translational issues in psychological science · pdf filein press, translational issues in...
Post on 12-Mar-2018
228 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 1
In press, Translational Issues in Psychological Science
This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA
journal. It is not the copy of record.
Concerns about Facebook Among Users and Abstainers:
Relationships with Individual Differences and Facebook Use
Gabriella M. Harari1 & Samuel D. Gosling1, 2
1The University of Texas at Austin
2The University of Melbourne
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gabriella M. Harari, Department
of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78751 Email:
gabriella.harari@utexas.edu
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 2
Abstract
Facebook (FB) has become a virtually inescapable aspect of modern social life. Yet many
people have concerns about using FB and even consider quitting or abstaining from it. To
establish a framework for organizing the varied concerns that people have about FB, the present
research surveyed two groups known to have high rates of FB adoption (e.g., Duggan, 2015):
American college students (N = 264) and other adults (N = 610). Results suggest three broad
themes underlie people’s concerns about FB— that it can be Pointless, a Problematic Distraction,
and raise Privacy Issues. Compared to adults from the non-college sample, college students were
more concerned with Problematic Distraction, and less concerned with Privacy Issues. To
investigate the characteristics that may be driving concerns about FB, we explored the
relationships between concerns, FB use, and individual differences. In general, people who
endorsed Problematic Distraction tended to use FB more, and be higher in Extraversion,
Neuroticism, and Anxious Attachment. For people who endorsed Pointless and Privacy Issues,
the relationships between the concerns and individual differences showed different association
across the college student and other adult samples. Moreover, results from a series of hierarchical
regressions revealed that Pointless and Problematic Distraction concerns predicted FB use, over
and above individual differences. Discussion contextualizes the findings with regards to previous
research and discusses the possible applications of the results for the general public, commercial
entities, and policy makers.
Keywords: Facebook, Social Networking Sites, Concerns, Privacy, Distraction, Negative
Perceptions
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 3
Social networking sites (SNSs) are a popular form of social media that allow people to
exchange information, create content, and communicate with one another within an online
community. With well over 1 billion users worldwide, Facebook (FB) has become the largest
SNS and a virtually inescapable aspect of modern social life. By some estimates as many as 72%
of online adults in America are using Facebook, and the number of online young adults (aged 18
to 29) using FB are similarly high at 82% (Duggan, 2015). A substantial body of research has
converged on the idea that people are motivated to use FB to connect with others, keep in touch
with friends and family, establish new contacts, and browse other people’s shared content (for a
review see Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012). Additionally, a number of benefits are associated
with using FB, such as greater social capital and relationship maintenance (e.g., Ellison et al.,
2007), with the effects varying somewhat across genders (Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012).
However, recent media headlines such as, “The Emerging Dark Side of Social Networks”
(Washington Post, Basulto, 2014, April 8), “Facebook 'tramples on European law', says privacy
body” (BBC, 2015, May 15), and “EU: Don’t use Facebook if you want to keep the NSA away
from your data” (ArsTechnica, Moody, 2015, March 25) reflect a growing public concern about
the dark side of using SNSs and FB in particular. Yet, few studies have systematically examined
the concerns people have about using FB.
Previous research has documented a trend of users limiting their use and quitting FB
(Baumer et al., 2013; Rainie, et al., 2013; Stieger et al., 2013), and some people abstaining from
FB altogether (Portwood-Stacer, 2012). Yet, psychological research examining the negative
perceptions people have about FB has largely focused on identifying themes in the motivations
driving people to not use FB. What is lacking is a comprehensive understanding of the concerns
shared by users, quitters, and abstainers alike. Moreover, previous studies in this domain have
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 4
been mostly qualitative (e.g., Baumer et al., 2013; Fox & Moreland, 2015), precluding the
possibility of examining the relationship between negative perceptions and the psychological
characteristics of those that endorse them. In the present article, we address this gap in the
literature by providing a review of research about negative perceptions of FB and other SNSs.
We also present results from a descriptive study that identified the concerns people have about
FB and explored the individual differences associated with them. It is important to identify
people’s underlying concerns about FB so that the general public, commercial entities, and
policy makers are aware of what factors affect individuals’ use or non-use of SNS. Such results
are needed as a foundation to guide future company and public policies aiming to address these
concerns.
Negative Perceptions of Social Networking Sites
Several studies have examined negative perceptions of FB and others SNSs (see Table 1
for a summary of recent studies). These studies are typically qualitative and focus on either the
negative outcomes associated with using SNSs, or the negative perceptions motivating people
who quit or abstain from SNSs.
Negative outcomes experienced by users
The negative outcomes experienced by users relate to privacy, interpersonal relationships,
and problematic use. Some studies find that users have expressed privacy concerns, such as
consequences arising from the visibility of behavior on SNSs and the inability to control exactly
how personal data are used and presented to others (e.g., Fox & Moreland, 2015; Paradise &
Sullivan, 2012; Stieger et al., 2013). For instance, users have expressed concerns about
employers or family members viewing their profiles, and how this may negatively affect their
employment opportunities or relationships (Lampe et al., 2008; Paradise & Sullivan, 2012).
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 5
Interpersonal relationships were a source of concern for some users who experienced social
comparison, jealousy or envy, and disagreements with romantic partners as a result of their use
(e.g., Fox & Moreland, 2015; Lampe, et al., 2008).
