ArticleDiscover mental health2026
A structural model of psychological vulnerability in the era of social media.
Article in Discover mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychological vulnerability reflects a heightened susceptibility to psychological distress when individuals encounter stressors, particularly in the absence of adequate coping resources. In the digital era, has emerged as a potential risk factor contributing to this vulnerability. Family functioning has been proposed as a protective factor; however, its moderating role in the relationship between and psychological vulnerability remains insufficiently examined.
methodsThis study employed a cross-sectional quantitative design involving 284 active social media users in Pekanbaru, Indonesia, aged 18-50 years (M = 22.6, SD = 3.9), with the sample predominantly consisting of students (98.2%). Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach through online distribution. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with a disjoint two-stage approach.
resultsThe results indicated that was positively associated with psychological vulnerability (β = 0.400, p < .001), while family functioning showed a significant negative association (β = - 0.174, p = .001). The interaction effect between and family functioning was statistically significant but very small in magnitude (β = 0.103, p = .009; f² = 0.016). Conditional effect analysis showed that the association between and psychological vulnerability was stronger at higher levels of family functioning, indicating a non-buffering moderation pattern.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that is an important risk factor for psychological vulnerability, whereas family functioning demonstrates a protective direct effect. However, its moderating role appears limited and does not operate in a buffering manner. Given the very small interaction effect and the use of convenience sampling with a predominantly student sample, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Future research employing longitudinal designs and more diverse samples is needed to further clarify these relationships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.