Looking for a hypothesis maker? This online tool for students will help you formulate a beautiful hypothesis quickly, efficiently, and for free.
Are you looking for an effective hypothesis maker online? Worry no more; try our online tool for students and formulate your hypothesis within no time.
📄 hypothesis maker: how to use it.
Our hypothesis maker is a simple and efficient tool you can access online for free.
If you want to create a research hypothesis quickly, you should fill out the research details in the given fields on the hypothesis generator.
Below are the fields you should complete to generate your hypothesis:
Once you fill the in the fields, you can click the ‘Make a hypothesis’ tab and get your results.
A hypothesis is a statement describing an expectation or prediction of your research through observation.
It is similar to academic speculation and reasoning that discloses the outcome of your scientific test . An effective hypothesis, therefore, should be crafted carefully and with precision.
A good hypothesis should have dependent and independent variables . These variables are the elements you will test in your research method – it can be a concept, an event, or an object as long as it is observable.
You can observe the dependent variables while the independent variables keep changing during the experiment.
In a nutshell, a hypothesis directs and organizes the research methods you will use, forming a large section of research paper writing.
A hypothesis is a realistic expectation that researchers make before any investigation. It is formulated and tested to prove whether the statement is true. A theory, on the other hand, is a factual principle supported by evidence. Thus, a theory is more fact-backed compared to a hypothesis.
Another difference is that a hypothesis is presented as a single statement , while a theory can be an assortment of things . Hypotheses are based on future possibilities toward a specific projection, but the results are uncertain. Theories are verified with undisputable results because of proper substantiation.
When it comes to data, a hypothesis relies on limited information , while a theory is established on an extensive data set tested on various conditions.
You should observe the stated assumption to prove its accuracy.
Since hypotheses have observable variables, their outcome is usually based on a specific occurrence. Conversely, theories are grounded on a general principle involving multiple experiments and research tests.
This general principle can apply to many specific cases.
The primary purpose of formulating a hypothesis is to present a tentative prediction for researchers to explore further through tests and observations. Theories, in their turn, aim to explain plausible occurrences in the form of a scientific study.
It would help to rely on several criteria to establish a good hypothesis. Below are the parameters you should use to analyze the quality of your hypothesis.
Testability | You should be able to test the hypothesis to present a true or false outcome after the investigation. Apart from the logical hypothesis, ensure you can test your predictions with . |
---|---|
Variables | It should have a dependent and independent variable. Identifying the appropriate variables will help readers comprehend your prediction and what to expect at the conclusion phase. |
Cause and effect | A good hypothesis should have a cause-and-effect connection. One variable should influence others in some way. It should be written as an “if-then” statement to allow the researcher to make accurate predictions of the investigation results. However, this rule does not apply to a . |
Clear language | Writing can get complex, especially when complex research terminology is involved. So, ensure your hypothesis has expressed as a brief statement. Avoid being vague because your readers might get confused. Your hypothesis has a direct impact on your entire research paper’s quality. Thus, use simple words that are easy to understand. |
Ethics | Hypothesis generation should comply with . Don’t formulate hypotheses that contravene taboos or are questionable. Besides, your hypothesis should have correlations to published academic works to look data-based and authoritative. |
Writing a hypothesis becomes way simpler if you follow a tried-and-tested algorithm. Let’s explore how you can formulate a good hypothesis in a few steps:
The first step in hypothesis creation is asking real questions about the surrounding reality.
Why do things happen as they do? What are the causes of some occurrences?
Your curiosity will trigger great questions that you can use to formulate a stellar hypothesis. So, ensure you pick a research topic of interest to scrutinize the world’s phenomena, processes, and events.
Carry out preliminary research and gather essential background information about your topic of choice.
The extent of the information you collect will depend on what you want to prove.
Your initial research can be complete with a few academic books or a simple Internet search for quick answers with relevant statistics.
Still, keep in mind that in this phase, it is too early to prove or disapprove of your hypothesis.
Now that you have a basic understanding of the topic, choose the dependent and independent variables.
Take note that independent variables are the ones you can’t control, so understand the limitations of your test before settling on a final hypothesis.
You can write your hypothesis as an ‘if – then’ expression . Presenting any hypothesis in this format is reliable since it describes the cause-and-effect you want to test.
For instance: If I study every day, then I will get good grades.
Once you have identified your variables and formulated the hypothesis, you can start the experiment. Remember, the conclusion you make will be a proof or rebuttal of your initial assumption.
So, gather relevant information, whether for a simple or statistical hypothesis, because you need to back your statement.
Finally, write down your conclusions in a research paper .
Outline in detail whether the test has proved or disproved your hypothesis.
Edit and proofread your work, using a plagiarism checker to ensure the authenticity of your text.
We hope that the above tips will be useful for you. Note that if you need to conduct business analysis, you can use the free templates we’ve prepared: SWOT , PESTLE , VRIO , SOAR , and Porter’s 5 Forces .
Updated: Oct 25th, 2023
Use our hypothesis maker whenever you need to formulate a hypothesis for your study. We offer a very simple tool where you just need to provide basic info about your variables, subjects, and predicted outcomes. The rest is on us. Get a perfect hypothesis in no time!
Statistics By Jim
Making statistics intuitive
By Jim Frost 10 Comments
A confidence interval (CI) is a range of values that is likely to contain the value of an unknown population parameter . These intervals represent a plausible domain for the parameter given the characteristics of your sample data. Confidence intervals are derived from sample statistics and are calculated using a specified confidence level.
Population parameters are typically unknown because it is usually impossible to measure entire populations. By using a sample, you can estimate these parameters. However, the estimates rarely equal the parameter precisely thanks to random sampling error . Fortunately, inferential statistics procedures can evaluate a sample and incorporate the uncertainty inherent when using samples. Confidence intervals place a margin of error around the point estimate to help us understand how wrong the estimate might be.
You’ll frequently use confidence intervals to bound the sample mean and standard deviation parameters. But you can also create them for regression coefficients , proportions, rates of occurrence (Poisson), and the differences between populations.
Related post : Populations, Parameters, and Samples in Inferential Statistics
The confidence level is the long-run probability that a series of confidence intervals will contain the true value of the population parameter.
Different random samples drawn from the same population are likely to produce slightly different intervals. If you draw many random samples and calculate a confidence interval for each sample, a percentage of them will contain the parameter.
The confidence level is the percentage of the intervals that contain the parameter. For 95% confidence intervals, an average of 19 out of 20 include the population parameter, as shown below.
The image above shows a hypothetical series of 20 confidence intervals from a study that draws multiple random samples from the same population. The horizontal red dashed line is the population parameter, which is usually unknown. Each blue dot is a the sample’s point estimate for the population parameter. Green lines represent CIs that contain the parameter, while the red line is a CI that does not contain it. The graph illustrates how confidence intervals are not perfect but usually correct.
The CI procedure provides meaningful estimates because it produces ranges that usually contain the parameter. Hence, they present plausible values for the parameter.
Technically, you can create CIs using any confidence level between 0 and 100%. However, the most common confidence level is 95%. Analysts occasionally use 99% and 90%.
Related posts : Populations and Samples and Parameters vs. Statistics ,
A confidence interval indicates where the population parameter is likely to reside. For example, a 95% confidence interval of the mean [9 11] suggests you can be 95% confident that the population mean is between 9 and 11.
Confidence intervals also help you navigate the uncertainty of how well a sample estimates a value for an entire population.
These intervals start with the point estimate for the sample and add a margin of error around it. The point estimate is the best guess for the parameter value. The margin of error accounts for the uncertainty involved when using a sample to estimate an entire population.
The width of the confidence interval around the point estimate reveals the precision. If the range is narrow, the margin of error is small, and there is only a tiny range of plausible values. That’s a precise estimate. However, if the interval is wide, the margin of error is large, and the actual parameter value is likely to fall somewhere within that more extensive range . That’s an imprecise estimate.
Ideally, you’d like a narrow confidence interval because you’ll have a much better idea of the actual population value!
For example, imagine we have two different samples with a sample mean of 10. It appears both estimates are the same. Now let’s assess the 95% confidence intervals. One interval is [5 15] while the other is [9 11]. The latter range is narrower, suggesting a more precise estimate.
That’s how CIs provide more information than the point estimate (e.g., sample mean) alone.
Related post : Precision vs. Accuracy
Confidence intervals are similarly helpful for understanding an effect size. For example, if you assess a treatment and control group, the mean difference between these groups is the estimated effect size. A 2-sample t-test can construct a confidence interval for the mean difference.
In this scenario, consider both the size and precision of the estimated effect. Ideally, an estimated effect is both large enough to be meaningful and sufficiently precise for you to trust. CIs allow you to assess both of these considerations! Learn more about this distinction in my post about Practical vs. Statistical Significance .
Learn more about how confidence intervals and hypothesis tests are similar .
Related post : Effect Sizes in Statistics
A frequent misuse is applying confidence intervals to the distribution of sample values. Remember that these ranges apply only to population parameters, not the data values.
For example, a 95% confidence interval [10 15] indicates that we can be 95% confident that the parameter is within that range.
However, it does NOT indicate that 95% of the sample values occur in that range.
If you need to use your sample to find the proportion of data values likely to fall within a range, use a tolerance interval instead.
Related post : See how confidence intervals compare to prediction intervals and tolerance intervals .
Ok, so you want narrower CIs for their greater precision. What conditions produce tighter ranges?
Sample size, variability, and the confidence level affect the widths of confidence intervals. The first two are characteristics of your sample, which I’ll cover first.
Variability present in your data affects the precision of the estimate. Your confidence intervals will be broader when your sample standard deviation is high.
It makes sense when you think about it. When there is a lot of variability present in your sample, you’re going to be less sure about the estimates it produces. After all, a high standard deviation means your sample data are really bouncing around! That’s not conducive for finding precise estimates.