Other studies have found that some users experience symptoms of “problematic use,”
which typically refers to addictive tendencies users may experience, such as becoming irritable if
they cannot check the SNS (e.g., Ryan, Chester, Reece, & Xenos, 2014). For instance, some
users have expressed concerns about preoccupation with their own profiles and the site more
broadly (Lampe, et al., 2008). A recent review suggests that addictive use of FB may be
motivated by the desire to escape negative moods (Ryan et al., 2014). However, other studies
have found that using FB causes a decrease in people’s moods and that this decrease can be
attributed to the feeling that they have wasted time (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014). These
findings suggest that excessive use of the site is detrimental to user’s mood states, which is in
line with research that links problematic use to lower well-being (Satici & Uysal, 2015).
Negative perceptions motivating quitters and abstainers
The negative perceptions motivating quitters and abstainers relate to privacy, interference
with productivity, and general indifference. Like users, people who have quit or abstain from FB
and other SNSs also express concerns about privacy and misuse of their personal data (e.g.,
Baumer et al., 2013; Stieger et al., 2013; Tufekci, 2008). Productivity problems were also a
source of concern for some quitters and abstainers who were concerned about addictive
tendencies and reported SNSs to be a waste of time (Baker & White, 2011; Baumer et al., 2013;
Stieger, Burger, Bohn, & Voracek, 2013).
A general indifference to using FB and other SNSs has also been expressed by quitters
and abstainers. These people have described the perceived banality of the medium (e.g., Baker &
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 6
White, 2011; Baumer et al., 2013) and ideological reasons for not using SNSs (e.g., refusing to
use consumer media; Portwood-Stacer, 2012). Some studies have also found that abstainers
express a dislike for online self-presentation in general; for instance, via a lack of curiosity about
other people’s lives, a preference for other activities, a preference for more direct forms of
communication (e.g., talking to people face-to-face), and a dislike for gossip and small-talk
(Baker & White, 2011; Tufekci, 2008).
The Present Research
A growing number of studies have identified negative perceptions associated with using
FB and SNSs, ranging from perceiving them as uninteresting to being addicted to them. And the
reviewed research points to a diverse array of concerns people may have about using FB.
However, it is not clear what the primary concerns are that people have about using FB, and
whether these concerns overlap or are distinct from one another. The disparate findings suggest a
framework is needed for organizing and understanding people’s concerns – a framework that
encompasses the concerns of users, quitters, and abstainers alike. Creating such a descriptive
framework is one goal of the present research.
A second goal of the present research is to identify the FB use tendencies and individual
differences associated with the concerns. Who has concerns about using FB? We would expect
people’s concerns to reflect their FB use tendencies. For example, those who report FB to be
addicting should use FB more frequently, whereas those who report FB to be uninteresting
should use FB less frequently or not at all. The psychological characteristics of those who
express concerns about using FB are unknown. However, the studies summarized in Table 1
provide initial evidence suggesting that demographic and personality characteristics may be
associated with concerns about FB. For instance, college students and other adults seem to differ
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 7
in their negative perceptions, although some overlapping themes are evident, such as concerns
about addiction and privacy. The studies also suggest that traits pertaining to sociability (e.g.,
Extraversion), self-control (e.g., Conscientiousness), and styles of relating to others (e.g.,
attachment styles), likely contribute to concerns about FB and the role it plays in everyday social
life. Finally, a body of research in the domain of online behavior has shown that personality and
gender predict SNS use, such that women use SNSs to maintain relationships (e.g., via sending
private messages) and men use SNSs to initiate new relationships (Muscanell & Guadagno,
2012); this research raises the possibility that gender may also be associated with concerns about
FB. Drawing on the existing research in this domain, we chose to examine the following
characteristics: demographics, the Big Five personality traits, and attachment styles.
Method
Participants & Procedure
The present research reports on data collected from two samples. The first sample
consisted of 264 college students (44% female; 37% in a relationship; mean age = 20.11 years
(SD = 1.69) surveyed at a university in the south central region of the U.S. in exchange for
course credit (hereafter referred to as the “college student” sample). The second sample consisted
of 610 adults (54% female; 62% in a relationship; mean age = 34.22 years (SD = 12.29) surveyed
on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) in exchange for .25 cents
(referred to as the “adult” sample). Participants in both samples completed an online survey
containing a battery of measures that were part of a broader project on FB use in daily life. The
present study focused on a subset of these measures.
Measures
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 8
FB Use. To assess FB use, participants were asked about their user status and FB
behaviors. User status was coded based on participants’ responses to questions about whether
they had a FB account, and if so whether they had ever considered quitting FB: Abstainers = Do
not have an account, Relapsers = Yes, but previously quit, Ambivalent = Yes, and have
considered quitting, and Committed = Yes, and never considered quitting (Table 3 presents the
percentage of users in each status category for both samples). Participants were also asked
general questions about their FB use and behaviors, including: how long they had been on FB (1
= less than one year to 6 = over nine years), how many friends they had on FB (open-ended),
and four questions about the frequency of checking, liking, commenting, and posting on FB (0 =
never to 10 = multiple times an hour; see Table 3 for descriptive statistics). We focus on self-
reported Facebook behaviors as our measure of FB use; previous research suggests that self-
reports and objective measures of Facebook behaviors are strongly correlated (Junco, 2013).
