Have You Checked Your Phone in the Last 6.5 Minutes?

Have You Checked Your Phone in the Last 6.5 Minutes? A Correlational Study of Social Media Use and Subjective Well-Being AW April 25, 2014 Social Me...
Author: Belinda Little
1 downloads 3 Views 1MB Size
Have You Checked Your Phone in the Last 6.5 Minutes? A Correlational Study of Social Media Use and Subjective Well-Being AW April 25, 2014

Social Media Use and Well-Being

2

Literature Review Introduction In 2010 Nokia reported that on average, a mobile phone user checks their device 150 times a day (Rosen, Whaling, Rab, Carrier, & Cheever, 2013, p. 1245). In 2012, T-Mobile confirmed in their own study the same number for the American market (Islam, 2013). 150 times a day means once every 6.5 minutes during waking hours. It’s no surprise that cell phones and social media are becoming more and more an essential part of everyday life. This is evident by looking around in a waiting room, on a bus or in a restaurant; people are glued to their screens, quite likely some of them on a social media site. Smartphones are the norm, we see hashtags everywhere. Even cars now come equipped to connect with our phones. Social media and smartphones have many different uses and are becoming ever more important tools for social lives. From finding an old friend on Facebook one hasn’t spoken to in years to sharing a picture of a delicious homemade dinner; social media connects people to friends, family and strangers all over the world. As social media and smartphones advance and become a primary way of keeping in touch with family and friends, it’s important to remember the ways they are transforming our interactions. Not only should we keep in mind the impact social media and smartphones have on communication, but also their effects on self-esteem. Social media and smartphones are changing the way we form and maintain relationships as well as how we feel about ourselves and others. Research shows that these tools have both positive and negative impacts on many different areas of our social lives from communication and relationships to self-esteem and views on the fairness of life; aspects of life that are important to one’s well-being. The overriding question is

Social Media Use and Well-Being

3

how are social media and smartphones affecting our well-being? And perhaps more importantly, is it for better or worse?

Subjective Well-Being To understand how social media is impacting well-being first we need to define wellbeing. However, this is a bit tricky because well-being is subjective and hard to define; as a result there is no consensus around a single definition of well-being. According to the Center for Disease Control (2013, How is well-being defined? para. 1) “...there is general agreement that at minimum, well-being includes the presence of positive moods and emotions (e.g. contentment, happiness), the absence of negative emotions (e.g., depression, anxiety), satisfaction with life, fulfillment and positive functioning.” Ahn and Shin (2013, p. 2454) use Diener, Suh, Lucas, and Smith’s definition of wellbeing as the cognitive assessment of overall life satisfaction and feelings reflective of happiness based on frequent experiences with positive emotions and infrequent experiences with negative ones. According to this definition, the structure of well-being has three parts--life satisfaction, positive affect (feeling or emotion), and negative affect. Since this structure represents an individual’s subjective evaluation—influenced by personal feelings or opinions—of his or her life, well-being will be referred to as subjective well-being in this study. To sum up, subjective well-being can be expressed as judging life positively and feeling good. As one would imagine, measuring subjective well-being is quite difficult. With subjective well-being defined, the next question is what contributes to subjective well-being? In other words, what can make us happy? Based on many studies examining the factors that contribute to subjective well-being, Diener, Sapyta and Suh found (as cited in Ahn &

Social Media Use and Well-Being

4

Shin, 2013, p. 2454) that the core contributor to subjective well-being is meaning in life. Like well-being, meaning in life is another subjective term used in psychology that can be difficult to define. According to Ahn and Shin (p. 2454), meaning in life refers to positive functions for actualizing human potential. At the top of Abraham Maslow’s (an American psychologist) hierarchy of needs is self-actualization, which in essence is actualizing human potential, so Maslow’s hierarchy can help explain what actualizing human potential is. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory of psychological health based on fulfilling natural human needs in priority, building up to self-actualization.