Unfortunately, you often don’t have much control over data variability. You can institute measurement and data collection procedures that reduce outside sources of variability, but after that, you’re at the mercy of the variability inherent in your subject area. But, if you can reduce external sources of variation, that’ll help you reduce the width of your confidence intervals.
Increasing your sample size is the primary way to reduce the widths of confidence intervals because, in most cases, you can control it more than the variability. If you don’t change anything else and only increase the sample size, the ranges tend to narrow. Need even tighter CIs? Just increase the sample size some more!
Theoretically, there is no limit, and you can dramatically increase the sample size to produce remarkably narrow ranges. However, logistics, time, and cost issues will constrain your maximum sample size in the real world.
In summary, larger sample sizes and lower variability reduce the margin of error around the point estimate and create narrower confidence intervals. I’ll point out these factors again when we get to the formula later in this post.
Related post : Sample Statistics Are Always Wrong (to Some Extent)!
The confidence level also affects the confidence interval width. However, this factor is a methodology choice separate from your sample’s characteristics.
If you increase the confidence level (e.g., 95% to 99%) while holding the sample size and variability constant, the confidence interval widens. Conversely, decreasing the confidence level (e.g., 95% to 90%) narrows the range.
I’ve found that many students find the effect of changing the confidence level on the width of the range to be counterintuitive.
Imagine you take your knowledge of a subject area and indicate you’re 95% confident that the correct answer lies between 15 and 20. Then I ask you to give me your confidence for it falling between 17 and 18. The correct answer is less likely to fall within the narrower interval, so your confidence naturally decreases.
Conversely, I ask you about your confidence that it’s between 10 and 30. That’s a much wider range, and the correct value is more likely to be in it. Consequently, your confidence grows.
Confidence levels involve a tradeoff between confidence and the interval’s spread. To have more confidence that the parameter falls within the interval, you must widen the interval. Conversely, your confidence necessarily decreases if you use a narrower range.
Confidence intervals account for sampling uncertainty by using critical values, sampling distributions, and standard errors. The precise formula depends on the type of parameter you’re evaluating. The most common type is for the mean, so I’ll stick with that.
You’ll use critical Z-values or t-values to calculate your confidence interval of the mean. T-values produce more accurate confidence intervals when you do not know the population standard deviation. That’s particularly true for sample sizes smaller than 30. For larger samples, the two methods produce similar results. In practice, you’d usually use a t-value.
Below are the confidence interval formulas for both Z and t. However, you’d only use one of them.
The only difference between the two formulas is the critical value. If you’re using the critical z-value, you’ll always use 1.96 for 95% confidence intervals. However, for the t-value, you’ll need to know the degrees of freedom and then look up the critical value in a t-table or online calculator.
To calculate a confidence interval, take the critical value (Z or t) and multiply it by the standard error of the mean (SEM). This value is known as the margin of error (MOE) . Then add and subtract the MOE from the sample mean (x̄) to produce the upper and lower limits of the range.
Related posts : Critical Values , Standard Error of the Mean , and Sampling Distributions
Think back to the discussion about the factors affecting the confidence interval widths. The formula helps you understand how that works. Recall that the critical value * SEM = MOE.
Smaller margins of error produce narrower confidence intervals. By looking at this equation, you can see that the following conditions create a smaller MOE:
Let’s move on to using these formulas to find a confidence interval! For this example, I’ll use a fuel cost dataset that I’ve used in other posts: FuelCosts . The dataset contains a random sample of 25 fuel costs. We want to calculate the 95% confidence interval of the mean.
However, imagine we have only the following summary information instead of the dataset.
Fortunately, that’s all we need to calculate our 95% confidence interval of the mean.
We need to decide on using the critical Z or t-value. I’ll use a critical t-value because the sample size (25) is less than 30. However, if the summary didn’t provide the sample size, we could use the Z-value method for an approximation.
My next step is to look up the critical t-value using my t-table. In the table, I’ll choose the alpha that equals 1 – the confidence level (1 – 0.95 = 0.05) for a two-sided test. Below is a truncated version of the t-table. Click for the full t-distribution table .
In the table, I see that for a two-sided interval with 25 – 1 = 24 degrees of freedom and an alpha of 0.05, the critical value is 2.064.
Let’s enter all of this information into the formula.
First, I’ll calculate the margin of error:
Next, I’ll take the sample mean and add and subtract the margin of error from it:
The 95% confidence interval of the mean for fuel costs is 267.0 – 394.2. We can be 95% confident that the population mean falls within this range.
If you had used the critical z-value (1.96), you would enter that into the formula instead of the t-value (2.064) and obtain a slightly different confidence interval. However, t-values produce more accurate results, particularly for smaller samples like this one.
As an aside, the Z-value method always produces narrower confidence intervals than t-values when your sample size is less than infinity. So, basically always! However, that’s not good because Z-values underestimate the uncertainty when you’re using a sample estimate of the standard deviation rather than the actual population value. And you practically never know the population standard deviation.
Neyman, J. (1937). Outline of a Theory of Statistical Estimation Based on the Classical Theory of Probability . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A . 236 (767): 333–380.
April 23, 2024 at 8:37 am
February 24, 2024 at 8:29 am
Thank you so much
February 14, 2024 at 1:56 pm
If I take a sample and create a confidence interval for the mean, can I say that 95% of the mean of the other samples I will take can be found in this range?
February 23, 2024 at 8:40 pm
Unfortunately, that would be an invalid statement. The CI formula uses your sample to estimate the properties of the population to construct the CI. Your estimates are bound to be off by at least a little bit. If you knew the precise properties of the population, you could determine the range in which 95% of random samples from that population would fall. However, again, you don’t know the precise properties of the population. You just have estimates based on your sample.
September 29, 2023 at 6:55 pm
Hi Jim, My confusion is similar to one comment. What I cannot seem to understand is the concept of individual and many CIs and therefore statements such as X% of the CIs.
For a sampling distribution, which itself requires many samples to produce, we try to find a confidence interval. Then how come there are multiple CIs. More specifically “Different random samples drawn from the same population are likely to produce slightly different intervals. If you draw many random samples and calculate a confidence interval for each sample, a percentage of them will contain the parameter.” this is what confuses me. Is interval here represents the range of the samples drawn? If that is true, why is the term CI or interval used for sample range? If not, could you please explain what is mean by an individual CI or how are we calculating confidence interval for each sample? In the image depicting 19 out of 20 will have population parameter, is the green line the range of individual samples or the confidence interval?
Please try to sort this confusion out for me. I find your website really helpful for clearing my statistical concepts. Thank you in advance for helping out. Regards.
September 30, 2023 at 1:52 am
A key point to remember is that inferential statistics occur in the context of drawing many random samples from the same population. Of course, a single study typically draws a single sample. However, if that study were to draw another random sample, it would be somewhat different than the first sample. A third sample would be somewhat different as well. That produces the sampling distribution, which helps you calculate p-values and construct CIs. Inferential statistics procedures use the idea of many samples to incorporate random sampling error into the results.
For CIs, if you were to collect many random samples, a certain percentage of them will contain the population parameter. That percentage is the confidence interval. Again, a single study will only collect a single sample. However, picturing many CIs helps you understand the concept of the confidence level. In practice, a study generates one CI per parameter estimate. But the graph with multiple CIs is just to help you understand the concept of confidence level.
Alternatively, you can think of CIs as an object class. Suppose 100 disparate studies produce 95% CIs. You can assume that about 95 of those CIs actually contain the population parameter. Using statistical procedures, you can estimate the sampling distribution using the sample itself without collecting many samples.
I don’t know what you mean by “Interval here represents the range of samples drawn.” As I write in this article, the CI is an interval of values that likely contain the population parameter. Reread the section titled How to Interpret Confidence Intervals to understand what each one means.
Each CI is estimated from a single sample and a study generates one CI per parameter estimate. However, again, understanding the concept of the confidence level is easier when you picture multiple CIs. But if a single study were to collect multiple samples and produces multiple CIs, that graph is what you’d expect to see. Although, in the real world, you never know for sure whether a CI actually contains the parameter or not.
The green lines represent CIs that contain the population parameter. Red lines represent CIs that do not contain the population parameter. The graph illustrates how CIs are not perfect but they are usually correct. I’ve added text to the article to clarify that image.
I also show you how to calculate the CI for a mean in this article. I’m not sure what more you need to understand there? I’m happy to clarify any part of that.
I hope that helps!
July 6, 2023 at 10:14 am
Hi Jim, This was an excellent article, thank you! I have a question: when computing a CI in its single-sample t-test module, SPSS appears to use the difference between population and sample means as a starting point (so the formula would be (X-bar-mu) +/- tcv(SEM)). I’ve consulted multiple stats books, but none of them compute a CI that way for a single-sample t-test. Maybe I’m just missing something and this is a perfectly acceptable way of doing things (I mean, SPSS does it :-)), but it yields substantially different lower and upper bounds from a CI that uses the traditional X-bar as a starting point. Do you have any insights? Many thanks in advance! Stephen
July 7, 2023 at 2:56 am
Hi Stephen,
I’m not an SPSS user but that formula is confusing. They presented this formula as being for the CI of a sample mean?
I’m not sure why they’re subtracting Mu. For one thing, you almost never know what Mu is because you’d have to measure the entire population. And, if you knew Mu, you wouldn’t need to perform a t-test! Why would you use a sample mean (X-bar) if you knew the population mean? None of it makes sense to me. It must be an error of some kind even if just of documentation.
October 13, 2022 at 8:33 am
Are there strict distinctions between the terms “confident”, “likely”, and “probability”? I’ve seen a number of other sources exclaim that for a given calculated confidence interval, the frequentist interpretation of that is the parameter is either in or not in that interval. They say another frequent misinterpretation is that the parameter lies within a calculated interval with a 95% probability.
It’s very confusing to balance that notion with practical casual communication of data in non-research settings.
October 13, 2022 at 5:43 pm
It is a confusing issue.