Concerns about FB. To explore the concerns people have about FB, we developed a 29-
item questionnaire based on two sources: 1) a qualitative coding of responses (N = 521) to an
open-ended question collected in a pilot study, and 2) themes previously demonstrated to drive
people to abstain from FB and other SNSs (for full-scale development procedure see Online
Supplementary Materials).
We used the first source to generate a list of concerns by conducting a qualitative content
analysis of the 521 text responses obtained from undergraduate participants explaining why they
had considered deleting their FB accounts. This process resulted in a set of 22 items that
characterized the concerns and problems participants reported in their responses (e.g., it is a
distraction I don’t need, it’s boring, it’s negatively affecting my productivity, concerned about
privacy). We used the second source to add items to our list of concerns by reviewing the
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 9
relevant literature and identifying themes that were not present in the pilot data from the first
source. This review resulted in a set of 7 additional items that were included in the questionnaire
(e.g., aversion to gossip and small-talk, general indifference towards engaging with SNSs).
The instructions for the 29-item questionnaire differed slightly depending on the
participants’ stated user status (abstainer, relapser, ambivalent, or committed user: see below).
For example, abstainers were asked how much each of the concerns was like their own reason
for not using FB, whereas committed users were asked how much each of the concerns was like
their own perception of FB. The rating scale ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Table 2
presents descriptive statistics for each of the items.
Individual differences. To assess individual differences, participants completed
demographic and personality measures. Demographic measures included questions about their
age, gender, and relationship status. Personality measures included the 44-item Big-Five
Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), which measures Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness; and the 12-item Experiences in Close
Relationships Scale - Short Form (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007), which measures
anxious and avoidant attachment styles. Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for these measures.
To account for potential response biases that might skew the interpretation of our results,
we computed social-desirability scores for each participant to control for socially desirable
responding. To identify a social desirability factor, we applied the methods of exploratory factor
analysis, undertaking a principal-components analysis (PCA) of all personality items measured
during the survey assessment (including those not reported in the present research), forced onto
one factor (Bäckström & Björklund, 2013). As is typical, the component reflected the evaluative
positivity of the items, with the most socially positive items (e.g., happy, satisfied with life)
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 10
loading strongly on the positive pole and the most socially negative items (e.g., depressed,
lonely) loading strongly on the negative pole. We used the results from the PCA to compute
social-desirability composite scores by averaging participants’ scores on the highest loading
items. This social-desirability composite score was highly correlated with the social-desirability
component scores from the PCA in both the adult (r = .95) and college student (r = .92) samples.
Results
What Concerns do People have about FB?
The most highly endorsed concerns about FB (shared across both groups of college
students and adults) were that people post about stupid things they do not care to see and that
they prefer to do other things with their time; the least endorsed concern about FB was that it
creates problems in personal or romantic relationships (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics).1
To examine the potential broader structure underlying the particular concerns about FB,
we subjected the 29 narrow concerns to a PCA with both oblique (oblimin) and orthogonal
(varimax) rotations. The solutions resulted in virtually identical component structures with fewer
cross-loadings for the varimax rotation, so we retained the orthogonal solution. To determine the
number of components to retain, we used multiple criteria: the Kaiser rule (eigenvalues greater
than 1), the scree test (Cattell, 1966), and the interpretability of the resulting solutions (Zwick &
Velicer, 1986). These criteria pointed to a three-component solution, which accounted for 50%
of the total variance in the concerns about FB (see Supplemental Table S1 for factor-loading
matrix).
The first component reflected a broad dimension consisting of items emphasizing the
perception that FB is generally boring, pointless, a waste of time, annoying, rarely used by the
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 11
participant, a hassle, not authentic, and involves too much small-talk; these items tapped into a
concern that FB is generally uninteresting, so the factor was labeled “Pointless.”
The second component captured a dimension consisting of items emphasizing the
perception that FB generally diverts attention away from other things, is distracting, negatively
affects productivity, is addicting, too much time is wasted on it, leads to social comparisons, and
relationship problems; these items tapped into unwelcome distractions, so the factor was labeled
“Problematic Distraction.”
The third component reflected a dimension consisting of items emphasizing the
perception that FB affects user privacy via unwanted people viewing one’s profile, concerns
about Facebook-stalking, gossip, and too much personal information being available; so this
factor was labeled “Privacy Issues.”
To examine the relationship between concerns and individual differences, participants'
concern scores were computed by averaging the highest loading items for each of the three
components. Specifically, 14 items were averaged for the Pointless dimension, 8 items for the
Problematic Distraction dimension, and 7 items for the Privacy dimension (see Table 2 for
specific items) These composite concern scores showed good reliability (α = .83 - .90), and were
highly correlated with the factor scores obtained from the factor analysis (r = .94 - .97). The
composite concern scores were also positively correlated with each other (r = .30 - .41),
suggesting that the three broad concerns could be part of an even broader concern dimension. To
determine whether the college students and adults endorsed different concerns, we computed t-
tests comparing the mean-level scores for the three concerns across the samples. The college
students scored lower on Privacy Issues (t[516] = -5.01, p < .001) and higher on Problematic
Distraction (t[523] = 7.81, p < .001) concerns compared to the adults.
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 12
How is FB Use Related to Concerns?
To examine how the concerns are related to FB use, we computed correlations between
the concerns and user status and self-reported behavior variables, controlling for social
desirability. Here we focus on the results that replicate across both samples, but additional
relationships found within each sample are also shown in the lower half of Table 4.
