| 46 | 0 | 15 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
西方青少年网络社会心态研究历经三十年发展，逐步形成四个演进阶段：理论奠基期（1990—2000年）聚焦网络身份与社交悖论，平台转向期（2000—2010年）关注平台参与与主体性转向，实证井喷期（2010—2020年）围绕屏幕时间与心理健康展开方法争鸣，技术深化期（2020年至今）揭示数字依赖与平台迭代的新现实。在此过程中，西方研究传统逐步显露出三重范式困境：方法论上陷入个体主义与研究自由度陷阱；文化视野受限于“现代性收敛”预设，缺乏对实践的敏锐洞察；理论框架则滞后于算法推荐等技术变革步伐。基于“技术—主体互构”分析框架构建“社会文化语境层—互构机制层—经验议题层”三维模型，可推动研究重心从技术影响的“评判”转向实践逻辑的“理解”，以期为构建扎根中国经验、具备文化解释力的青少年网络心态研究提供理论参照。
Abstract：The study of Western adolescent online social mentality has developed over three decades, gradually forming four evolutionary stages: the theoretical foundation period(1990-2000), which focused on online identity and social paradoxes; the platform transformation period(2000-2010), which centered on platform participation and the shift in subjectivity; the empirical explosion period(2010-2020), which methodological debates revolved around screen time and mental health; and the technological deepening period(2020 to present), which reveals new realities of digital dependence and platform iteration. In this process, the Western research tradition has gradually exposed a triple-layered paradigm dilemma: methodologically, it falls into the trap of individualism and researcher degrees of freedom; culturally, the vision is limited by the presupposition of “modernity convergence”, lacking sensitivity to the practice; and theoretically, the framework lags behind the pace of technological changes,such as algorithmic recommendation. Based on the analytical framework of “technology-subject co-construction”, a three-dimensional model consisting of the “sociocultural context layer, co-construction mechanism layer, and empirical issues layer” are constructed. This framework promotes a shift in research focus from “judgment” of technological impact to“understanding” the logic of practice, aiming to provide a theoretical reference for constructing the research on adolescent online mentality that is rooted in Chinese experience and possesses cultural explanatory power.
[1]TURKLE S. Life on the screen:identity in the age of the internet[M]. New York:Simon and Schuster, 1995:177—190.
[2]KRAUT R, PATTERSON M, LUNDMARK V, et al.Internet paradox:a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?[J]. American Psychologist, 1998(9):1017—1031.
[3]VALKENBURG M P,PETER J. Online communication and adolescent well-being:testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis[J]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007(4):1169—1182.
[4]LENHART A,MADDEN M,MACGILL A R,et al.Teens and social media[EB/OL].(2007-12-19)[2025-09-20].https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2007/12/19/teens-andsocial-media/.
[5]BOYD D. It’s complicated:the social lives of networked teens[M]. New Haven London:Yale University Press,2014:21.
[6]TWENGE J M, JOINER T E , ROGERS M L, et al.Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after2010 and links to increased new media screen time[J].Clinical Psychological Science, 2018(1):3—17.
[7]ORBEN A, PRZYBYLSKI A K. The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use[J].Nature Human Behaviour, 2019(2):173—182.
[8]PRZYBYLSKI A K,WEINSTEIN A.A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis:quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents[J]. Psychological Science, 2017(2):204—215.
[9]JENSEN M, GEORGE M J, RUSSELL M R, et al.Young adolescents’ digital technology use and mental health symptoms:little evidence of longitudinal or daily linkages[J]. Clinical Psychological Science, 2019(6):1416—1433.
[10]MARCIANO L, OSTROUMOVA M,SCHULZ P J, et al.Digital media use and adolescents’ mental health during the covid-19 pandemic:a systematic review and metaanalysis[J]. Frontiers in Public Health, 2022(1):1—28.
[11]Conte G, IORIO G.D, ESPOSITO D, et al. Scrolling through adolescence:a systematic review of the impact of TikTok on adolescent mental health[J]. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2025(5):1511—1527.
[12]BEYENS I, POUWELS J L, VAN DRIEL I I, et al. Social media use and adolescents’ well-being:developing a typology of person-specific effect patterns[J].Communication Research, 2024(6):691—716.
[13]SULER J. The online disinhibition effect[J].Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 2004(3):321—326.
[14]BAYER J B, ELLISON N B, SCHOENEBECK S Y, et al.Sharing the small moments:ephemeral social interaction on snapchat[J]. Information, Communication&Society,2015(7):956—977.
[15]KARIZAT N, DELMONACO D, MOTAHHARE E, et al. Algorithmic folk theories and identity:how TikTok users Co-produce knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance[J]. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2021, 5(CSCW2):1—44.
[16]SULTAN M, TUMP A N, EHMANN N, et al.Susceptibility to online misinformation:a systematic meta-analysis of demographic and psychological factors[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2024(47):1—12.
[17]张璨.缺失与代偿：青少年心理健康问题的社会情感生成逻辑[J].中国青年研究，2025(10):64—72.
[18]燕道成,吴涵.青少年网络社会心态的概念流变、理想类型与研究想象[J].南通大学学报（社会科学版），2025(4):148—158,160.
[19]刘海龙.像爱护爱豆一样爱国:新媒体与“粉丝民族主义”的诞生[J].现代传播（中国传媒大学学报），2017(4):27—36.
[20]徐婧.“饭圈”的权力生产及其社会机制表征[J].上海交通大学学报（哲学社会科学版），2024(6):120—132.
[21]罗昊，季卫兵.制造景观生活：返乡青年短视频直播的数字呈现与意义建构[J].中国青年研究，2025(6):48—56.
[22]董晨宇,段采薏.反向自我呈现：分手者在社交媒体中的自我消除行为研究[J].新闻记者，2020(5):14—24.
(1)“fake Instagram”的缩写，指的是用户创建的第二个私人账号，通常只有亲密好友可见，用来分享更真实、随意的内容，与主账号（rinsta）的精心策划内容形成对比。
基本信息:
DOI：10.16740/j.cnki.cn43-1240/c.2026.01.001
中图分类号:C913.5;C912.6
引用信息:
[1]燕道成,吴涵.西方学术视野中的青少年网络社会心态：研究演进、困境与范式重构[J].云梦学刊,2026,47(01):1-11.DOI:10.16740/j.cnki.cn43-1240/c.2026.01.001.
基金信息:
国家社会科学基金重点项目“青少年网络社会心态引导研究”（24AXW011）