In this strictest technical sense, the confidence level is probability that applies to the process but NOT an individual confidence interval. There are several reasons for that.
In the frequentist framework, the probability that an individual CI contains the parameter is either 100% or 0%. It’s either in it or out. The parameter is not a random variable. However, because you don’t know the parameter value, you don’t know which of those two conditions is correct. That’s the conceptual approach. And the mathematics behind the scenes are complementary to that. There’s just no way to calculate the probability that an individual CI contains the parameter.
On the other hand, the process behind creating the intervals will cause X% of the CIs at the Xth confidence level to include that parameter. So, for all 95% CIs, you’d expect 95% of them to contain the parameter value. The confidence level applies to the process, not the individual CIs. Statisticians intentionally used the term “confidence” to describe that as opposed to “probability” hoping to make that distinction.
So, the 95% confidence applies the process but not individual CIs.
However, if you’re thinking that if 95% of many CIs contain the parameter, then surely a single CI has a 95% probability. From a technical standpoint, that is NOT true. However, it sure sounds logical. Most statistics make intuitive sense to me, but I struggle with that one myself. I’ve asked other statisticians to get their take on it. The basic gist of their answers is that there might be other information available which can alter the actual probability. Not all CIs produced by the process have the same probability. For example, if an individual CI is a bit higher or lower than most other CIs for the same thing, the CIs with the unusual values will have lower probabilities for containing the parameters.
I think that makes sense. The only problem is that you often don’t know where your individual CI fits in. That means you don’t know the probability for it specifically. But you do know the overall probability for the process.
The answer for this question is never totally satisfying. Just remember that there is no mathematical way in the frequentist framework to calculate the probability that an individual CI contains the parameter. However, the overall process is designed such that all CIs using a particular confidence level will have the specified proportion containing the parameter. However, you can’t apply that overall proportion to your individual CI because on the technical side there’s no mathematical way to do that and conceptually, you don’t know where your individual CI fits in the entire distribution of CIs.
Help | Advanced Search
Title: what do language models learn in context the structured task hypothesis.
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit an intriguing ability to learn a novel task from in-context examples presented in a demonstration, termed in-context learning (ICL). Understandably, a swath of research has been dedicated to uncovering the theories underpinning ICL. One popular hypothesis explains ICL by task selection. LLMs identify the task based on the demonstration and generalize it to the prompt. Another popular hypothesis is that ICL is a form of meta-learning, i.e., the models learn a learning algorithm at pre-training time and apply it to the demonstration. Finally, a third hypothesis argues that LLMs use the demonstration to select a composition of tasks learned during pre-training to perform ICL. In this paper, we empirically explore these three hypotheses that explain LLMs' ability to learn in context with a suite of experiments derived from common text classification tasks. We invalidate the first two hypotheses with counterexamples and provide evidence in support of the last hypothesis. Our results suggest an LLM could learn a novel task in context via composing tasks learned during pre-training.
Comments: | This work is published in ACL 2024 |
Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
Cite as: | [cs.CL] |
(or [cs.CL] for this version) | |
Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite |
Access paper:.
Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
BMC Psychology volume 12 , Article number: 343 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
140 Accesses
Metrics details
Does social media alleviate or exacerbate loneliness? Past research has shown mixed results regarding the relationship between social media usage and loneliness among younger and older adults. Unlike younger individuals, older adults may decrease their loneliness through social media interactions. Additionally, previous research has indicated that the link between social media use and loneliness can vary depending on one’s shy tendency. Therefore, this study aims to explore the relationship between individuals’ social media use and loneliness while considering age and shyness tendency as moderating variables. The study employed a questionnaire survey conducted through convenience sampling, resulting in 234 valid responses from participants in Northern Taiwan. Among them, 113 were college students (aged 18 to 25, average age 19.40), and 121 were older adults (aged 50 to 82, average age 60.81). Using hierarchical regression analysis, results indicated that (1) age moderates the relationship between personal social media use and loneliness. Minimal differences were observed among younger individuals, but among older adults, increased social media usage time was associated with a significant reduction in loneliness. (2) Shyness tendency moderate the relationship between personal social media use and loneliness. Individuals with higher shyness tendency experience an increase in loneliness as their social media usage time lengthens.
Peer Review reports
With the advancement of technology, interpersonal interactions have evolved beyond physical social spaces, extending into the realm of virtual social networks. According to a survey by InsightXplorer [ 1 ], Taiwan ranks third in internet usage among Asian countries, following only Japan and South Korea. It is estimated that there are approximately 18.66 million internet users in the country, with an overall internet penetration rate of 79.2%. Moreover, even among individuals aged 55 to 64, over 60% are internet users. In the same year, Taiwan officially transitioned from an aging society to an aged society, making the use of information technology among older adults an increasingly important topic of study.
As the number of users and time spent on social network sites (SNS) continues to grow, research in this area has expanded. Various studies have focused on different social media platforms. When taking into account geographical preferences, Twitter seems to be more popular among Americans. However, recent studies have noted a rising interest in Instagram among different generations (e.g., [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]).
Among older adults, Facebook is the preferred and the most commonly used social media platform [ 5 ]. However, even though Instagram is primarily used by young people, Facebook remains an important social media platform in studies of the social behavior of the younger generation. For example, research on the Hong Kong civil movement by Agur and Frisch [ 6 ] and on the Taiwanese student movement by Tsatsou [ 7 ] both centered on Facebook as the primary social media platform. Therefore, for a comprehensive comparison of social media usage between Taiwanese young people and older adults, Facebook is considered as a suitable choice, especially given its current ranking as the most widely used social media platform in Taiwan [ 1 ].
In studies related to Facebook usage, Kross et al. [ 8 ] conducted an experience-sampling study in which they asked university students about their frequency of current Facebook use over a two-week period. The study found that participants’ life satisfaction gradually decreased during the two weeks of Facebook use. University students often use social networking sites to stay in touch with friends, and excessive time spent online or on social media can lead to increased feelings of loneliness [ 9 ]. However, for older adults, using social networking sites may have potential benefits. Research indicates that older adults are more likely to experience social isolation issues, such as reduced communication with colleagues after retirement, leading to feelings of loneliness [ 10 , 11 ]. Nevertheless, the internet can facilitate communication and interaction with others among older adults. As Jung et al. [ 12 ] pointed out, older adults use Facebook for various reasons, including connecting with people they wouldn’t usually have contact with, sharing photos, passively staying in touch with friends and family, and participating in convenient organizational and communication groups. However, previous research has primarily focused on specific age groups, with fewer studies simultaneously comparing the psychological well-being of Facebook users across different age groups. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to this gap in the literature.
In addition to age, an individual’s experience of loneliness when using social networking sites may also be influenced by differences in shyness tendency. Shyness tendency refer to an individual’s feelings of nervousness, anxiety, or other awkward discomfort when interacting with others [ 13 , 14 ]. People who are easily shy may face obstacles in interpersonal relationships and have difficulty integrating into social situations [ 14 ]. In the context of the internet era, individuals with shyness tendency may also face obstacles in online social interactions, leading to feelings of loneliness. Research by Frison and Eggermont [ 15 ] found that individuals who can establish stable relationships online are more likely to reduce negative feelings. Additionally, the study by Sheldon [ 16 ] showed that users of Facebook with shyness tendency experience lower levels of loneliness. Furthermore, extroverted individuals tend to use social media more frequently [ 17 ]. Therefore, shyness tendency may be an important influencing factor in social networking site usage.
In summary, the association between social networking site usage and loneliness varies not only by age but also by individual shyness tendency. Thus, this study aims to explore the relationship between Facebook usage and loneliness in-depth, using age and shyness tendency as moderating factors. Accordingly, the objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to investigate whether age moderates the relationship between Facebook usage time and loneliness, and (2) to explore whether shyness tendency moderate the relationship between Facebook usage time and loneliness.
Definition and related research on loneliness.
This study defines loneliness based on the synthesis by Peplau and Perlman [ 18 ] as a negative experience that elicits aversion and unpleasantness (e.g., hostility towards others) [ 19 , 20 , 21 ] and the inability to satisfy one’s need for intimacy in relationships (e.g., family, friendship) [ 22 ]. Past research has proposed various explanations for the causes of loneliness. The first significant factor is the lack of companionship from friendships [ 23 ]. During childhood, forming friendships and the quality of those friendships are crucial for preventing loneliness. Lack of companionship from friends during this period can lead to increased feelings of loneliness. As individuals age, the absence of a sense of belonging to a social group can also contribute to increased loneliness [ 24 , 25 ]. Lack of friendship, low-quality friendships, or rejection and bullying by peer groups are all factors that contribute to loneliness during adolescence [ 11 ].
The second factor contributing to loneliness is the lack of or dissatisfaction with romantic relationships. During adolescence and young adulthood (e.g., college years), in addition to the importance of friendship support, individuals begin to place increasing emphasis on romantic relationships [ 26 , 27 ]. Previous studies involving college students have found a correlation between high satisfaction with romantic relationships and reduced loneliness, while disappointment in romantic relationships leads to increased loneliness [ 28 ]. Furthermore, marital status in later life can also predict feelings of loneliness [ 29 ].
Additionally, besides the aforementioned factors related to friendship and romantic relationships causing increased loneliness, research on the relationship between older adults and loneliness has identified factors such as physical and mental health decline, the loss of a partner, and increasing social disconnection as contributors to elevated loneliness. Dykstra et al. [ 30 ] studied individuals aged 55 and above and found that as age increases, feelings of loneliness also rise. Loneliness can be exacerbated by the loss of a partner or declining physical health. Courtin and Knapp [ 31 ], in a literature review on social isolation and loneliness among older adults and their impact on physical and mental health found that older adults experiencing social isolation and loneliness are at risk for depression and cardiovascular health issues. Theeke [ 32 ] studied the relationship between health and loneliness risk in people aged 50 and above, revealing that individuals who experience prolonged loneliness engage in less physical activity, have more chronic health problems, and are more likely to experience depression. Victor and Bowling [ 33 ] conducted a longitudinal study on older adults and found that loneliness not only affects physical and mental health but is also related to changes in marital status, lifestyle arrangements, and personal social network patterns.