Results for the Pointless dimension showed that both college students and adults who
endorsed pointless concerns were less likely to be committed users and generally used the site
less frequently (i.e., checking, commenting, liking, posting). Results for the Problematic
Distraction dimensions showed that both college students and adults who endorsed distraction
concerns tended to be relapse users and those who had been on FB longer, had more FB friends,
and who used the site more frequently (i.e., checking, commenting, liking, posting). Results for
the Privacy Issues dimensions showed no relationships between concerns and the user status or
behaviors that replicated across both samples.
How are Individual Differences Related to Concerns?
To explore the psychological characteristics that may be driving the concerns, we
computed correlations between the concerns and individual differences, controlling for social
desirability.2, 3 Here we focus on the results that replicate across both samples, but additional
relationships found within each sample are shown in the upper half of Table 4.
For the Pointless and Privacy Issues dimensions, we did not find relationships between
the concerns and individual differences that replicated across both samples. Regarding
Problematic Distraction concerns, our results showed that both college students and adults who
endorsed distraction concerns were more likely to be extraverted, neurotic, and anxiously
attached.
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 13
Finally, to test whether the concerns predicted FB use over and above the individual
characteristics, we ran a series of two stage hierarchical multiple regressions predicting a
composite FB use score from individual differences (entered at stage one: demographics,
personality, and attachment style) and concerns (entered at stage two: pointless, problematic
distraction, privacy issues). The composite FB-use variable was computed by averaging the
frequency of Checking, Liking, Commenting, and Posting on FB; the individual FB-use items
were highly correlated (r = .50 to .79) and the composite FB use variable had good reliability in
both samples (alpha = .86 and .90). We entered gender and relationship status as a dichotomous
predictor, and all continuous variables were z-scored (FB-use score, Big Five traits, attachment
styles, concerns).
The results from the hierarchical regression models revealed that the concern scores
predicted variation in the FB-use composite variable, over and above the individual
characteristics (see Table 5 for regression statistics). Specifically, the inclusion of the concern
scores explained significantly more variance in the FB use of both the college student sample
(Adjusted R2change = .18) and the adult sample (Adjusted R2
change = .30). When all individual
characteristics and concerns were included in the final model, Extraversion, Pointless concerns,
and Problematic Distraction concerns were the strongest predictors of the FB-use composite
scores.
Discussion
This study examined concerns about using FB among American college students and
other adults. We found three main concerns about using FB, that it is: pointless, a problematic
distraction, and involves privacy issues. These concerns were related to participants’ FB use
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 14
tendencies and individual differences. Below we review the findings and contextualize them with
regard to past research.
Concerns about Using FB
Our descriptive findings regarding the rates of endorsement for the various individual
concerns suggest that the perceived banality of using FB may be a concern that many people
share whether they use FB or not, and that interpersonal problems resulting from FB use may be
comparatively rare. Given the amount of research demonstrating the benefits of FB use for social
capital and maintaining contact with others (e.g., Ellison et al., 2007; Lampe et al., 2006; Wilson
et al., 2012), it is intriguing that the pointlessness of FB should emerge as a major dimension.
The pointless dimension supports findings from studies that examined the negative perceptions
motivating quitters and abstainers to not use SNSs (e.g., Baker & White, 2011; Baumer et al.,
2013). The problematic distraction dimension supports findings from studies that identified
negative outcomes arising from FB use (e.g., Oldmeadow et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2014),
suggesting that some people have a hard time regulating their use of the SNS. The privacy issues
dimension replicates previous research that found users and quitters express privacy concerns
(Baumer et al., 2013; Paradise & Sullivan, 2012), indicating that these issues remain a main
concern about using FB. Future research should examine the extent to which these concerns
generalize to other SNSs. For example, do people who view FB to be pointless also view other
SNSs this way? It may be that these concerns are unique to FB, or they may reflect the
individual’s attitude towards social media more broadly.
Our findings also indicate that being in a college environment may influence the types of
concerns people have about using FB. For example, our results suggest that college students are
more concerned with how frequently they check FB and its interference with their productivity,
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 15
which may be due to feeling that it distracts them from their studies (Madge, Meek, Wellens, &
Hooley, 2009). Adults on the other hand, may be more concerned with who is viewing their
profile because of the potential employment consequences associated with poor management of
one’s online presentation as illustrated in the following headline: “Facebookers, beware: That
silly update can cost you a job” (Cnet, Kerr, 2013, May 29).
Relationships Between Concerns and FB Use
Our findings suggest that people who perceive FB to be pointless may be more likely to
use FB passively (vs. actively connecting with others), which could impact their perceptions of
connection or disconnection from others (große Deters & Mehl, 2013; Sheldon, Abad, & Hinsch,
2011). If this is the case, these people may be missing out on potentially valuable social
interactions that could positively contribute to their emotional well-being (Sandstrom & Dunn,
2014). We suspect that outcomes associated with pointless concerns likely depend on the
person’s engagement with the site. For example, a person who abstains from FB, or who uses FB
infrequently but actively to connect with others, may not experience any negative outcomes as a
result of their pointless concerns. Whereas, a person who frequently uses FB but does so
passively, may experience feelings of disconnection that could be improved if they were to use
FB more actively to connect with others. In practice, FB and other SNSs could deliver messages
to users who show passive behavioral patterns (i.e., checking the site frequently but not engaging
with others), suggesting that they may find their experience on the SNS more meaningful if they
actively used the communication features available to them.