Actualizing Human Potential as a Core Contributor to Well-Being Often displayed as a pyramid, Maslow’s hierarchy includes five motivational needs— physiological, security, social, esteem and self-actualizing—which represent the hierarchical levels of the pyramid with the most basic needs at the lowest levels and the more complex needs at the top. Needs at the bottom of the pyramid are basic physical requirements including the needs for food, water, sleep, and warmth. People can move up to the next level of needs—safety and security—when these lower-level needs have been met. Needs become increasingly psychological and social as people move up the pyramid. Next are the needs for love, friendship, and intimacy and after that the needs for personal esteem and feelings of accomplishment become important. At the top is self-actualization: a process of growing and developing as a person in order to achieve individual potential (Cherry, n.d., para. 1-3). Thus, self-actualization is actualizing human potential—realizing personal potential and seeking personal growth—which accounts for meaning in life. Social needs and self-esteem certainly play a part in the motivation to use social media and smartphones, but do these tools

Social Media Use and Well-Being

5

help meet needs that allow users to reach self-actualization? Can social media and smartphones contribute to users’ subjective well-being? Carl Rogers’ view on actualizing human potential offers another way in which social media can impact self-actualization. Rogers, a humanistic psychologist, agreed with the main assumptions of Maslow, but added that for a person to "grow"—remember that self-actualization is about personal growth—they need an environment that provides them with genuineness (openness and self-disclosure), acceptance (being seen with unconditional positive regard), and empathy (being listened to and understood). Rogers believes that without these, relationships and healthy personalities will not develop as they should (Mcleod, 2007, para. 1). Do social media sites provide an environment with genuineness, acceptance and empathy? Can social media aid personal growth? Bringing us back to the question of what can make us happy—if the core contributor to subjective well-being is meaning in life and meaning in life refers to positive functions for actualizing human potential, what are these functions? How can meaning in one’s life be achieved? According to Deci and Ryan (as cited in Ahn & Shin, 2013, p. 2454) it can be achieved by gratifying the fundamental human needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. Of the three, the one most relevant to this study is relatedness: the need to connect and belong. Humans are social beings and have a need to form relationships and bonds, a need for love and affection. We all want to be acknowledged, taken seriously and responded to; a need for the kind of environment Rogers talks about, one with genuineness, acceptance and empathy. Having friends and being around people who accept and value us can fulfill this need (Reeve, 2009). Human connection is a big contributor to well-being so it follows that as technology advances so have the ways we interact and connect with one another. The question then is, does this technology fulfill the need for relatedness and contribute to a positive subjective well-being?

Social Media Use and Well-Being

6

How Does Social Media Contribute to the Need for Relatedness? In order to look at social media and smartphones’ effects on subjective well-being, we needed to define subjective well-being and what contributes to it. We’ve done that and are left with the question of how social media and smartphones contribute to the fundamental human need of relatedness? This section will attempt to answer this essential question. First we will define the two key terms of social media and smartphones. Then we will look at their impact on communication through understanding the need for relatedness. At the end of this section it should be clear why communication through social media and smartphones cannot replace or be a substitute for face-to-face communication. What is considered social media? Social media can be defined as forms of electronic communication (websites and software) that serve the primary function of allowing users to connect and interact with each other through online communities where they can post and share information, ideas, personal messages, pictures and other content (ex. videos). This definition includes overlapping domains: social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), tools for communication with others (e.g. email, chat), and sites for sharing information which generally can be commented on or altered by others (e.g. blogs, YouTube) (Wang, Tchernev, & Solloway, 2012, p.1829). A smartphone can be defined as a complete operating system software that can run various “apps”, featuring a larger screen and faster processor than standard mobile phones. Smartphones and social media go hand-in-hand as smartphones allow immediate and constant access to social media. Just by their very nature, social media and smartphones are fundamentally changing the way we communicate and connect with each other (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008, p. 136). While they can make maintaining long distance relationships easier and keep more people in the

