媒體使用究竟會不會引發憂鬱，總是爭論不斷，如同乒乓效應，一來一往，值得探究。本研究提出社群媒體使用透過社會比較與社會排斥二個中介機制影響憂鬱的雙元中介模式，採問卷調查法來蒐集資料，研究對象為有使用Instagram社群媒體的大學生，以345份有效問卷運用結構方程模型（Structural Equation Modeling, SEM）進行中介模式檢驗。研究結果顯示，社會比較與社會排斥可以中介社群媒體使用與憂鬱之間的關係，社群媒體使用強度對憂鬱的直接效果經由社會比較和社會排斥的中介作用後，影響力下降，社群媒體使用會透過增加社會比較與社會排斥的機會而增加憂鬱的風險。本研究所提出的雙元中介模式突破了以往僅探討單一中介變項的侷限性，整合性的分析有助於周延地理解社群媒體如何影響心理健康，並提供新的理論視角來解釋相關機制。最後說明本研究的限制及建議，供未來研究與實務應用之參考。

本研究嘗試從團體相關因素及個人因素兩方面，分別探討個體面對社會排斥 時所可能產生之因應反應。實驗一以情境模擬故事的方式進行。研究參與者隨機分 派至2（團體相對地位：高vs.低）×4（再被接受可能性：20% vs. 50% vs. 80% vs. 無訊息）的實驗情境中。結果顯示，當原屬團體為高地位且再被接受可能性等於或 大於50%時，個人留在原團體的意願顯著高於其他情境。實驗二為2（不同自我激 發：獨立我vs.相依我）×2（被排斥原因：能力vs.人際）完全受試者間設計。結果 發現，相較於其他情境，被觸發獨立我個體若因人際因素而被社會排斥時，對團體 會有著最差的評價。而被觸發獨立我或相依我的個體，也會隨著社會排斥的原因不 同而有著不同的因應行為反應

Social exclusion may cause either aggressive behavior or a substantial increase in prosocial behavior. We propose a two-process model and suggest that categorical similarity cue of the latter encounter is the moderator of people’s reactions after social exclusion. For threaten individuals, groups resemble their rejecter would provoke a defensive attitude and hostile behaviors. These individuals would also show hospitality to those who share similar characteristics with to gain inclusion. Experiment one used subliminal priming to manipulate social exclusion. As predicted, compared to participants in control condition, excluded participants would process words associated with previous rejecter and words related to one’s own characteristics significantly faster than neutral words in lexical decision task. The second experiment were a 2 (social exclusion: exclusion vs. control condition) x 5 (categorical similarity cues: high rejective cue vs. median rejective cue, high perspective cue vs. median perspective cue