Regarding Problematic Distraction concerns, our findings suggest that individuals who
perceive FB to be distracting tend to experience problems that reflect their greater engagement,
such as actively using FB to connect with others and relapsing in their use (vs. abstaining) as a
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 16
means of self-regulation. The findings suggest that FB and other SNSs should consider
implementing tools that allow their users to regulate the amount of time they spend on the site.
Although this may not seem strategic from a business perspective, our results suggest that people
endorsing problematic distractions concerns have resorted to deactivating or deleting their FB
accounts for periods of time as a way of limiting their use.
The findings linking Privacy Issues with FB use were inconsistent across the two samples
in his study. Given that FB and its privacy policies have been featured repeatedly in the media
after the 2013 mass surveillance documents were released by Edward Snowden (e.g., Moody,
2015), we suspect that many people may be aware of the privacy issues associated with using FB
and other SNSs. However, the perceived benefits of using FB to connect with others may
outweigh the privacy concerns people have about using it. Moreover, national surveys conducted
in the U.S. have found that 69% of adults reported not being confident that data records of their
activity on social media sites will remain private and secure, even though 93% reported that
being in control of who can get information about them is important (Madden & Rainie, 2015).
These findings suggest that policy makers and companies like FB could do more to address the
privacy concerns of people that use and abstain from SNSs. Policy makers, for example, should
consider the privacy concerns of the general public as they begin to move forward with
legislature governing the use of personal online data by companies and government agencies.
SNSs on the other hand, should promote transparency about how they use people’s online data
and support legislation that ensures protection of their users’ data. SNSs might also consider
having their default settings be more privacy-sensitive for users (e.g., making default posts set to
only share with one’s network of friends, not the general public). By changing default settings,
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 17
SNSs like FB could address some of the privacy concerns observed in this study regarding
unwanted people having access one’s profile information.
Relationships Between Concerns and Individual Differences
We also examined the relationships between concerns and individual differences. The
findings linking Pointless concerns and Privacy Issues with individual differences were
inconsistent across the two samples in this study. For example, we found that compared to men,
women were less likely to endorse concerns about FB being pointless. However, this gender
effect did not replicate in the college student sample.
Our findings for Problematic Distraction suggest that people who are sociable, anxious,
and want to stay in close contact with others, may find that FB affords them a socially acceptable
medium for broadcasting information, conveniently maintaining social ties, and managing self-
presentation –to the extent that they are concerned about the potential distraction it poses in their
lives. Supporting this possibility, previous research has found that people’s FB profiles tend to
reflect actual (vs. idealized) personalities (Back et al., 2010), which suggests that efforts to be
strategic about self-presentation in this domain would likely be an effortful task. Our findings are
consistent with previous studies that show greater FB use to be associated with characteristics
such as higher extraversion (Wilson et al., 2012) and higher attachment anxiety (Oldmeadow et
al., 2013). In addition, motivations to use FB for belonging and self-presentation needs have
been linked to higher neuroticism (Seidman, 2013), suggesting that neurotic individuals may be
aware of the negative outcomes (e.g., wasting time, interference with productivity) caused by
their use of FB to meet these needs. However, additional research is needed to understand the
underlying mechanisms that explain the relationships observed here between concerns and
individual characteristics.
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 18
We also examined whether concerns predicted FB use over and above individual
differences. Our results suggest that this may be the case. More specifically, we found that
Extraversion, Pointless concerns, and Problematic Distraction concerns were the strongest
predictors of overall FB use when all individual difference measures and concerns were included
in a hierarchical regression model. These effects replicated across the two samples, suggesting
that an individual’s concerns may be a stronger predictor of their FB use than their individual
characteristics. However, our analysis focused on overall FB use as measured via a composite
score based on self-reported behaviors. Thus, future research should examine the extent to which
concerns predict more specific and objectively measured behaviors on FB (e.g., liking,
commenting, posting).
Conclusion
A large body of literature converges on the finding that people use the ubiquitous FB
platform to satisfy their needs for belonging and self-presentation (Nadkarni & Hoffman, 2012;
Wilson et al., 2012). Yet, the concerns people have about using FB were not well understood.
The current research established the three main concerns shared among people who are
committed to using FB, ambivalent about it, relapse in their use of it, or abstain from it altogether
– that it can be pointless, a problematic distraction, and raise privacy issues. Moreover, the
findings provide initial evidence that suggests concerns are shared among people with similar FB
use tendencies and psychological characteristics, and that concerns predict FB use over and
above individual characteristics. Thus, the present research provides an empirical foundation for
addressing the concerns people have about the dark side of SNSs.
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 19
References
Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D.
(2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological
Science, 21, 372–374. doi: 10.1177/0956797609360756
Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2013). Social desirability in personality inventories: Symptoms,
diagnosis and prescribed cure. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 54(2), 152-159.
Baker, R. K., & White K. M. (2011). In their own words: Why teenagers don’t use social networking
sites. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 395-398. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2010.0016
Basulto, D. (2014, April 8). The Emerging Dark Side of Social Networks. Washington Post. Retrieved
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/04/08/the-emerging-dark-
side-of-social-networks/
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Sociological Methods and
Research, 1, 245-276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Duggan, M. (2015, August 19). The Demographics of Social Media Users. Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-
media-users/
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 20
Facebook 'tramples on European law', says privacy body. (May 15, 2015). BBC News.
Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32749416
Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the
relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances.
Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168-176.
große Deters, F. & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Does posting Facebook status updates increase or
decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Social psychological and
personality science, 4, 579-586.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five inventory—Versions 4a and
54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social
Research.
Junco, R. (2013). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(3), 626-631.
Kerr, D. ( 2013, May 29). Facebookers, beware: That silly update can cost you a job. Cnet.
Retrieved from: http://www.cnet.com/news/facebookers-beware-that-silly-update-can-
cost-you-a-job/
Lampe, C., Ellison, N. & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs.
social browsing. Proceedings from CSCW ’06: 20th Anniversary Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Banff, Canada. doi: 10.1145/1180875.1180901
Lampe C., Ellison N. B., & Steinfield C. (2008). Changes in use and perception of Facebook.
Proceedings from CSCW ’08: Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
ACM Press, New York. doi: 10.1145/1460563.1460675
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 21
Madden, M. & Rainie, L. (2015, May 20). Americans’ Attitudes About Privacy, Security and
Surveillance. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/
2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal
learning at university:‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for
actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141-155.
Moody, G. (Mar. 25, 2015) EU: Don’t use Facebook if you want to keep the NSA away from
your data. Ars Technica. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/eu-
dont-use-facebook-if-you-want-to-keep-the-nsa-away-from-your-data/
Muscanell, N. L., & Guadagno, R. E. (2012). Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and
personality differences in social networking use.Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1),
107-112.
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 243–249. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007
Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and Facebook
use among adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1142-1149.
Paradise, A., & Sullivan, M. (2012). (In)visible threats? The third-person effect in perceptions of the
influence of Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 55-60. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2011.0054
Portwood-Stacer, L. (2012). Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption: The performative and
political dimensions of Facebook abstention. New Media & Society, 0, 1-17. doi:
10.1177/1461444812465139
Rainie, L., Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013). Coming and going on Facebook. Pew Internet and
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 22
American Life Project, February 5, 2013, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Coming-and-
going-on-facebook.aspx, accessed on November 12, 2013.
Ryan, T., Chester, A., Reece, J., & Xenos, S. (2014). The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review of
Facebook addiction. Journal of behavioral addictions,3(3), 133-148.
Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Facebook’s emotional consequences: Why Facebook causes a
decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 359-363.
Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014). Social Interactions and Well-Being The Surprising
Power of Weak Ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0146167214529799.
Satici, S. A., & Uysal, R. (2015). Well-being and problematic Facebook use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 49, 185-190.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences
social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 402-407.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use and
relatedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 766-75. doi: 10.1037/a0022407
Stieger, S., Burger, C., Bohn, M., & Voracek, M. (2013). Who commits virtual identity suicide?
Differences in privacy concerns, Internet addiction, and personality between Facebook
users and quitters. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 629-634. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2012.0323
Tufekci, Z. (2008). Grooming, gossip, Facebook and Myspace. Information, Communication &
Society, 11, 544-564. doi: 10.1080/13691180801999050
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in close
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 23
relationship scale (ECR)- Short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 88, 187-204. doi: 10.1080/00223890701268041
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults’ use
of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 173-
177. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0094
Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research in the
social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 203-220. doi:
10.1177/1745691612442904
Zwick, W. R. & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of
components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 24
Footnotes
1 The rating scale ranged from “not at all” (1) to “very much” (5) such that any rating
above a 1 indicated that the item was of some concern to the participant. The mean values of the
concern scores were around the midpoint of the scale, indicating the average participant rated the
items to be of some concern to them.
2 The present design potentially confounds sample characteristics (college students vs.
adults on MTurk) with education level (college vs. non-college); therefore, we also computed the
partial correlations reported in Table 4, controlling for social-desirability and education level.
The observed associations did not change substantively when the education level of the adult
MTurk sample was accounted for in the analysis.
3 To determine which of the individual characteristics were the strongest predictors of the
concerns, we also examined these associations via a series of multiple regression models that
model the variables simultaneously. These analyses were generally consistent with the
correlational analyses, with 70% of the relationships reported in Table 4 holding in the
regression models; however some differences did emerge. The multiple regression results are
reported in the Online Materials (Supplemental Tables S5 and S6).