Social Media Use and Well-Being

7

loop on what’s going on in one’s life with less effort; they also eliminate subtle cues, “body language” and a number of other things we experience during face-to-face communication (Chou & Edge, 2012, p. 117). Smartphones in particular have had an even greater impact by making access to social media available just about anywhere and anytime, not surprisingly resulting in an increase in social media use. It’s great to be able to catch up on emails when waiting in line and having a camera with easy access to share life events via pictures with friends and family. However, is this technology becoming too relied upon? Research shows that teens conduct a higher proportion of communication through social media than face-to-face or voice-to-voice (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008, p. 136). There has been mixed findings on how social media is affecting teen relationships. One study conducted in 2001-02 reported that teens feel less psychologically close to friends they talk to using instant messaging than friends they talk to over the phone and face-to-face (p. 125). This was over twelve years ago and although social media communication has advanced and expanded in countless ways, the same basic instant message type of chat exists all over and is used more now than ever. Conversely, according to a survey also conducted in 2001, 48 percent of online teens believe that the internet has improved their relationships with friends and the more frequently they used the internet, the more strongly they voiced this belief (p. 126). Since social media and smartphones are becoming a primary way of communication for teens, can communication through social media and smartphones replace or substitute the social function of face-to-face communication? That depends on how communication through social media and smartphones contribute to the human need of relatedness—the need to connect and belong. Since connection and belonging make up a fundamental need of human beings it is not surprising that that under most conditions, the motivation to both form social bonds and prevent

Social Media Use and Well-Being

8

the ending of existing ones comes from this need for relatedness (Ahn & Shin, 2013, p. 2455). It follows that relatedness has two components: to avoid social isolation and to seek social connectedness. Do the kind of connections we’re making with social media and smartphones help meet this need for relatedness? Do they facilitate both avoiding social isolation and seeking social connectedness? Before these questions can we answered, we have to define the difference between avoiding social isolation and seeking social connectedness. Social isolation refers to being ignored or excluded and is often used interchangeably with social exclusion, ostracism and rejection. This could look like not being invited to a party that all of one’s friends are going to. Social isolation is a threat to individuals and those who are about to be excluded typically experience negative feelings such as anxiety and fear. Social connectedness on the other hand is a reward for individuals, those who make and keep social connections typically experience positive emotions like happiness (p. 2455). An example of seeking social connectedness could be inviting a friend over for dinner. They may seem like opposites in that if one is seeking connectedness they must also be avoiding isolation; or if one is avoiding isolation they must be seeking connectedness. However, social connectedness and social isolation are presented to the mind in distinct ways, one is an opportunity (positive) and one is a threat (negative). Thus, seeking connectedness and avoiding isolation are separate actions. The evaluative space model (ESM) provides a general model of affect (emotion) and motivation to help explain these two distinct neural systems—approaching positive opportunities and avoiding negative threats. The core of the ESM is that because positivity and negativity are distinctive, they do not fall along a continuous sequence. Rather, the

Social Media Use and Well-Being

9

act of approaching or avoiding is the output of two separate affective systems, one dealing with threatening or negative information and the other with safe or positive information (p. 2454). To state simply, avoiding social isolation is taking steps to avoid people disliking or not wanting to be around oneself. For example, showering regularly would be avoiding the threat of people not wanting to be around someone who smells bad. Seeking social connectedness is taking steps to be a good friend or partner, like asking someone how their day was or setting up a time to get lunch. Avoiding isolation is taking steps to avoid having people not want to be around one while seeking connectedness is taking steps to present oneself with opportunities to maintain positive relations. Though the evaluation of either positive or negative information can sometimes occur in parallel, it depends on the circumstance. It’s important to understand the difference between these distinct systems in relation to social media and smartphone use because the effects of activating the positive and negative evaluative processes are not always direct opposites, meaning they can contribute to subjective well-being in different ways (p. 2454). For individuals to survive and thrive, direct human contact and forming societies have proved very important. Forming social groups can be seen as a way of adapting to one’s environment and can serve two goals, to survive by avoiding threats or negative stimuli and to thrive by approaching rewards or positive stimuli. Since avoiding social isolation and seeking connection to others make up relatedness, a crucial part of living a happy and fulfilling life, it’s understandable why we’ve become attached to devices that help us be social and interact with others. Face-to-face communication does perform these two key functions in social interaction, that is, both avoiding social isolation and seeking social connectedness. Therefore, to be a substitute for face-to-face communication, communication through social media and