Scholars have proposed various measurement methods for loneliness. For example, Russell [ 34 ] defined loneliness as a unidimensional concept and developed the UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 (UCLA-3) using a 4-point Likert scale for measurement. However, since this study aims to measure loneliness related to interactions with different individuals, the UCLA-3 scale was not used in this study. Weiss [ 22 ] was the first to differentiate loneliness into multiple dimensions. Loneliness was divided into social loneliness and emotional loneliness. Social loneliness refers to an individual’s inability to establish good relationships with others, resulting in feelings of isolation. Emotional loneliness refers to a lack of intimate relationships (e.g., a partner) and a lack of emotional connection or dependence on others. Of the two, emotional loneliness, where emotional needs are unmet, tends to result in greater loneliness.
DiTommaso and Spinner [ 35 ] not only validated Weiss’s [ 22 ] concept but also further divided emotional loneliness into romantic loneliness and family loneliness. They developed the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA), which consists of a total of 37 items. In 1997, a short version of the SELSA was developed from the original scale, known as the Short Form of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA-S) [ 35 ]. Other researchers have verified the stability of this scale with different populations (college students, military personnel, and individuals with mental illnesses), with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 [ 36 ]. Letts [ 37 ] also used this scale and found good reliability in a study with older adults (ages 55–88). Given the stability of the SELSA-S scale in previous studies with both college students and older adults, this study adapted the SELSA-S and made modifications to create a scale suitable for its research purposes.
In summary, the causes of loneliness may change with age, and the primary sources of loneliness may differ among different age groups. However, the main causes often relate to dissatisfaction in friendships, romantic relationships, and family relationships. Since this study aims to measure loneliness in both college students and older adults, the sources of loneliness were combined for measurement during data collection to account for the potential direct influence of age on loneliness.
In modern society, people often face psychological issues related to loneliness. Previous research has shown that adults sometimes experience loneliness, with 6% of the population believing that they feel lonely all the time [ 38 ]. Loneliness appears to be on the rise in today’s society [ 33 , 38 ]. However, with the advent of the internet, virtual spaces have become available for people to interact, leading to numerous studies exploring the relationship between social media use and loneliness. Research indicates that using social media for communication and interaction with others can reduce feelings of depression and loneliness. In empirical studies, Kross et al. [ 8 ] examined Facebook usage and found that interactions on Facebook, such as messaging, posting, and receiving responses, were associated with decreased depressive emotions. Additionally, posting new status updates on Facebook, regardless of receiving replies, was linked to reduced loneliness within a week [ 39 ].
Furthermore, Burke and Kraut [ 40 ] conducted a month-long longitudinal study involving 1,910 Facebook users and questions about their subjective well-being. They found that prolonged conversations with close friends on Facebook were associated with increased feelings of happiness. Burke [ 41 ] also noted that engaging in communication with others on public platforms within social media reduced feelings of loneliness. In other words, using social media for communication and chatting with others could enhance subjective well-being and reduce feelings of loneliness. Conversely, passive information consumption (e.g., browsing, shopping) on social media could lead to negative psychological responses, such as depression and loneliness. From empirical research, Verduyn et al. [ 42 ] found that passive Facebook use could trigger jealousy and decrease happiness. Tandoc et al. [ 43 ] also pointed out that browsing Facebook and experiencing jealousy could increase depressive and negative emotions. Additionally, Guo et al. [ 44 ] discovered that using the entertainment features of social media could increase an individual’s feelings of loneliness.
The relationship between loneliness and internet use varied across different age groups [ 45 ]. Research has shown diverging patterns in late adolescence and adulthood, but in studies involving older adults, social media use has been found to reduce feelings of loneliness. Therefore, the following will separately examine research on young adults and older adults regarding their use of social media and its association with loneliness, leading to hypothesis inferences.
Previous research has indicated that young adults are more active on social media platforms [ 46 ]. Spending more time on social media has been associated with negative emotions such as depression, loneliness, and lower life satisfaction [ 8 , 9 , 47 ]. This might be because college students are prone to engage in social comparison on social media platforms [ 46 ]. Social comparison theory suggests that individuals, in the absence of objective information, use others as a yardstick for self-evaluation [ 48 ]. In recent years, with the rise of social media, the concept of “Facebook depression” has been proposed, implying that excessive engagement with social media can have negative effects, especially among young people [ 49 ]. Relevant studies have found that investing more effort and time into social networking sites is associated with higher levels of depressive emotions [ 50 ]. Kross et al. [ 8 ] conducted an experience-sampling study in which they inquired about the frequency and feelings of college students’ Facebook use over a two-week period. They found that participants experienced a gradual decrease in life satisfaction during this time. With the advancement of technology, smartphones have become a common means of accessing social media content and messages. Lemieux et al. [ 47 ] investigated Facebook use among college students and found that spending more time on Facebook was associated with increased feelings of loneliness. Peper and Harvey [ 51 ] studied smartphone addiction among college students and found that higher usage frequency was linked to higher levels of negative emotions such as loneliness, anxiety, and depression. Chen [ 52 ] proposed that college students who use the internet more frequently, spend longer periods online, and have higher expectations for online opposite-sex friendships tend to experience higher levels of real-life loneliness. Based on the above findings, it can be inferred that young people who invest more effort, time, and frequency into social media tend to experience higher negative emotions, such as depression, loneliness, and lower life satisfaction.
As technology has evolved, the number of older adults using the internet has been steadily increasing. During this stage of life, older adults often experience a reduced social circle due to retirement. On social media, unlike young people who engage in social comparison, older adults typically focus on family-related matters or one-on-one interactions [ 46 , 53 ]. Most studies indicate that prolonged use of technology products and the internet can reduce feelings of loneliness among older adults [ 54 ]. This is because interaction with others through technology can enhance social support for older adults and improve their cognitive functions [ 55 ]. Choi et al. [ 56 ] proposed that using technology products can enhance social support among older adults through activities such as video calls with family or friends [ 57 ], communication [ 58 , 59 ], or simply learning how to use technology products [ 60 , 61 , 62 ]. In summary, age differences may lead to variations in the degree of loneliness, with young people experiencing increased loneliness with social media use and older adults experiencing decreased loneliness. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Age differences will moderate the relationship between individual social media use and loneliness.
Younger individuals who spend more time on Facebook will experience increased loneliness.
Older individuals who spend more time on Facebook will experience decreased loneliness.
The causes of loneliness can be attributed not only to the dissatisfaction individuals may feel in their real versus expected social relationships, and the quantity and quality of their social interactions but also to differences in personality traits [ 18 ]. This study aims to explore the relationship between shyness and loneliness, and the following will mainly elaborate on the relevant content.
Zimbardo et al. [ 63 ] pointed out a significant relationship between shyness and loneliness. Individuals with higher shyness tendency tend to have higher self-consciousness [ 64 , 65 ], which means that they are more concerned about how others perceive them, leading to self-protective behaviors [ 66 ], lower self-esteem [ 13 , 64 ], and emotional issues such as anxiety and depression [ 63 ]. People with higher levels of shyness tend to experience negative impacts on their lives, including lower subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and overall quality of life [ 67 , 68 , 69 ].
According to past research, Bian and Leung [ 70 ] studied smartphone addiction and usage patterns, which indicated that individuals who spent extended periods on their smartphones browsing social media, and sending and receiving messages, were more prone to shyness and experienced higher levels of loneliness. Satici [ 71 ] also found that individuals addicted to Facebook, as shyness and loneliness levels increased, reported decreased subjective well-being. In other words, individuals with higher shyness tendency experienced increased feelings of loneliness as they spent more time on Facebook.
In contrast, for individuals with lower shyness tendency who use Facebook, previous research suggests that they tend to have more extroverted personalities and lower levels of narcissism, leading to lower feelings of loneliness [ 72 ]. Zhou et al. [ 73 ] studied the online behavior of introverted and extroverted individuals and found that extroverted individuals were more likely to express both positive and negative emotions online. In contrast, introverted individuals posted more negative emotion-related content, expressing anger, fear, and disgust. In other words, individuals with lower shyness tendency are more capable of expressing their positive or negative emotions as needed, thereby reducing feelings of loneliness. In summary, this study posits that as users spend more time on Facebook, those with higher shyness tendency will experience increased loneliness, whereas those with lower shyness tendency will experience decreased loneliness. Based on the aforementioned theories and research, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
Shyness tendency will moderate the relationship between individual social media use and loneliness.
Individuals with higher shyness tendency who spend more time on Facebook will experience increased loneliness.
Individuals with lower shyness tendency who spend more time on Facebook will experience decreased loneliness.
This study employed convenience sampling. The pilot and formal questionnaires for young adults were distributed in a classroom at a university in the northern region. However, the pilot and formal questionnaires were distributed in different courses with non-overlapping student lists. For older adults, the pilot and formal questionnaires were distributed at a community college in the northern region, with no duplication in the completion of the pilot and formal questionnaires.
The pilot questionnaires serve the purpose of ensuring the reliability and validity of the questionnaire content. Additionally, it aids in compiling the formal questionnaire by analyzing the results obtained from the pilot questionnaire. A total of 70 valid pilot questionnaires were collected from college students, aged between 19 and 24 years. Among them, there were 20 males (28.6%) and 50 females (71.4%), with an average age of 20.70 years and a standard deviation of 1.20. For older adults, 22 valid pilot questionnaires were collected, with ages ranging from 48 to 80 years. Among them, there were 2 males (9.1%) and 20 females (90.9%), with an average age of 64.05 years and a standard deviation of 6.74. In total, 92 valid pilot questionnaires were collected, including 22 males (23.9%) and 70 females (76.1%).
