Relationships Between University Students' Social Media Usage, Attachment Styles, and Self-Concealment Levels

Le résumé fourni par la source

The primary objective of this study was to examine the interrelationships between fake social media account usage, attachment styles, and self-concealment behaviors among university students. To achieve this, data were collected from 598 university students during the 2023-2024 academic years using a Personal Information Form, the Self-Concealment Scale, and the Three-Dimensional Attachment Style Scale. Data were analyzed using correlation analysis, multiple linear regression, and independent sample t-tests. The results revealed that university students who use fake accounts possess significantly higher self-concealment scores compared to those who do not. Additionally, relationships were found between anxious-ambivalent and avoidant attachment styles in fake account use, with users showing higher anxious-ambivalent and avoidant attachment levels. While no significant gender differences were found in general self-concealment and anxious-ambivalent attachment levels, gender played a role in attachment styles regarding fake account use; specifically, women demonstrated higher secure attachment levels, whereas men showed higher avoidant attachment levels. Moreover, self-concealment demonstrated a positive relationship with avoidant and anxious-ambivalent attachment styles, and multiple linear regression analysis identified anxious-ambivalent attachment as the sole significant predictor of self-concealment behavior among individuals using fake accounts. Based on these findings, it is recommended that university counseling centers develop interventions focusing on transforming anxious-ambivalent attachment patterns into secure attachment to reduce self-concealment behaviors, and mental health practitioners should consider evaluating clients' use of fake social media accounts as a potential clinical indicator of underlying attachment insecurities.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.