Social Science and Human Research Bulletin

Social media platforms have become transnational spaces in which cultural traditions, values, and identities are circulated, interpreted, and contested. This study examines how social media users engage with cross-cultural content and how they perceive its contribution to cultural exposure, understanding, and representation. A quantitative, cross-sectional survey was administered to 300 active social media users recruited through educational institutions, online networks, and personal contacts using non-probability convenience sampling. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic characteristics, patterns of media consumption, platform preferences, online intercultural interaction, perceived cultural effects, and barriers to authentic representation. The sample was predominantly female (68.3%), aged 18–25 years (96.0%), and composed of students (93.0%). More than half of respondents (53.0%) reported consuming media from other cultures for more than two hours per day, while 61.3% did so daily or several times a week. Instagram (50.5%) and YouTube (27.3%) were the most frequently preferred platforms. Although exposure was high, only 16.2% frequently interacted online with people from other cultures, and 55.6% rarely or never did so. Most respondents believed that media substantially or somewhat exposed them to other cultures (85.4%), and 69.7% agreed or strongly agreed that social media enhanced their understanding of different cultures and traditions. However, respondents also identified a lack of diverse perspectives, commercialization, stereotyping, and cultural bias as barriers to accurate representation. Interpreted through network-society, participatory-culture, and cultural-dimensions perspectives, the results show that social media can widen cultural access and support intercultural learning, but exposure alone does not guarantee reciprocal dialogue or authentic representation. The study recommends culturally contextualized content, source attribution, inclusive participation, and critical media literacy.

social media, cultural exchange, intercultural communication, cultural identity, digital platforms, global audiences

1. Antoninis, M., Alcott, B., Al Hadheri, S., April, D., Fouad Barakat, B., Barrios Rivera, M., Baskakova, Y., Barry, M., Bekkouche, Y., & Caro Vasquez, D. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? 
2. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization (Vol. 1). U of Minnesota Press. 
3. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of computer‐mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. 
4. Castells, M. (2010). Globalisation, networking, urbanisation: Reflections on the spatial dynamics of the information age. Urban studies, 47(13), 2737-2745. 
5. Fermanian, T. D. L. (2025). UNESCO'S STRATEGY FOR 2023-2028 FOR PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE IN LIGHT OF THE “ENVIRONMENT FOR EUROPE” PROCESS. Revista DCS, 22(83), e3463-e3463. 
6. Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2024). Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(17), 4501-4520. 
7. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of cross cultural management, 1(1), 11-17. 
8. Huttayavilaiphan, R. (2024). From local flavor to global fandom: an exploration of the cultural presentation and attitudes towards using English by Thai content creators on the TikTok platform. Frontiers in Communication, 9, 1453316. 
9. Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. nyu Press. 
10. Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26. 
11. Liang, X., Guan, Q., Clarke, K. C., Liu, S., Wang, B., & Yao, Y. (2021). Understanding the drivers of sustainable land expansion using a patch-generating land use simulation (PLUS) model: A case study in Wuhan, China. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 85, 101569. 
12. Mahaputri, R. A., Emilia, E., Kurniawan, E., & Suwarno. (2025). Instagram for learning interculturally: a blueprint in a global Englishes era. Language and Intercultural Communication, 25(1), 142-155. 
13. McLuhan, M. (2019). The medium is the message (1964). In Crime and media (pp. 20-31). Routledge. 
14. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a sampling technique for research. How to choose a sampling technique for research (April 10, 2016). 
15. Tkachuk, N. (2025). Ukraine as the frontline of european cyber defence: building resilience in the face of Russian cyber aggression. Tallinn Pap, 15, 4-26.