A total of 113 valid formal questionnaires were collected from university students in the northern region, ranging in age from 18 to 25 years. Among them, there were 26 males (23%) and 87 females (77%), with an average age of 19.40 years and a standard deviation of 1.33. For older adults, 121 valid formal questionnaires were collected, with ages ranging from 50 to 82 years. Among them, there were 38 males (31.4%) and 83 females (68.8%), with an average age of 60.81 years and a standard deviation of 5.80. In total, 234 valid formal questionnaires were collected, including 64 males (27.4%) and 170 females (72.6%).
In this study, participants were asked to self-report their social media usage. Specifically, they were asked about the total time (in minutes) spent on Facebook in a day. A longer duration indicates that individuals spend more time on social media. Example question: " Could you please take a moment to reflect and share with us the average amount of time you spend on Facebook per day?”
Additionally, this study assessed the level of loneliness using a modified version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults - Short Form (SELSA-S), based on DiTommaso et al. [ 36 ].Based on the current research objectives, this study opted to include the Social and Family subscales from the SELSA-S while excluding the Romantic subscale, as it is less pertinent to the study’s scope of focus. The scale used a 5-point Likert scale to measure the degree of loneliness. Each question was rated on a scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5), with scores ranging from 1 to 5. There was a total of 9 questions, including reverse-scored items. Higher scores indicated a higher level of perceived loneliness. Sample items included “I don’t have any friends who share my views, but I wish I did” and " I feel alone when I am with my family.”
Finally, this study aimed to investigate both adult college students and older adults. For this purpose, a modified version of the Shyness and Social Orientation Scale for Adults, based on Asendorpf & Wilpers [ 74 ], was used to assess shyness tendency. According to the literature review conducted for our study, we are specifically examining the moderation effect of Shyness Tendency. Consequently, we have made adjustments to the Shyness and Social Orientation in Adults scale by Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) and performed a validity and reliability analysis of the questionnaire, utilizing only items pertaining to Shyness. The scale also used a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5), with scores ranging from 1 to 5. There were a total of 3 questions, and higher scores indicated a higher level of shyness. Sample items included “I feel shy when there are other people around” and “I find it difficult to relax and be myself when I’m with others.”
In terms of internal consistency analysis for the pilot questionnaire in this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Shyness Tendency scale, as well as the Loneliness scale, were 0.88 and 0.85, respectively. These coefficients were both greater than 0.70, indicating good reliability for each scale [ 75 ].
For exploratory factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were conducted to evaluate whether the scales were suitable for factor analysis [ 76 , 77 ]. Following the suggestion of Pett et al. [ 78 ], items with factor loadings lower than 0.40 were removed. All scales in this study met this criterion. The Bartlett’s test results were as follows: Shyness Tendency scale (χ2 = 240.82, df = 21, p <.001), with factor loadings ranging from 0.62 to 0.86, all greater than 0.40; and Loneliness scale (χ2 = 431.74, df = 36, p <.001), with factor loadings ranging from 0.47 to 0.84, all greater than 0.40.
Regarding the internal consistency of the formal questionnaire in this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Shyness Tendency scale and the Loneliness scale, were 0.83 and 0.88, respectively. These coefficients were both greater than 0.70, indicating good reliability for each scale [ 75 ]. In terms of confirmatory factor analysis, several criteria were applied to assess the model fit. First, items with factor loadings below 0.45 were deleted as they did not meet the requirement for adequate fit [ 79 , 80 ]. Additionally, items with close error covariances were removed based on modification indices (MI), following the evaluation criteria proposed by Jackson et al. [ 81 ] and other scholars. For the overall model evaluation, the following fit indices were considered: for the Shyness Tendency scale, the chi-square test statistic was 20.352, with 8 degrees of freedom, and the p-value was less than 0.05, indicating a significant level. However, chi-square values can be affected by sample size. Considering other fit indices, the Normed Chi-Square (NC), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) all met the standard criteria (NC = 2.544 < 3, SRMR = 0.04 < 0.08, CFI = 0.95 > 0.90), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was within an acceptable range (RMSEA = 0.08 < 0.10) [ 79 ]. Overall, the model fit for this measurement was acceptable. For the Loneliness scale, the chi-square test statistic was 0.453, with 2 degrees of freedom, and the p-value was less than 0.05, indicating a significant level. However, like the Shyness Tendency scale, the chi-square value can be influenced by sample size. Considering other fit indices, the Normed Chi-Square (NC), SRMR, CFI, and RMSEA all met standard criteria (NC = 0.23 < 3, SRMR = 0.01 < 0.08, CFI = 1.0 > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.001), indicating good model fit overall.
In terms of the analysis of model internal structure fit, according to Anderson & Gerbing [ 82 ], when the average variance extracted is greater than 0.50, it indicates that latent variables have ideal convergent validity. On the other hand, when the composite reliability exceeds 0.60, it indicates consistency among latent variables [ 83 ]. In this study, “Shyness Tendency” had a composite reliability of 0.88 and an average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.72, while the “Loneliness” scale had a composite reliability of 0.83 and an AVE of 0.56. These values met the acceptable standards. In other words, the questionnaire should be able to measure individual shyness tendency and loneliness traits effectively.
This study employed hierarchical regression analysis to examine the impact of different independent variables on the dependent variable. First, gender was considered as a control variable and entered into the first step of the hierarchical regression to control for the influence of individual background: gender, on the dependent variable. In the second step, the independent variable, Facebook usage time, was entered, along with separate moderator variables: age (M1) and shyness tendency (M2). In the third step, interaction terms between the independent variables and moderator variables were added: Facebook usage time × age (M1) and Facebook usage time × shyness tendency (M2).
To address potential issues of collinearity arising from high correlations between independent and moderator variables, the study followed the approach proposed by Aiken et al. (1991) by centering the variables, which helps mitigate problems related to multicollinearity. Finally, the analysis examined whether the independent and moderator variables interacted to influence the dependent variable.
This study found that, in terms of descriptive statistics, college students have an average daily total Facebook usage time of 74.64 min with a standard deviation of 58.56 min, while older adults have an average daily total Facebook usage time of 58.56 min with a standard deviation of 101.13 min. Regarding age (M1), there is a significant positive correlation between Facebook usage time and loneliness among college students ( r =.26, p <.01). In contrast, the correlation between Facebook usage time and loneliness among older adults did not reach a significant level ( r = −.124, p =.18). This suggests that as college students spend more time on Facebook, their levels of loneliness tend to increase, while for older adults, the relationship between Facebook usage time and loneliness is not statistically significant.
In terms of shyness tendency (M2), there is a significant positive correlation between shyness tendency and loneliness ( r =.220, p <.01), indicating that individuals with a higher level of shyness tendency tend to experience higher levels of loneliness, as shown in Table 1 .
This section aims to test Hypothesis 1 (H1): Age moderates the relationship between individual social media usage and loneliness. As shown in Table 2 , the interaction term between total Facebook usage time and age reaches a significant standard ( β = − 0.16, p <.05). To further understand the interaction effects of total Facebook usage time and age on loneliness, this study divided participants into two groups, high and low, for both total Facebook usage time and age, based on the mean plus or minus one standard deviation. Subsequently, interaction plots were created to illustrate these effects, as shown in Fig. 1 .
Moderating effect of Facebook usage time and age on loneliness
From Fig. 1 , it can be observed that age moderates the relationship between individual social media usage and loneliness. Both young and older individuals experience a decrease in loneliness as their Facebook usage time increases. In the case of young individuals, the differences are not substantial, but for older individuals, loneliness significantly decreases as their usage time on Facebook increases. These findings partially support H1.
This section aims to verify Hypothesis 2 (H2): Shyness tendency moderates the relationship between individual social media usage and loneliness. As shown in Table 3 , the interaction term between total Facebook usage time and shyness tendency significantly positively predicts ( β = 0.15, p <.05). To further understand the interaction effect of total Facebook usage time and shyness tendency on loneliness, this study dividedthe high and low groups of Facebook usage time and shyness tendency by adding or subtracting one standard deviation from the mean and presents the interaction effect graphically, as shown in Fig. 2 .
Moderating effect of Facebook usage time and shyness tendency on loneliness
From Fig. 2 , it can be observed that overall, shyness tendency moderates the relationship between individual social media usage and loneliness. Compared to individuals with low shyness tendency, those with high shyness tendency experience a greater increase in loneliness as their usage time on Facebook lengthens. The results of this study partially support Hypothesis H2.
In terms of age, this study found that both young people and older adults experience a decrease in loneliness as their Facebook usage time increases. However, the difference in young people is not significant, whereas older adults experience a substantial decrease in loneliness with longer Facebook usage time.
Regarding the relationship between social media usage and loneliness in older adults, the results of this study align with past research. Heo et al. [ 84 ] studied the internet usage patterns of 65-year-old older adults and found that increased internet usage was associated with reduced loneliness, better social support, increased life satisfaction, and improved psychological well-being. Khalaila and Vitman-Schorr [ 85 ] researched internet usage among 502 individuals aged 50 and above and similarly found that internet usage reduced loneliness and directly or indirectly enhanced the quality of life for older adults.
However, when it comes to the relationship between social media usage and loneliness in young people, the results have been inconsistent, with some studies aligning with this study’s findings. Lou et al. [ 86 ] examined the relationship between Facebook usage intensity and loneliness among college freshmen. Facebook usage intensity refers to the level of emotional investment users had in Facebook, with higher intensity indicating greater emotional involvement and longer time spent on Facebook. They found that greater Facebook usage intensity was associated with reduced loneliness.
Past research has generally shown that spending more time online is associated with increased negative emotions such as depression and loneliness among young people [ 8 , 9 ]. From the above, this study’s results partially support its hypothesis. The study speculates that the reason for the substantial decrease in loneliness in older adults with longer usage time might be because college students have more diverse social interactions. Apart from using social media to connect with real-life friends and online friends [ 87 ], they continue to interact with others in their daily lives [ 88 ]. Therefore, the influence of Facebook may be relatively smaller for young people, resulting in minimal differences in the relationship between Facebook usage time and loneliness. In contrast, older adults use Facebook mainly to enhance and maintain existing relationships [ 89 ]. Thus, using social media to strengthen their existing social connections may enhance social support, life satisfaction, and significantly reduce loneliness [ 84 , 85 ].
In terms of shyness, shyness moderates the relationship between individual social media usage and loneliness. Both individuals with high and low shyness experience an increase in loneliness with longer Facebook usage time, but the increase is more pronounced among individuals with high shyness.
Regarding individuals with low shyness and their Facebook usage patterns, this study’s results are consistent with past research. Bian and Leung [ 70 ] studied smartphone addiction and found that individuals who spent more time browsing social networking sites, receiving and sending messages, which implies heavy smartphone use, were more likely to be shy and experience higher levels of loneliness. Similarly, Satici [ 71 ] found that individuals addicted to Facebook, especially those with higher shyness tendency, reported reduced subjective well-being. In other words, individuals with higher shyness tendency experience an increase in loneliness with longer Facebook usage time.
However, for individuals with low shyness, this study’s results do not align with past research. Previous studies have indicated that Facebook users tend to be more extroverted and less lonely [ 72 ]. Additionally, Zhou et al. [ 73 ] studied the online behavior of introverted and extroverted individuals on social media and found that extroverted individuals were more likely to express both positive and negative emotions online. In contrast, introverted individuals tended to post more content related to negative emotions, expressing anger, fear, and disgust. In other words, individuals with low shy tendency can effectively express both positive and negative emotions, leading to a reduction in loneliness.
This study found that individuals with low shyness tendency experience an increase in loneliness with longer Facebook usage time, although the increase is relatively small. From the perspective of social comparison theory, individuals tend to engage in self-assessment by comparing themselves with others in the absence of objective comparison standards [ 48 ]. Facebook is a publicly accessible non-anonymous social media platform where users present idealized versions of themselves. Consequently, everyone may perceive others’ lives as happier, leading to a comparative mindset [ 90 ] and negative emotions [ 91 ]. Therefore, individuals with low shyness tendency may also experience an increase in loneliness with longer Facebook usage time. On the other hand, individuals with high shyness tendency may be more prone to prolonged social media addiction [ 70 , 92 ], leading to a stronger sense of loneliness.
This study contributes to academia by providing scholars with insights into the usage patterns, basic characteristics, and personality traits of social media users. This understanding helps identify the factors influencing loneliness. In terms of social media platform operation: (1) Through these analytical findings, social media platform operators can gain a deeper understanding of user profiles and personalities. This insight can help them understand how users engage with the platform. It also highlights that certain user types may experience more negative emotions when using social media. Armed with this knowledge, operators can focus on improving or adjusting the platform in these areas. (2) The results of this study reveal that shyness plays a significant role in moderating the association between Facebook usage and feelings of loneliness. Therefore, in the future, platform operators may be able to reduce negative emotions by addressing users’ comparative mindsets and fostering self-affirmation. For instance, they could consider measures such as removing the “like” button on social media. (3) Furthermore, this research indicates that age is a factor in moderating the relationship between Facebook usage and loneliness. Older users who use social media more frequently experience lower levels of loneliness. Therefore, in the future, platform operators can design more features or activities that are relevant to older users and extend online interactions into real-life situations. This approach can strengthen older users’ appreciation of social media platforms.
In terms of Facebook usage patterns, this study faced constraints related to human resources, time, and budget considerations, which prevented the use of a random sampling procedure to obtain a representative sample. Therefore, the data collected may not be fully representative. For example, the sample in this study primarily consisted of young adults who are university students, while the age range of older participants was broader. Regarding the age of the older participants, this study included individuals aged between 50 and 82 years. Smith and Anderson [ 93 ] found that even among older individuals, there are variations in Facebook usage. The usage rate for Facebook among people aged 50 to 64 is 68%, while it drops to 46% for those aged 65 and above. Furthermore, when considering the number of friends on social media, Hutto et al. (2015) noted that younger older users (aged 50–64) tend to have more friends compared to older users (aged 65–91).
Therefore, future research could explore Facebook usage patterns among older individuals in greater detail by differentiating between age groups, such as individuals aged 50–64 and those aged 65 and above in order to investigate their potential differences. In terms of motivations for Facebook usage, the questionnaires in this study were distributed to both older adults and university students. However, due to concerns about the willingness of older adults to complete extensive questionnaires, the study was not able to comprehensively investigate the reasons for using Facebook. Future research could address this limitation by delving deeper into Facebook usage patterns, such as examining the total number of Facebook friends, and by exploring the motivations for using Facebook, including seeking popularity, emotional expression, information seeking, entertainment, and time-passing activities [ 69 ], in relation to feelings of loneliness.
Last but certainly not least, the present study utilizes a cross-sectional research design, which limits our ability to observe how the causal effect between variables. Considering that both social media usage and feelings of loneliness may undergo dynamic changes over time, it is advisable for future researchers to explore longitudinal study designs or employ methods like experimental designs to capture data at various time points. This approach would enhance the depth of research findings in the relevant field.
This study has two main findings. Firstly, it was discovered that among older individuals, spending more time on Facebook significantly reduces feelings of loneliness. This can potentially alleviate the issue of social isolation that often affects older adults [ 10 , 11 ]. Facebook usage allows older individuals to rebuild bridges of social interaction, expanding and enriching their lives. Secondly, in terms of shyness tendency, individuals with higher levels of shyness experience a greater increase in feelings of loneliness as their time on Facebook increases, in comparison to those with lower shyness tendency [ 71 , 94 ]. However, both groups may experience increased loneliness due to the potential for a comparative mindset on Facebook [ 90 ], which can lead to negative emotions [ 91 ]. Therefore, it is evident that individuals, whether they have high or low shyness tendency, should use Facebook with a positive attitude and in moderation to promote a more positive life experience, rather than fostering negative emotions.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
InsightXplorer. Taiwan Internet Report 2018. In.; 2018.
Lee E, Lee JA, Moon JH, Sung Y. Pictures speak louder than words: motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18(9):552–6.
Article Google Scholar
Lup K, Trub L, Rosenthal L. Among Instagram Use, depressive symptoms, Negative Social Comparison, and strangers followed. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18(5):247–52.
Ting H, Ming WWP, de Run EC, Choo SLY. Beliefs about the use of Instagram: an exploratory study. Int J Bus Innov. 2015;2(2):15–31.
Google Scholar
Sheldon P, Antony MG, Ware LJ. Baby Boomers’ use of Facebook and Instagram: uses and gratifications theory and contextual age indicators. Heliyon 2021, 7(4).
Agur C, Frisch N. Digital Disobedience and the limits of persuasion: Social Media Activism in Hong Kong’s 2014 Umbrella Movement. Soc Med Soc 2019, 5(1).
Tsatsou P. Social Media and Informal Organisation of Citizen activism: lessons from the Use of Facebook in the sunflower Movement. Soc Med Soc 2018, 4(1).
Kross E, Verduy P, Demiralp E, Park J, Lee DS, Lin N, Shablack H, Jonides J, Ybarra O, Sueur C. Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS ONE 2013, 8(8).
Matsuba MK. Searching for self and relationships online. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2006;9(3):275–84.
Luhmann M, Hawkley LC. Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age. Dev Psychol. 2016;52(6):943–59.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Qualter P, Vanhalst J, Harris R, Van Roekel E, Lodder G, Bangee Maes M, Verhagen M. Loneliness across the life span. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):250–64.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Jung EH, Walden J, Johnson AC, Sundar SS. Social networking in the aging context: why older adults use or avoid Facebook. Telematics Inform. 2017;34(7):1071–80.
Cheek JM, Buss AH. Shyness and sociability. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1981;41(2):330–9.
WH J, SR B. Shyness: conceptualization and measurement. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986;51(3):629–39.
Frison E, Eggermont S. Toward an integrated and differential approach to the relationships between loneliness, different types of Facebook use, and adolescents’ depressed mood. Commun Res 2015.
Sheldon P. Profiling the non-users: examination of life-position indicators, sensation seeking, shyness, and loneliness among users and non-users of social network sites. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28(5):1960–5.
Gil de Zuniga H, Diehl T, Huber B, Liu J. Personality traits and social media use in 20 countries: how personality relates to frequency of social media use, social media news use, and social media use for social interaction. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2017;20(9):540–52.
Peplau LA, Perlman D. Loneliness:a sourcebook of current theory. research, and therapy: Wiley; 1982.
Reichmann FF, Loneliness. Psychiatry Res. 1959;22(1):1–15.
Suedfeld P. Aloneness as a healing experience. In: Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy edn. Edited by Peplau L, Perlman D: Wiley and Sons; 1982: 54–67.
Zilboorg G. Loneliness. Atl Monthly. 1938;161:45–54.
Weiss RS. Loneliness: the experience of emotional and social isolation. MIT Press; 1973.
Parker JG, Asher SR. Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Dev Psychol. 1993;29(4):611–21.
Crone EA, Dahl RE. Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(9):636.
Gifford-Smith ME, Brownell CA. Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. J Sch Psychol. 2003;41(4):235–84.
Collins WA, Welsh DP, Furman W. Adolescent romantic relationships. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:631–52.
Dush CMK, Amato PR. Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. J Soc Pers Relatsh. 2005;22(5):607–27.
Flora J, Segrin C. Relationship development in dating couples: implications for relational satisfaction and loneliness. J Soc Pers Relatsh. 2000;17(6):811–25.
Diener E, Gohm CL, Suh E, Oishi S. Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2000;31(4):419–36.