Running head: CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 25
Table 1 Review of Literature on Negative Outcomes and Perceptions Associated with Facebook and other Social Networking Sites
Reference Type of Study Negative Outcomes and Perceptions Social
Networking Site (SNS)
User Status Individual Characteristics
Baker & White (2011) Qualitative Poor use of time; Preference for other communication mediums; Preference for engaging in other activities; Cybersafety concerns; Dislike online self-presentation
SNSs in general
Abstainers Adolescents
Baumer, Adams, Khovanskaya, Liao, Smith, Sosik, & Williams (2013)
Qualitative Privacy concerns; Data misuse; Productivity problems; Banality; Addiction; External pressures to use it
Facebook Users, Quitters, and Abstainers
Adults
Fox & Moreland (2015) Qualitative Managing inappropriate or annoying content; Being tethered; Lack of privacy and control; Social comparison and jealousy; Relationship tension and conflict
Facebook Users
Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfeld (2008)
Qualitative Causes problems; Spend too much time on it; Employers check it
Facebook Users College students
Oldmeadow, Quinn, & Kowert (2013)
Quantitative Concerns about others’ perceptions; Less positive attitudes towards use
Facebook Users Adults Attachment styles
Paradise & Sullivan (2012) Quantitative Privacy concerns; Personal relationship problems; Employment concerns
Facebook Users College Students
Rainie, Smith, & Diggan (2013) Qualitative Too busy for it; Not interested; Waste of time; Too much drama; Was spending too much time on it; Privacy concerns
Facebook Users & Relapsers
Adults
Stieger, Burger, Bohn, & Voracek (2013)
Quantitative Privacy concerns; Addiction; Negative aspects of Facebook friends; General dissatisfaction
Facebook Users & Quitters
Adults
Tufekci (2008) Quantitative & Qualitative
Dislike of gossip and small talk; Privacy concerns SNSs in general
Users and Abstainers
College students
Wilson, Fornasier, & White (2010)
Quantitative Addiction SNSs in general
Users College students Extraversion
Conscientiousness Note. Search terms in the literature review included: “Facebook” or “social networking sites” and “negative perceptions”, “negative outcomes”, “concerns”, “non-use”, “abstention”. Two judges independently read each article to identify potential candidates for inclusion in the review. The potential articles were then reviewed by a panel of 4 judges who jointly determined whether the articles were sufficiently relevant to inform the development of the concerns scale for the current study. The identified negative perceptions are described in the center column. Individual characteristics that describe the sample for each study are presented in the right column.
Running head: CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 26
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Concerns about FB among College Students and Adults College Students Adults Concern Items M (SD) M (SD) Pointless 2.70 (.67) 2.80 (.90)
Find it boring 2.60 (1.15) 2.73 (1.33) Find it pointless 2.62 (1.19) 2.82 (1.37) Find it annoying 2.70 (1.24) 2.80 (1.38) It is waste of time 3.05 (1.20) 3.06 (1.39) Prefer to do other things with my time 3.48 (1.11) 3.43 (1.29) Rarely use it 2.27 (1.28) 2.51 (1.47) Not curious about other people's lives 2.32 (1.16) 2.44 (1.27) Not an authentic way to communicate with others 2.66 (1.22) 2.76 (1.36)
Prefer other forms of communication 3.36 (1.30) 3.16 (1.42) It involves too much small-talk 2.41 (1.20) 2.56 (1.36) It is a hassle to keep up with 2.42 (1.22) 2.53 (1.37) People post about stupid things I don't care to see 3.58 (1.24) 3.76 (1.29)
Not curious about people from my past 2.15 (1.13) 2.40 (1.32) Maintaining an online image is tiresome 2.20 (1.20) 2.26 (1.33)
Problematic Distraction 2.95 (.89) 2.41 (.99) Kept being distracted by it 3.39 (1.31) 2.53 (1.40) Was wasting too much time on it 3.28 (1.33) 2.63 (1.43) It was negatively affecting my productivity 3.28 (1.31) 2.43 (1.41) Found it too addicting 2.82 (1.35) 2.27 (1.34) It is a distraction I don't need 3.37 (1.28) 2.91 (1.43) Was comparing my social life to that of others 2.83 (1.39) 2.40 (1.38) Felt like I was "FB-stalking" other people 2.58 (1.39) 2.22 (1.35) Creates problems in my personal or romantic relationships 2.04 (1.22) 1.93 (1.28)
Privacy Issues 2.57 (.93) 2.95 (1.02) Concerned about who was viewing my profile 2.40 (1.30) 2.72 (1.45) Concerned about unwanted people viewing my profile 2.40 (1.33) 2.83 (1.46)
Concerned about my privacy 2.61 (1.33) 3.23 (1.46) Concerned about other people "FB-stalking" me 2.06 (1.19) 2.35 (1.40) Felt that too much personal information is out there 2.47 (1.29) 2.95 (1.46)
It can produce gossip 3.05 (1.34) 3.31 (1.42) People use it to portray false impressions 3.04 (1.30) 3.18 (1.32)
Note. Alphas, means, and standard deviations are presented for the college student (N = 264) and adult (N = 610) sample separately. Tense of the items varied depending on the type of engagement noted. � = alpha reliability metric for the concern composite scores.
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 27
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Individual Characteristics and Engagement
College Students Adults
Variables � M (SD) � M (SD) Big Five Extraversion .88 3.43 (0.82) .87 2.91 (0.86) Agreeableness .75 3.79 (0.57) .83 3.73 (0.69) Conscientiousness .81 3.38 (0.63) .85 3.71 (0.71) Neuroticism .81 2.83 (0.70) .88 2.82 (0.89) Openness .78 3.66 (0.58) .84 3.64 (0.66) Attachment Style Anxious Attachment .65 3.64 (1.10) .77 3.50 (1.32) Avoidant Attachment .74 3.17 (1.09) .85 2.73 (1.20) User Status Committedb - 33 % - 33 % Ambivalentb - 54 % - 49 % Relapsersb - 9 % - 5 % Abstainersb - 4 % - 13 % FB Use and Behaviors Length of time on FB - 3.32 (0.87) - 3.35 (1.09) Number of FB friends - 709.68 (519.21) - 239.29 (306.38) Checking FB Frequency - 8.51 (1.78) - 7.51 (2.28) Liking Frequency - 6.58 (2.31) - 5.76 (2.54) Commenting Frequency - 5.59 (2.35) - 5.38 (2.37) Posting Frequency - 4.31 (2.20) - 4.58 (2.24) Note. Alphas, means, and standard deviations are presented for the college student (N = 264) and adult (N = 610) sample separately. Items in boldface type indicate means that are significantly different from each other. Dashes indicate one-item measures. � = Cronbach’s alpha reliability. b indicates a binary variable, where User Status was coded as: Committed = 1 (all others = 0); Ambivalent = 1, (all others = 0); Relapser = 1, (all others = 0); Abstainer = 1, (all others = 0).
