From Motives to Perceived Social Impact: Active and Passive Social Media Use, Digital Literacy, and Neuroticism in Pakistan

Background Debating social media tends to focus on the amount of time spent on it, or to label it as a one-size-fits-all good or bad. These narratives fail to address the reasons for using social media, activities during online use, and differences in perceived outcomes as a result of personal resources and vulnerabilities. Objective The dual-pathway model was tested in this study: motivation for social media use was related to positive and negative social impact via active connected and passive comparative use, respectively. The digital literacy and the neuroticism were investigated as possible moderators. Method The cross-sectional online survey was conducted from 4th May to 21st July 2026, and resulted in 339 full responses from adults in Pakistan who use social media. 43 five-point Likert items were used to measure seven constructs. A hierarchical ordinary least squares regressions adjusted for age, gender, education, daily use time and platform use. The indirect effects were assessed using 5,000 bootstraps resample and the interaction terms tested moderation. Results The internal consistency of all the seven scales was excellent (Cronbach's alpha ranged from .806 - .868), except for the scale of motivation, which was not very convergent. The modified positive impact model accounted for 46.3% of the variance. Motivation (B = .507, p < .001), active connected use (B = .245, p < .001), and digital literacy (B = .163, p = .001) were significant positive predictors. The model of negative-impacts, modified, accounted for 35.4% of the variance, and neuroticism was the only focal significant predictor (B = .473, p < .001). The indirect association between motivation and positive impact was significant and large, and was mediated by active use (indirect effect = .080, 95% bootstrap CI [.035, .131]). There was also a strong indirect effect in the specified model for passive use (indirect effect = .112, 95% CI [.049, .183]), but no indirect effect after the inclusion of neuroticism. Both interactions were not significant. Demographic/platform comparisons were not found to survive multiplicity corrections. Conclusion The results corroborate the activity and person sensitive perspective on social media. The connected participation and digital competence were linked to positive impacts, while negative impacts tended to be more associated with psychological vulnerability than to passive use. The cross-sectional and exploratory measurement design needs to be interpreted with caution, but the results suggest that recommendations that are solely based on screen time or an active-passive dichotomy cannot be made.