Dykstra PA, van Tilburg TG, Gierveld JJ. Changes in older adult loneliness: results from a seven-year longitudinal study. Res Aging. 2005;27(6):725–47.
Courtin E, Knapp M. Social isolation, loneliness and health in old age: ascoping review. Health Soc Care Community. 2017;25(3):799–812.
Theeke LA. Sociodemographic and health-related risks for loneliness andoutcome differences by loneliness status in a sample of U.S. older adults. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2010;3(2):113–25.
Victor CR, Scambler SJ, Bowling ANN, Bond J. The prevalence of, and risk factors for, loneliness in later life: a survey of older people in Great Britain. Ageing Soc. 2005;25(6):357–75.
Russell DW. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(1):20–40.
DiTommaso E, Spinner B. The development and initial validation of the Social and emotional loneliness scale for adults (SELSA). Personal Individ Differ. 1993;14(1):127–34.
DiTommaso E, Brannen C, Best LA. Measurement and validity characteristics of the short version of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004;64(1):99–119.
Letts CA. Loneliness, social provisions and desire for control among older Adults. Canada: Dissertation, University of New Brunswick; 1997.
Victor CR, Yang K. The prevalence of loneliness among adults: a case study of the United Kingdom. J Psychol. 2012;146(1–2):85–104.
Deters FG, Mehl MR. Does posting Facebook status updates increase or decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2013, 4(5).
Burke M, Kraut RE. The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. J Comput-Mediat Commun. 2016;21(4):265–81.
Burke M. Reading, writing, relationships: the impact of social network sites on relationships and well-being. Carnegie Mellon University; 2011.
DS PV, O LJPHSAOJB. Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: experimental and longitudinal evidence. J Exp Psychol-Gen. 2015;144(2):480.
Tandoc EC, Ferrucci P, Duffy M. Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: is facebooking depressing? Comput hum Behav 2015, 43:139–46.
Guo Y, Li Y, Ito N. Exploring the predicted effect of social networking site use on perceived social capital and psychological well-being of Chinese international students in Japan. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2014;17(1):52–8.
Nowland R, Necka EA, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness and social internet use: pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018;13(1):70–87.
Ozimek P, Bierhoff HW. Facebook use depending on age: the influence of social comparisons. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;61:271–9.
Lemieux R, Lajoie S, Trainor NE. Affinity-seeking, social loneliness, and social avoidance among Facebook users. Psychol Rep. 2013;112(2):545–52.
Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Volume 2. Stanford University Press; 1962.
Guernsey L. Garbled in translation: Getting Media Research to the Press and Public. J Child Media. 2014;8(1):87–94.
Blomfield Neira CJ, Barber BL. Social networking site use: linked to adolescents’ social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood. Aust J Psychol. 2014;66(1):56–64.
Peper E. R Harvey 2018 Digital addiction: increased loneliness, anxiety, and depression. NeuroRegulation 5 1 3–8.
Chen JI. An analysis on the relationship between the Use of Internet and Social Loneliness for College Students. Chin Annu Rep Guid Couns. 2003;14:63–88.
McAndrew FT, Jeong HS. Who does what on Facebook? Age, sex, and relationship status as predictors of Facebook use. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28(6):2359–65.
Chopik WJ. The benefits of social technology use among older adults are mediated by reduced loneliness. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2016;19(9):551–6.
Krueger KR, Wilson RS, Kamenetsky JM, Barnes LL, Bienias JL, Bennett DA. Social engagement and cognitive function in old age. Exp Aging Res. 2009;35(1):45–60.
Choi M, Kong S, Jung D. Computer and internet interventions for loneliness and depression in older adults: a meta-analysis. Healthc Inf Res. 2012;18(3):191–8.
Tsai HH, Tsai YF. Changes in depressive symptoms, social support, and loneliness over 1 year after a minimum 3-month videoconference program for older nursing home residents. J Med Internet Res 2011, 13(4).
Erickson J, Johnson GM. Nternet use and psychological wellness during late adulthood. Can J Aging-Rev Can Vieil. 2011;30(2):197–209.
Sum S, Mathews RM, Hughes I, Campbell A. Internet use and loneliness in older adults. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2008;11(2):208–11.
Cotten SR, Anderson WA, McCullough BM. Impact of internet use on loneliness and contact with others among older adults: cross-sectional analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e2306.
Fokkema T, Knipscheer K. Escape loneliness by going digital: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a Dutch experiment in using ECT to overcome loneliness among older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2007;11(5):496–504.
Shapira N, Barak A, Gal I. Promoting older adults’ well-being through internet training and use. Aging Ment Health. 2007;11(5):477–84.
Zimbardo PG, Pilkonis PA, Norwood R. The silent prison of shyness (ONR tech. Rep. Stanford University; 1974. pp. Z–17.
Alden L, Cappe R. Interpersonal Process Training for Shy Clients. In: Shyness: Perspectives on Research and Treatment edn. Edited by WH Jones JCSB: Springer US; 1986: 343–355.
Crozier WR. Shyness and social relationships: Continuity and change. In: Shyness: Development, consolidation and change edn. Edited by Crozier W: Routledge; 2000: 1–21.
O’Shaughnessy J, O’Shaughnessy NJ. The marketing power of emotion. Oxford University Press; 2002.
Li C, Shi X, Dang J. Online communication and subjective well-being in Chinese college students: the mediating role of shyness and social self-efficacy. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;34:89–95.
Wang J, Zhao J, Wang Y. Self-efficacy mediates the association between shyness and subjective well-being: the case of Chinese college students. Soc Indic Res. 2014;119(1):341–51.
Zhao J, Kong F, Wang Y. Shyness and subjective well-being: the role of emotional intelligence and social support. Soc Indic Res. 2013;114(3):891–900.
Bian M, Leung L. Linking loneliness, shyness, smartphone addiction symptoms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2015;33(1):61–79.
Satici SA. Facebook addiction and subjective well-being: a study of the mediating role of shyness and loneliness. Int J Mental Health Addict. 2018;17(1):41–55.
Ryan T, Xenos S. Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Comput Hum Behav. 2011;27(5):1658–64.
Zhou Z, Xu K, Zhao J. Extroverts tweet differently from introverts in Weibo. EPJ Data Sci. 2018;7(1):1–22.
Asendorpf JB, Wilpers S. Personality effects on social relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(6):1531–44.
Nunnally J. Psychometric methods. McGraw-Hill; 1978.
Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31–6.
Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Br J Stat Psychol. 1950;3(2):77–85.
Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage; 2003.
Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58.
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL7: a guide to the program and applications. SPSS; 1989.
Jackson DL, Gillaspy JJA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2009;14(1):6.
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988;103(3):411–23.
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci. 1988;16(1):74–94.
Heo J, Chun S, Lee S, Lee KH, Kim J. Internet use and well-being in older adults. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18(5):268–72.
Khalaila R, Vitman-Schorr A. Internet use, social networks, loneliness, and quality of life among adults aged 50 and older: mediating and moderating effects. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(2):479–89.
Lou LL, Yan Z, Nickerson A, McMorris R. An examination of the reciprocal relationship of loneliness and Facebook use among first-year college students. J Educ Comput Res. 2012;46(1):105–17.
Thayer SE, Ray S. Online communication preferences across age, gender, and duration of internet use. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2006;9(4):432–40.
Zickuhr K, Madden M. Older adults and internet use. Pew Internet Am Life Project. 2012;6:1–23.
Kim C, Shen C. Connecting activities on Social Network Sites and life satisfaction: a comparison of older and younger users. Comput Hum Behav 2020, 105.
Chou HTG, Edge N. They are happier and having better lives than I am: the impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2012;15(2):117–21.
Steers MLN, Wickham RE, Acitelli LK. Seeing everyone else’s highlight reels: how Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2014;33(8):701–31.
Phu B, Gow AJ. Facebook use and its association with subjective happiness and loneliness. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;92:151–9.
Smith A, Anderson M. Social Media Use in 2018 [Monograph]. In.; 2018.
Brenk-Franz K, Strauss B, Tiesler F, Fleischhauer C, Ciechanowski P, Schneider N, Gensichen J. The influence of adult attachment on patient self-management in primary care - the need for a Personalized Approach and patient-centred care. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(9):e0136723.
Download references
The work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan [MOST 109-2628-H-003-002-MY3] and [MOST 111-2423-H-003-002-MY4].
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Adult and Continuing Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
Ya-Ling Wang, Yi-Jia Chen & Chih-Chi Liu
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Planning and Design: Ya-Ling Wang, Yi-Jia Chen; Data Collection: Yi-Jia Chen; Data Management: Ya-Ling Wang; Funding: Ya-Ling Wang; Drafting, Data Analysis: Yi-Jia Chen, Ya-Ling Wang; Manuscript Revision: Chih-Chi Liu, Ya-Ling Wang.
Correspondence to Ya-Ling Wang .
Ethical approval and consent to participate.
All participants gave informed written consent with the right to withdraw at any time. In the questionnaire, there was a paragraph introducing the study aim and assuring confidentiality of data by anonymous questionnaires. Participants did not experience any harm and they were allowed to stop their participation during the data collection process. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. This study was approved by Research Ethics Committee, National Taiwan Normal University with IRB protocol/human subjects approval number 202005HS071. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Wang, YL., Chen, YJ. & Liu, CC. The relationship between social media usage and loneliness among younger and older adults: the moderating effect of shyness. BMC Psychol 12 , 343 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01727-4
Download citation
Received : 28 January 2024
Accepted : 11 April 2024
Published : 11 June 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01727-4
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 2050-7283
A researcher at the University of Kentucky has been selected to receive a seed grant from the Hypothesis Fund for the “boldness of her science and potential long-term impact of her work.”
The Hypothesis Fund supports early-stage, innovative research focused on addressing systemic risks to human and planetary health. They offer seed grants for novel, very early-stage research projects, with the goal of sparking new basic science discoveries.
