Review Article
No access
Published Online: 7 April 2020

Gender Differences in Social Support on Social Network Sites: A Meta-Analysis

Publication: Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume 23, Issue Number 4


Social network sites (SNS) have become an increasingly popular platform for providing and receiving social support. Traditionally, females are believed to offer more social support. However, investigations of both the offline and online domains have revealed mixed findings. This meta-analysis attempts to assess the presence and magnitude of gender differences in social support on SNS. A literature review produced a sample of 30 independent studies with 17,000 participants. Results showed that females on SNS give (d = 0.36) and receive (d = 0.14) greater social support than do males. This is the first meta-analysis to test for and demonstrate gender differences in social support, either offline or online.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.


1. Taylor SE. (2011) Social support: a review. In: Friedman HS, ed. The Oxford handbook of health psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–214.
2. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, et al. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015; 10:227–237.
3. Gariépy G, Honkaniemi H, Quesnel-Vallée A. Social support and protection from depression: systematic review of current findings in western countries. British Journal of Psychiatry 2016; 209:284–293.
4. Liu D, Wright KB, Hu B. A meta-analysis of social network site use and social support. Computers and Education 2018; 127:201–213.
5. Meng J, Martinez L, Holmstrom A, et al. Research on social networking sites and social support from 2004 to 2015: a narrative review and directions for future research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2017; 20:44–51.
6. Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, et al. Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review 2000; 107:411–429.
7. Flaherty J, Richman J. Gender differences in the perception and utilization of social support: theoretical perspectives and an empirical test. Social Science & Medicine (1982) 1989; 28:1221–1228.
8. Verhofstadt LL, Buysse A, Ickes W. Social support in couples: an examination of gender differences using self-report and observational methods. Sex Roles 2007; 57:267–282.
9. Eagly AH. The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. The American Psychologist 2009; 64:644–658.
10. Cheng ST, Chan ACM. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support: dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences 2004; 37:1359–1369.
11. Maier C, Laumer S, Eckhardt A, et al. Giving too much social support: social overload on social networking sites. European Journal of Information Systems 2015; 24:447–464.
12. Joiner R, Cuprinskaite J, Dapkeviciute L, et al. Gender differences in response to Facebook status updates from same and opposite gender friends. Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 58:407–412.
13. Rife SC, Kerns KA, Updegraff JA. Seeking support in response to social and achievement stressors: a multivenue analysis. Personal Relationships 2016; 23:364–379.
14. Song L, Son J, Lin N. (2011) Social support. In: Scott J, Carrington PJ, eds. The Sage handbook of social network analysis. London: Sage, pp. 116–128.
15. Gottlieb BH, Bergen AE. Social support concepts and measures. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2010; 69:511–520.
16. Heaney CA, Israel BA. (2008) Social networks and social support. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, eds. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 189–210.
17. House JS, Umberson D, Landis KR. Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology 1988; 14:293–318.
18. Cassel J. An epidemiological perspective of psychosocial factors in disease etiology. American Journal of Public Health 1974; 64:1040–1043.
19. Cassel J. The contribution of the social environment to host resistance. American Journal of Epidemiology 1976; 104:107–123.
20. Elliott M. The stress process in neighborhood context. Health & Place 2000; 6:287–299.
21. Roxburgh S. “I wish we had more time to spend together…”: The distribution and predictors of perceived family time pressures among married men and women in the paid labor force. Journal of Family Issues 2006; 27:529–553.
22. Carpiano RM. Toward a neighborhood resource-based theory of social capital for health: can Bourdieu and sociology help? Social Science and Medicine 2006; 62:165–175.
23. Cobb S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine 1976; 38:300–314.
24. Gottlieb BH. The development and application of a classification scheme of informal helping behaviours. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement 1978; 10:105–115.
25. House JS. (1981) Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
26. Berkman LF. Assessing the physical health effects of social networks and social support. Annual Review of Public Health 1984; 5:413–432.
27. Li K, Lin Z, Wang X. An empirical analysis of users' privacy disclosure behaviors on social network sites. Information and Management 2015; 52:882–891.
28. Barrera M. Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology 1986; 14:413–445.
29. Haber MG, Cohen JL, Lucas T, et al. The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: a meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology 2007; 39:133–144.
30. Tardy CH. Social support measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology 1985; 13:187–202.
31. Uehara E. Dual exchange theory, social networks, and informal social support. American Journal of Sociology 1990; 96:521–557.
32. Kajonius PJ, Johnson J. Sex differences in 30 facets of the five factor model of personality in the large public (N = 320,128). Personality and Individual Differences 2018; 129:126–130.
33. Costa PT, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001; 81:322–331.
34. Schmitt DP. Big five traits related to short-term mating: from personality to promiscuity across 46 nations. Evolutionary Psychology 2008; 6:246–282.
35. Lippa RA. Sex differences in personality traits and gender-related occupational preferences across 53 nations: testing evolutionary and social-environmental theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2010; 39:619–636.
36. John OP, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research 1999; 2:102–138.
37. Swickert R. (2009) Personality and social support processes. In: Corr PJ, Matthews G, eds. The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 524–540.
38. Tamres LK, Janicki D, Helgeson VS. Sex differences in coping behavior: a meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2002; 6:2–30.
39. Barbee AP, Cunningham MR, Winstead BA, et al. Effects of gender role expectations on the social support process. Journal of Social Issues 1993; 49:175–190.
40. Zhou B, Heather D, Di Cesare A, et al. Ask and you might receive: the actor–partner interdependence model approach to estimating cultural and gender variations in social support. European Journal of Social Psychology 2017; 47:412–428.
41. Pelchat D, Lefebvre H, Levert M-J. Gender differences and similarities in the experience of parenting a child with a health problem: current state of knowledge. Journal of Child Health Care 2007; 11:112–131.
42. Tifferet S, Manor O, Constantini S, et al. Sex differences in parental reaction to pediatric illness. Journal of Child Health Care 2011; 15:118–125.
43. Pedersen AF, Olesen F, Hansen RP, et al. Social support, gender and patient delay. British Journal of Cancer 2011; 104:1249–1255.
44. Cutrona CE, Shaffer PA, Wesner KA, et al. Optimally matching support and perceived spousal sensitivity. Journal of Family Psychology 2007; 21:754–758.
45. Vermeulen M, Mustard C. Gender differences in job strain, social support at work, and psychological distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2000; 5:428–440.
46. Neff LA, Karney BR. Gender differences in social support: a question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005; 88:79–90.
47. Andrews B, Brewin CR, Rose S. Gender, social support, and PTSD in victims of violent crime. Journal of Traumatic Stress 2003; 16:421–427.
48. Gillespie BJ, Lever J, Frederick D, et al. Close adult friendships, gender, and the life cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2015; 32:709–736.
49. Pasch LA, Bradbury TN, Davila J. Gender, negative affectivity, and observed social support behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relationships 1997; 4:361–378.
50. Acitelli LK, Antonucci TC. Gender differences in the link between marital support and satisfaction in older couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994; 67:688–698.
51. Doty JL, Dworkin J. Online social support for parents: a critical review. Marriage and Family Review 2014; 50:174–198.
52. Biehl SA, Kahn JH. Causal effects of language on the exchange of social support in an online community. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2016; 19:446–452.
53. Li P, Chang L, Chua THH, et al. “Likes” as KPI: an examination of teenage girls' perspective on peer feedback on Instagram and its influence on coping response. Telematics and Informatics 2018; 35:1994–2005.
54. Lee E-J, Cho E. When using Facebook to avoid isolation reduces perceived social support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2017; 21:32–39.
55. Wohn DY, Carr CT, Hayes RA. How affective is a “like”?: the effect of paralinguistic digital affordances on perceived social support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2016; 19:562–566.
56. Frison E, Eggermont S. Browsing, posting, and liking on Instagram: the reciprocal relationships between different types of Instagram use and adolescents' depressed mood. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2017; 20:603–609.
57. Wong D, Amon KL, Keep M. Desire to belong affects Instagram behavior and perceived social support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2019; 22:465–471.
