Examines pathways influencing inhibition in face-to-face socializing among active social media users, suggesting intervention opportunities.
Inhibition in face-to-face Socializing (IFFS) weakens offline interaction quality and relationship development among active social media users. Existing studies have mainly adopted net-effect approaches. They have paid less attention to how multiple online and offline conditions combine to produce high IFFS or ~IFFS. To address this gap, this study adopts a configurational perspective and uses fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). It examines how five antecedent conditions, namely Usage intensity (UI), Offline unease (OU), Sensitivity to others’ evaluation (SOE), Fear of tension exposure (FTE), and Online preference (OP), jointly shape IFFS. Based on survey data from 503 active social media users, the results show that no single antecedent condition constitutes a necessary condition for high IFFS. Instead, high IFFS is generated by multiple sufficient configurations. Four high IFFS configuration types are identified: the FTE-driven type, the OU-dominant type, the SOE and UI overlay type, and the OP lock-in type. These findings indicate that active users may develop IFFS through different but functionally equivalent pathways. In contrast, ~IFFS is produced through three dual-absence pathways: the joint absence of SOE and OP, the joint absence of FTE and OP, and the joint absence of UI and OU. The most prevalent high IFFS configuration combines high UI with high OU, highlighting the coupling between intensive social media use and unease in face-to-face interaction. This study clarifies the configurational mechanisms underlying IFFS in social media contexts and provides practical implications for designing targeted interventions that promote more natural and low-defensive face-to-face socializing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lei et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: