Translational Issues in Psychological Science · PDF fileIn press, Translational Issues in...

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:

[email protected]

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


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


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).


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 &


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


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


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


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)


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


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.


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.


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


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,


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


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,


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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.


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.


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).


Table 4 Correlations Between Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and Engagement

Pointless Problematic Distraction Privacy Issues

Variables 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.


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.


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

Date post:	12-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamthu
View:	224 times
Download:	4 times

Translational Issues in Psychological Science · PDF fileIn press, Translational Issues in...

Documents