58. Park N, Noh H. Effects of mobile instant messenger use on acculturative stress among international students in South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 82:34–43.
59. Utz S, Maaß CH. Understanding the relationship between Facebook use and adaptation to financial hardship: evidence from a longitudinal panel study. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 89:221–229.
60. Fang L, Chao CC, Ha L. College students' positive strategic SNS involvement and stress coping in the United States and China. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 2017; 46:518–536.
61. Lo J. Exploring the buffer effect of receiving social support on lonely and emotionally unstable social networking users. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 90:103–116.
62. Zhang R. The stress-buffering effect of self-disclosure on Facebook: an examination of stressful life events, social support, and mental health among college students. Computers in Human Behavior 2017; 75:527–537.
63. Zell AL, Moeller L. Are you happy for me … on Facebook? The potential importance of “likes” and comments. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 78:26–33.
64. Ratan RA, Fordham JA, Leith AP, et al. Women keep it real: avatar gender choice in league of legends. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2019; 22:254–257.
65. Todd PR, Melancon J. Gender differences in perceptions of trolling in livestream video broadcasting. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2019; 22:472–476.
66. Dhir A, Pallesen S, Torsheim T, et al. Do age and gender differences exist in selfie-related behaviours? Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 63:549–555.
67. Muscanell NL, Guadagno RE. Make new friends or keep the old: gender and personality differences in social networking use. Computers in Human Behavior 2012; 28:107–112.
68. Junco R. Inequalities in Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior 2013; 29:2328–2336.
69. Tifferet S. Gender differences in privacy tendencies on social network sites: a meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 2019; 93:1–12.
70. Tifferet S, Vilnai-Yavetz I. Gender differences in Facebook self-presentation: an international randomized study. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 35:388–399.
71. Tifferet S, Vilnai-Yavetz I. Self-presentation in LinkedIn portraits: common features, gender, and occupational differences. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 80:33–48.
72. Park G, Yaden DB, Schwartz HA, et al. Women are warmer but no less assertive than men: gender and language on Facebook. PLoS One 2016; 11:1–27.
73. Thelwall M, Wilkinson D, Uppal S. Data mining emotion in social network communication: gender differences in MySpace. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010; 61:190–199.
74. Courtney Walton S, Rice RE. Mediated disclosure on Twitter: the roles of gender and identity in boundary impermeability, valence, disclosure, and stage. Computers in Human Behavior 2013; 29:1465–1474.
75. Paré G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, et al. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Information and Management 2015; 52:183–199.
76. Aguinis H, Pierce CA, Bosco FA, et al. Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods 2011; 14:306–331.
77. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, et al. (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
78. High AC, Oeldorf-Hirsch A, Bellur S. Misery rarely gets company: the influence of emotional bandwidth on supportive communication on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 34:79–88.
79. Vogel EA, Rose JP, Crane C. “Transformation Tuesday”: temporal context and post valence influence the provision of social support on social media. Journal of Social Psychology 2018; 158:446–459.
80. Frison E, Bastin M, Bijttebier P, et al. Helpful or harmful? The different relationships between private Facebook interactions and adolescents' depressive symptoms. Media Psychology 2019; 22:244–272.
81. High AC, Buehler EM. Receiving supportive communication from Facebook friends: a model of social ties and supportive communication in social metwork sites. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2019; 36:719–740.
82. Lin MP, Wu JYW, You J, et al. Association between online and offline social support and internet addiction in a representative sample of senior high school students in Taiwan: the mediating role of self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior 2018; 84:1–7.
83. Denti L, Barbopoulos I, Nilsson I, et al. (2012) Sweden's largest Facebook study. Göteborg, Sweden: Gothenburg Research Institute.
84. Thelwall M, Vis F. Gender and image sharing on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and WhatsApp in the UK. Aslib Journal of Information Management 2017; 69:702–720.