數位時代裡使用社群媒體與人互動、分享訊息，已成為生活的日常。社群媒體使用有其正向功能，但也可能帶來負面作用，讓人歡喜也讓人憂。社群媒體使用究竟會不會引發憂鬱，總是爭論不斷，如同乒乓效應，一來一往，值得探究。本研究提出社群媒體使用透過社會比較與社會排斥二個中介機制影響憂鬱的雙元中介模式，採問卷調查法來蒐集資料，研究對象為有使用Instagram社群媒體的大學生，以345份有效問卷運用結構方程模型（Structural Equation Modeling, SEM）進行中介模式檢驗。研究結果顯示，社會比較與社會排斥可以中介社群媒體使用與憂鬱之間的關係，社群媒體使用強度對憂鬱的直接效果經由社會比較和社會排斥的中介作用後，影響力下降，社群媒體使用會透過增加社會比較與社會排斥的機會而增加憂鬱的風險。本研究所提出的雙元中介模式突破了以往僅探討單一中介變項的侷限性，整合性的分析有助於周延地理解社群媒體如何影響心理健康，並提供新的理論視角來解釋相關機制。最後說明本研究的限制及建議，供未來研究與實務應用之參考。 Introduction In the digital era, interacting with others and sharing information through social media has become integral to daily life. Social media creates a sense of proximity across vast distances, enabling users to share experiences and gain social capital. However, it can also lead to social overload and social comparison, which may reduce well-being (Fox & Moreland, 2015) and even give rise to phenomena such as “social media depression” or “Facebook depression” (Blease, 2015). While social media provides positive benefits, it also has negative consequences, evoking joy and distress. The ongoing debate about whether social media use causes depression resembles a back-and-forth “ping-pong effect,” making it a topic worthy of deeper investigation. According to existing literature, the primary mechanisms linking social media use to depression are social comparison and envy (Aubry et al., 2024; Tandoc & Goh, 2023). Social media serves as a platform for gaining social capital but also as a competitive social arena. Accumulating followers, receiving numerous likes and comments on posts, and achieving high visibility are often perceived as indicators of popularity and social status, leading individuals to compare popularity and approval (Blease, 2015; Diefenbach & Anders, 2022). Additionally, social media is a stage for self-presentation, where users share their achievements and highlight the positive aspects of their lives. This, in turn, can trigger envy among viewers. Frequent exposure to others’ success increases opportunities for social comparison, and if individuals experience feelings of failure, it may lead to depressive symptoms (Alfasi, 2019; Appel et al., 2016). In addition to social comparison, social exclusion on social media may also contribute to depression. As a platform for social connection, social media can also be a site for rejection, neglect, and negative feedback, leading to emotional distress (Smith et al., 2017). For example, receiving no likes or comments on posts or being unfollowed can result in negative emotions (Hayes et al., 2018). Negative comments, cyberbullying, or exclusionary experiences may further amplify psychological distress and increase the risk of depression. A comprehensive review of the literature suggests that social comparison and social exclusion play significant roles in the relationship between social media use and depression. The sources of depressive symptoms associated with social media use involve both internal (social comparison) and external (social exclusion) factors or even a combination of both. To address the limitations of prior research, which often focused on a single mediating factor, this study proposes a dual mediation model to examine the mediating effects of social comparison and social exclusion, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of how social media use influences mental health. Methods With the continuous evolution of social media platforms, research has predominantly focused on Facebook due to its long history and large user base. However, college students now primarily use Instagram to share photos, post updates, view stories, and follow friends. This study specifically examines the use of Instagram and its impact on the mental health of college students. This study proposes a dual mediation model in which social media use influences depression through two mediating mechanisms: social comparison and social exclusion. A survey method was employed to collect data using the following research instruments: Social Media Use Scale, Social Comparison Scale, Social Exclusion Scale, and Depression Scale. The study targeted college students who use Instagram, with a final sample of 345 valid responses. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to test the mediation model. Results (1) Model fit evaluation: The proposed mediation model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. Fit indices were as follows: χ² (30, N = 345) = 86.29 (p < .01), χ²/df = 2.87( less than 3, within an acceptable range). Absolute fit indices showed GFI = .95, AGFI = .91 (both > .90), RMSEA = .07, and SRMR = .06 (both < .08). Incremental fit indices were CFI = .96, NFI = .94, RFI = .91, IFI = .96, all above .90. (2) Social media use intensity predicts social comparison and social exclusion: Social media use intensity significantly predicted social comparison (γ = .68, p < .01). Higher social media engagement increased exposure to others’ curated lives, fostering more frequent social comparisons. Social media use intensity also significantly predicted social exclusion (γ = .46, p < .01). (3) Social comparison and social exclusion predict depression: Social comparison significantly predicted depression (β = .36, p < .01). Users who frequently compared themselves to others and perceived others’ success as their failure exhibited more significant depressive symptoms. Social exclusion significantly predicted depression (β = .47, p < .01). Experiences of rejection, being ignored, unfollowed, or receiving negative feedback contributed to depressive symptoms. (4) Mediating effects of social comparison and social exclusion: Without mediators, the direct effect of social media use on depression was γ = .46 (p < .01). After including social comparison and social exclusion as mediators, the direct effect decreased to γ = .03 (p > .05), indicating complete mediation. The indirect effect of social media use on depression through social comparison was β = .25 (p < .01). The indirect effect of social media use on depression through social exclusion was β = .22 (p < .01). Both mediation effects were significant, confirming the dual mediation model. Conclusion This study supports the proposed dual mediation model, demonstrating that social media use increases the risk of depression through heightened social comparison and social exclusion. The findings contribute to both academic research and practical implications. However, some limitations must be acknowledged. First, this study utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) with cross-sectional data, making causal inferences cautious. Future research should adopt longitudinal or experimental designs to clarify causal relationships. Second, while this study focused on Instagram, different social media platforms (e.g., Threads) may function differently, warranting further investigation. Additionally, the sample consisted of undergraduate students, which limits generalizability. Future research should explore whether similar patterns emerge in different age groups and across other social media platforms.

This article examines the importance of place at multiple scales in the construction and experience of concentrated immigrant poverty and social exclusion in the Canadian metropolitan areas of Toronto and Vancouver. We emphasize four contributions: first, recognition that place has a profound effect on the shaping of immigrant lives; second, consideration of the multiple geographical scales implicated in the construction and experience of poverty; third, setting the immigrant experience in Canada in the broader comparative context of immigrant outcomes in the United States and western Europe; and fourth, complementing quantitative analyses of poverty effects with a qualitative methodology using focus groups to generate narratives that offer insight on the meaning of concentrated poverty in everyday life. The gateway cities of Toronto and Vancouver display an increasing spatial (and statistical) association between immigrant distributions and areas of concentrated poverty. Through focus groups with newcomers to Canada in nine poverty districts in Toronto and Vancouver we identify the role of the nation-state in shaping immigrant opportunities; sociospatial exclusion as it varies between city and suburban sites; and the penalties of living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, including the stigmatizing effects of neighborhood labeling by gatekeepers such as the media, police, and educators. At the same time, different sites display variable effects. We conclude by isolating neighborhood spaces of hope, where respondents offered more positive assessments.