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 28
Table 4 Correlations Between Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and Engagement
Pointless Problematic Distraction Privacy Issues
Variables College Students Adults
College Students Adults
College Students Adults
Demographics Age .01 .04 -.01 -.20** .07 .00 Femaleb .04 -.17** .05 .03 .08 .05 In a Relationshipb .16* -.10* .15* .07 .14* .01 Big Five Extraversion -.03 .05 .14* .08* .10 .00 Agreeableness -.01 -.10* .01 -.04 -.06 -.08* Conscientiousness .01 -.05 -.09 -.09* .04 .04 Neuroticism .09 -.09* .23** .10* .24** .06 Openness -.02 .01 .03 -.05 -.01 .05 Attachment Style Anxious Attachment -.06 -.04 .23** .18** .12 .09* Avoidant Attachment -.04 .08* .11 .05 .16** .07 User Status Committedb -.16** -.37** -.06 -.19** .11 -.18** Ambivalentb .07 .09* -.03 .07 -.11 .02 Relapserb .14* 05 .13* .13** .01 -.01 Abstainerb - .36** - .07 - .23** FB Use and Behaviors Length of time on FB -.11 -.15** .14* .11** -.01 -.02 Number of FB friends -.05 -.14** .18* .15** .03 -.07 Checking FB Frequency -.32** -.38** .24* .25** .01 -.06 Liking Frequency -.23** -.37** .28** .21** .07 -.05 Commenting Frequency -.23** -.39** .26** .18** .04 -.05 Posting Frequency -.14** -.32** .19** .16** .06 -.03
Note. Partial correlations and point-biserial correlations (controlling for social-desirability scores) computed between concern scores and individual characteristics, and concern scores and Facebook User Status. For additional results from a series of multiple regression models that model the individual difference variables simultaneously, see the Online Materials (Supplemental Tables S5 and S6). b indicates a binary variable, where demographic features were coded as: Female = 1 (Male = 0); In a Relationship = 1 (Single = 0). User Status was coded as: Committed = 1 (all others = 0); Ambivalent = 1, (all others = 0); Relapser = 1, (all others = 0); Abstainer = 1, (all others = 0). * p < .05; ** p < .01.
CONCERNS ABOUT FACEBOOK 29
Table 5 Hierarchical Regression Models Predicting FB Use from Individual Characteristics and Concerns
Note. All continuous variables in the model were z-scored prior to analysis (Big Five traits, attachment styles, concerns, and FB use composite score). b indicates a binary variable, where demographic features were coded as: Female = 1 (Male = 0); In a Relationship = 1 (Single = 0). * p < .05; ** p < .01.
College Students Adults
Variables B SE t p
value R2 /
Adj R2 ∆R2
Β SE t p
value R2 /
Adj R2
∆R2
Step 1 .11 / .07 .07 /
.05
Age -.02 .04 -.45 .65 -.01* .00 -2.18 .03 Femaleb -.08 .14 -.59 .56 .26** .09 2.82 .01 In a Relationshipb .02 .14 .18 .86 .03 .10 .32 .75 Extraversion .30** .08 3.96 .00 .17** .05 3.31 .00 Agreeableness .08 .09 .90 .37 -.01 .05 -.11 .91 Conscientiousness -.02 .08 -.24 .81 .07 .05 1.24 .22 Neuroticism .17 .10 1.68 .09 .08 .05 1.46 .15 Openness -.01 .07 -.10 .92 -.01 .04 -.12 .90 Anxious Attachment .17* .08 2.10 .04 .07 .05 1.44 .15 Avoidant Attachment .07 .08 .85 .40 -.10 .05 -1.92 .05 Step 2 .30 / .25 .18 .37 / .35 .30 Age -.01 .03 -.32 .75 .00 .00 -.38 .70 Femaleb -.07 .12 -.55 .58 .10 .08 1.26 .21 In a Relationshipb .03 .13 .22 .83 -.02 .08 -.28 .78 Extraversion .22** .07 3.10 .00 .15** .04 3.55 .00 Agreeableness .01 .08 .17 .87 -.04 .04 -.95 .34 Conscientiousness .00 .07 .03 .97 .04 .04 .81 .42 Neuroticism .16 .09 1.70 .09 .05 .04 1.03 .30 Openness -.01 .07 -.20 .84 .03 .04 .84 .40 Anxious Attachment .07 .08 .92 .36 .00 .04 -.02 .98 Avoidant Attachment .03 .07 .44 .66 -.05 .04 -1.21 .23 Pointless Concerns -.40** .06 -6.14 .00 -.58** .04 -13.85 .00 Distraction Concerns .32** .07 4.77 .00 .40** .04 9.23 .00 Privacy Concerns .04 .07 .55 .58 -.03 .04 -.69 .49
top related