85. Buunk BP, Schaufeli WB. Reciprocity in interpersonal relationships: an evolutionary perspective on its importance for health and well-being. European Review of Social Psychology 1999; 10:259–291.
86. Anotonucci TC, Jackso JS. (1990) The Role of Reciprocity in Social Support. In: Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Pierce GR, eds. Social support: an international view. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 173–198.
87. Mesch GS, Beker G. Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information associated with the disclosure of personal information online. Human Communication Research 2010; 36:570–592.
88. Pew Research Center. Datasets. Pew Research Center. (accessed Mar. 12, 2018).
89. Pew Research Center. (2014) Workers and Parents [Data file]. (accessed Mar. 12, 2018).
90. Mustafa HR, Short M, Fan S. Social support exchanges in Facebook social support group. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015; 185:346–351.
91. Davis MA, Anthony DL, Pauls SD. Seeking and receiving social support on Facebook for surgery. Social Science and Medicine 2015; 131:40–47.
92. Becker BJ, Wu M-J. The synthesis of regression slopes in meta-analysis. Statistical Science 2008; 22:414–429.
93. Joiner R, Stewart C, Beaney C, et al. Publically different, privately the same: gender differences and similarities in response to Facebook status updates. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 39:165–169.
94. Machackova H, Dedkova L, Sevcikova A, et al. Bystanders' supportive and passive responses to cyberaggression. Journal of School Violence 2018; 17:99–110.
95. Aten K, DiRenzo M, Shatnawi D. Gender and professional e-networks: implications of gender heterophily on job search facilitation and outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior 2017; 72:470–478.
96. Blight MG, Jagiello K, Ruppel EK. “Same stuff different day”: a mixed-method study of support seeking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 53:366–373.
97. Frison E, Eggermont S. Exploring the relationships between different types of Facebook use, perceived online social support, and adolescents' depressed mood. Social Science Computer Review 2016; 34:153–171.
98. Haslam DM, Tee A, Baker S. The use of social media as a mechanism of social support in parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies 2017; 26:2026–2037.
99. Li Y, Wang X, Lin X, et al. Seeking and sharing health information on social media: a net valence model and cross-cultural comparison. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2018; 126:28–40.
100. Manago AM, Taylor T, Greenfield PM. Me and my 400 friends: the anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology 2012; 48:369–380.
101. Mazzoni E, Baiocco L, Cannata D, et al. Is internet the cherry on top or a crutch? Offline social support as moderator of the outcomes of online social support on Problematic Internet Use. Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 56:369–374.
102. Misra N, Dangi S, Patel S. Gender differences in usage of Social Networking Sites and perceived online social support on psychological well being of youth. The International Journal of Indian Psychology 2015; 3:63–74.
103. Olson DA, Liu J, Shultz KS. The influence of Facebook usage on perceptions of social support, personal efficacy, and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Psychology 2012; 12:133–145.
104. Park J, Lee DS, Shablack H, et al. When perceptions defy reality: the relationships between depression and actual and perceived Facebook social support. Journal of Affective Disorders 2016; 200:37–44.
105. Stefanone MA, Kwon KH, Lackaff D. Exploring the relationship between perceptions of social capital and enacted support online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2012; 17:451–466.
106. Ul-Malik A, Rafiq N. Exploring the relationship of personality, loneliness, and online social support with interned addiction and procrastination. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 2016; 31:93–117.
107. Utz S, Breuer J. The relationship between use of social network sites, online social support, and well-being: results from a six-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Media Psychology 2017; 29:115–125.
108. Wright KB, Rosenberg J, Egbert N, et al. Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: a model of Facebook and face-to-face support network influence. Journal of Health Communication 2013; 18:41–57.
109. Zhang N, Campo S, Yang J, et al. Effects of social support about physical activity on social networking sites: applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. Health Communication 2015; 30:1277–1285.
110. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, et al. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment 1988; 52:30–41.
111. Li X, Chen W, Popiel P. What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook? the implications of Facebook interaction for perceived, receiving, and giving social support. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 51:106–113.