Natalia Korotkova, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics in the College of Medicine . As a microbiologist and biochemist, her work focuses on understanding cell biology of bacteria.
Her project titled “Functional significance of extracytoplasmic intrinsically disordered regions in streptococci” was selected for a seed grant by a Hypothesis Fund Scout — outstanding scientists who identify other scientists to fund.
“I am grateful to the Hypothesis Fund Scout, Dr. Mougous, who saw the potential of my work and pushed for this seed grant,” said Korotkova. “I’m looking forward to what we’ll discover through this project and the impact it could have on Kentucky and our country.”
Korotkova will study the roles and activities of specific parts of membrane proteins in streptococcal bacteria to determine how those contribute to the bacteria’s function, including interacting with a host or adapting to environments.
Korotkova was nominated by Joseph Mougous, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology at the University of Washington.
“Dr. Korotkova is seamlessly combining bacterial genetics and physiology with in-depth biochemistry to understand the regulatory mechanisms of intrinsically disordered regions (IDR) in bacterial proteins — all while keeping an eye on the human pathogenic side of the organisms,” said Mougous. “Her project could reveal bacterial IDRs as a fruitful and important area of investigation, with especially broad ramifications on the field of microbiology.”
Words: Lindsay Travis (Research Communications) Photo provided by Natalia Korotkova
LEXINGTON, Ky. (June 14, 2024) — A researcher at the University of Kentucky has been selected to receive a seed grant from the Hypothesis Fund for the “boldness of her science and potential long-term impact of her work.”
The Hypothesis Fund supports early-stage, innovative research focused on addressing systemic risks to human and planetary health. They offer seed grants for novel, very early-stage research projects, with the goal of sparking new basic science discoveries.
Natalia Korotkova, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics in the College of Medicine . As a microbiologist and biochemist, her work focuses on understanding cell biology of bacteria.
Her project titled “Functional significance of extracytoplasmic intrinsically disordered regions in streptococci” was selected for a seed grant by a Hypothesis Fund Scout — outstanding scientists who identify other scientists to fund.
“I am grateful to the Hypothesis Fund Scout, Dr. Mougous, who saw the potential of my work and pushed for this seed grant,” said Korotkova. “I’m looking forward to what we’ll discover through this project and the impact it could have on Kentucky and our country.”
Korotkova will study the roles and activities of specific parts of membrane proteins in streptococcal bacteria to determine how those contribute to the bacteria’s function, including interacting with a host or adapting to environments.
Korotkova was nominated by Joseph Mougous, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology at the University of Washington.
“Dr. Korotkova is seamlessly combining bacterial genetics and physiology with in-depth biochemistry to understand the regulatory mechanisms of intrinsically disordered regions (IDR) in bacterial proteins — all while keeping an eye on the human pathogenic side of the organisms,” said Mougous. “Her project could reveal bacterial IDRs as a fruitful and important area of investigation, with especially broad ramifications on the field of microbiology.”
As the state’s flagship, land-grant institution, the University of Kentucky exists to advance the Commonwealth. We do that by preparing the next generation of leaders — placing students at the heart of everything we do — and transforming the lives of Kentuckians through education, research and creative work, service and health care. We pride ourselves on being a catalyst for breakthroughs and a force for healing, a place where ingenuity unfolds. It's all made possible by our people — visionaries, disruptors and pioneers — who make up 200 academic programs, a $476.5 million research and development enterprise and a world-class medical center, all on one campus.
In 2022, UK was ranked by Forbes as one of the “Best Employers for New Grads” and named a “Diversity Champion” by INSIGHT into Diversity, a testament to our commitment to advance Kentucky and create a community of belonging for everyone. While our mission looks different in many ways than it did in 1865, the vision of service to our Commonwealth and the world remains the same. We are the University for Kentucky.
Markey report reveals disparities in kentucky’s childhood cancer rates, uk investing more in the people who will advance kentucky, uk budget: sustained, historic investments in students increase access, affordability, initiative focuses on housing supply, access in kentucky, uk board of trustees approves revisions to governing regulations to ensure more responsiveness to state’s needs, priorities.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Developing a hypothesis (with example) Step 1. Ask a question. Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project. Example: Research question.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process. Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test ...
A hypothesis is an educated guess or prediction of what will happen. In science, a hypothesis proposes a relationship between factors called variables. A good hypothesis relates an independent variable and a dependent variable. The effect on the dependent variable depends on or is determined by what happens when you change the independent variable.
Here are some good research hypothesis examples: "The use of a specific type of therapy will lead to a reduction in symptoms of depression in individuals with a history of major depressive disorder.". "Providing educational interventions on healthy eating habits will result in weight loss in overweight individuals.".
Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways. To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if … then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable. If a first-year student starts attending more lectures, then their exam scores will improve.
A good hypothesis is written in clear and simple language. Reading your hypothesis should tell a teacher or judge exactly what you thought was going to happen when you started your project. Keep the variables in mind. A good hypothesis defines the variables in easy-to-measure terms, like who the participants are, what changes during the testing ...
7. Statistical hypothesis. The point of a statistical hypothesis is to test an already existing hypothesis by studying a population sample. Hypothesis like "44% of the Indian population belong in the age group of 22-27." leverage evidence to prove or disprove a particular statement. Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
Hypotheses are one part of what's called the scientific method . Every (good) experiment or study is based in the scientific method. The scientific method gives order and structure to experiments and ensures that interference from scientists or outside influences does not skew the results.
An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions. Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis: Predicts the relationship and outcome.
Examples. A research hypothesis, in its plural form "hypotheses," is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.
The alternative hypothesis is usually the research hypothesis of a study and is based on the literature, previous observations, and widely known theories. Null Hypothesis. The hypothesis that describes the other possible outcome, that is, that your variables are not related, is the null hypothesis (H0). Based on your findings, you choose ...
Which of the Following Makes a Good Hypothesis. A good hypothesis is characterized by: Testability: The ability to form experiments or gather data to support or refute the hypothesis. Falsifiability: The potential for the hypothesis's predictions to be proven wrong based on empirical evidence.
Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity. A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what's being assessed (who or what variables are involved) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).. Let's stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more ...
Learning how to write a hypothesis comes down to knowledge and strategy. So where do you start? Learn how to make your hypothesis strong step-by-step here.
Definition: Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation. Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments ...
The null hypothesis is sometimes called the "no difference" hypothesis. The null hypothesis is good for experimentation because it's simple to disprove. If you disprove a null hypothesis, that is evidence for a relationship between the variables you are examining. Examples of Null Hypotheses .
A good hypothesis has the following characteristics. Ability To Predict One of the most valuable qualities of a good hypothesis is the ability to anticipate the future. It not only clarifies the current problematic scenario, but also predicts what will happen in the future. As a result of the predictive capacity, hypothesis is the finest ...
hypothesis: [noun] an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument. an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action.
Functions of Hypothesis. Following are the functions performed by the hypothesis: Hypothesis helps in making an observation and experiments possible. It becomes the start point for the investigation. Hypothesis helps in verifying the observations. It helps in directing the inquiries in the right direction.
A good hypothesis possesses the following certain attributes. Power of Prediction. One of the valuable attribute of a good hypothesis is to predict for future. It not only clears the present problematic situation but also predict for the future that what would be happened in the coming time. So, hypothesis is a best guide of research activity ...
Testable: An idea (hypothesis) should be made so it can be tested and proven true through doing experiments or watching. It should show a clear connection between things. Specific: It needs to be easy and on target, talking about a certain part or connection between things in a study. Falsifiable: A good guess should be able to show it's wrong. This means there must be a chance for proof or ...
Similarly, hypothesis containing opinions as good and bad or expectation with respect to something are not testable and therefore useless. For example, 'current account deficit can be lowered if people change their attitude towards gold' is a hypothesis encompassing expectation. In case of such a hypothesis, the attitude towards gold is ...
🧭 6 Steps to Making a Good Hypothesis. Writing a hypothesis becomes way simpler if you follow a tried-and-tested algorithm. Let's explore how you can formulate a good hypothesis in a few steps: Step #1: Ask Questions. The first step in hypothesis creation is asking real questions about the surrounding reality. Why do things happen as they do?
A confidence interval (CI) is a range of values that is likely to contain the value of an unknown population parameter. These intervals represent a plausible domain for the parameter given the characteristics of your sample data. Confidence intervals are derived from sample statistics and are calculated using a specified confidence level.
The Structured Task Hypothesis. Large language models (LLMs) exhibit an intriguing ability to learn a novel task from in-context examples presented in a demonstration, termed in-context learning (ICL). Understandably, a swath of research has been dedicated to uncovering the theories underpinning ICL. One popular hypothesis explains ICL by task ...
This section aims to test Hypothesis 1 (H1): Age moderates the relationship between individual social media usage and loneliness. As shown in Table 2, the interaction term between total Facebook usage time and age reaches a significant standard (β= − 0.16, p <.05). To further understand the interaction effects of total Facebook usage time ...
A researcher at the University of Kentucky has been selected to receive a seed grant from the Hypothesis Fund for the "boldness of her science and potential long-term impact of her work.". The Hypothesis Fund supports early-stage, innovative research focused on addressing systemic risks to human and planetary health.
A leading hypothesis for the evolution of large brains in humans and other species is that a feedback loop exists whereby intelligent animals forage more efficiently, which results in increased energy intake that fuels the growth and maintenance of large brains. We test this hypothesis for the first time with high-resolution tracking data from ...
Kamran Akmal's hypothesis, which revolves around India's batting icon Virat Kohli, offers an intriguing perspective while also acknowledging Pakistan's historical missteps. His comments come in ...
LEXINGTON, Ky. (June 14, 2024) — A researcher at the University of Kentucky has been selected to receive a seed grant from the Hypothesis Fund for the "boldness of her science and potential long-term impact of her work." The Hypothesis Fund supports early-stage, innovative research focused on addressing systemic risks to human and planetary health.