112. Goldsmith DJ, McDermott VM, Alexander SC. Helpful, supportive and sensitive: measuring the evaluation of enacted social support in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2000; 17:369–391.
113. Dunkel-Schetter C, Feinstein L, Call J. (1986) UCLA social support inventory (unpublished manuscript). Los Angeles.
114. Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Shearin EN, et al. A brief measure of social support: practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1987; 4:497–510.
115. Chogahara M. A multidimensional scale for assessing positive and negative social influences on physical activity in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 1999; 54B:S356–S367.
116. Xu Y, Burleson BR. Effects of sex, culture, and support type on perceptions of spousal social support: an assessment of the “Support Gap” hypothesis in early marriage. Human Communication Research 2001; 27:535–566.
117. Hajli MN. The role of social support on relationship quality and social commerce. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2014; 87:17–27.
118. Yeh Y-C, Ko H-C, Wu JY-W, et al. Gender differences in relationships of actual and virtual social support to internet addiction mediated through depressive symptoms among college students in Taiwan. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2008; 11:485–487.
119. Cohen S, Hoberman HM. Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1983; 13:99–125.
120. Wang ES-T, Wang MC-H. Social support and social interaction ties on internet addiction: integrating online and offline contexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2013; 16:843–849.
121. Barrera M, Sandler IN, Ramsay TB. Preliminary development of a scale of social support: studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology 1981; 9:435–447.
122. Cutrona CE, Russell DW. The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Advances in Personal Relationships 1987; 1:37–67.
123. Moody EJ. Internet use and its relationship to loneliness. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2001; 4:393–401.
124. Lenhard W, Lenhard A. (2014) Calculation of Effect Sizes. (accessed Mar. 12, 2018).
125. Schwarzer G. (2017) Package ‘meta.’
126. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56:455–463.
127. Kim Y, Sohn D, Choi SM. Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: a comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27:365–372.
128. Madden M, Lenhart A, Cortesi S. (2013) Teens, social media, and privacy. (accessed Mar. 12, 2018).
129. Greenwood S, Perrin A, Duggan M. (2016) Social Media Update 2016. (accessed Mar. 12, 2018).
130. Valentine JC, Pigott TD, Rothstein HR. How many studies do you need?: a primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 2010; 35:215–247.
131. van Ingen E, Utz S, Toepoel V. Online coping after negative life events: measurement, prevalence, and relation with internet activities and well-being. Social Science Computer Review 2016; 34:511–529.
132. Vines TH, Albert AYK, Andrew RL, et al. The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Current Biology 2014; 24:94–97.
133. Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, et al. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist 2006; 61:726–728.
134. Macháčková H, Dedkova L, Sevcikova A, et al. Bystanders' support of cyberbullied schoolmates. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 2013; 23:25–36. DOI: 10.1002/casp.2135.
135. Zimet GD, Powell SS, Farley GK, et al. (1990). Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment 1990; 55(3–4):610–617.

Information & Authors


Published In

cover image Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume 23Issue Number 4April 2020
Pages: 199 - 209
PubMed: 32096662


Published online: 7 April 2020
Published in print: April 2020
Published ahead of print: 25 February 2020


Request permissions for this article.




    Sigal Tifferet, PhD [email protected]
    Department of Business Administration, Ruppin Academic Center, Emek Hefer, Israel.


    Address correspondence to: Dr. Sigal Tifferet, Department of Business Administration, Ruppin Academic Center, Emek Hefer 4025000, Israel [email protected]

    Author Disclosure Statement

    No competing financial interests exist.

    Funding Information

    I am grateful for the financial support of the Ruppin Academic Center, Grant no. 33032.

    Metrics & Citations



    Export citation

    Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

    View Options

    Get Access

    Access content

    To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.

    Society Access

    If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.

    Restore your content access

    Enter your email address to restore your content access:

    Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

    View options


    View PDF/ePub

    Full Text

    View Full Text







    Copy the content Link

    Share on social media

    Back to Top