Social Media Use and Well-Being 10

smartphones should activate both the positive processes—approaching opportunities, seeking connectedness—and the negative processes—avoiding threats (social isolation) (p. 2455). So can social media and smartphones perform these two key functions and be a substitute for face-to-face communication? Although these two forms of communication are quite similar, the fundamental difference is that communication through social media and smartphones only serve one of these two key functions in social interaction: seeking connectedness (p. 2455). It’s clear that face-to-face communication is important because without it an individual may lose opportunities to approach rewards—connectedness—and fail to avoid threats—isolation (p. 2455). Whereas social media and smartphones may help extend and maintain relations, they cannot replace social interactions and actually may consume time that could be spent on actual face-to-face communication. Communication through social media and smartphones can be very helpful in that they allow individuals to extend the scope of face-to-face communication by eliminating spatial and temporal constraints. In other words, one could be halfway across the country and send an email to someone who can then read it at a time convenient for them; they no longer need to be in the same place at the same time in order to communicate. Social media and smartphones are also increasing communication efficiency by making information sharing much easier than by direct contact as well as broadening one’s opportunities to find friends or partners. This efficiency very much fits the goal to thrive by approaching opportunities that wouldn’t be possible with spatial and temporal constraints, but the efficiency is not so much applicable to the goal to survive— specifically avoiding the risk of social isolation (p. 2456). Overcoming social isolation requires emotional support for coping with emotional distress. Social media and smartphones can offer some advantages in providing this social

Social Media Use and Well-Being 11

support through increased access to diverse information, more opportunities for editing and crafting messages and greater anonymity. However, these advantages do not reflect fundamental, but rather additional functions of emotional support. In other words, these advantages provide secondary functions to the primary ones. Emotional support can be through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors but nonverbal forms of emotional support are basic and universal, preceding verbal ones. Keep in mind that social media is a new addition to human life, whereas face-to-face communication has always been there. Hugs, touches, pats, handholding, eye-contact and soothing sounds are effective ways of providing emotional support; ways that are quite limited in social media and smartphone communications (p. 2456). Ultimately, to be a substitute for face-to-face communication, social media and smartphones should be able to facilitate both aspects of relatedness: avoiding social isolation and seeking social connectedness. Although social media and smartphones can expand social interactions in terms of approaching rewards, they may consume time spent on other valuable activities such as face-to-face communication without generating the same benefits. Social media can contribute to increasing efficiency of connection, but may not be suitable for building emotional bonds. For the reasons above, communication through social media can be beneficial in addition to face-to-face communication, but should not replace it.

Self-Presentation & Effects on Self-Esteem Social media not only provides a new platform for communication, but also a platform to see oneself and others in a new light. Social networking sites allow the user to self-select what information they share, allowing them to present their best self by emphasizing traits they like and ignoring ones they don’t (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011, p. 80). For example, taking ten selfies

Social Media Use and Well-Being 12

to get the perfect profile picture can be rewarding when the photo gets a ton of likes, but it’s easy to forget that others too are presenting only the best aspects of themselves. This ability to selfselect can benefit the user, but on the other hand, can also provide a distorted perception of their online friends. Social media is changing how we communicate as well as how we form and maintain relationships, but how does it affect our self-esteem? A discussion of the Objective SelfAwareness (OSA) theory, one of the first experimentally tested psychological theories of the self, will help answer this question. The OSA theory states that humans experience the self as both subject and object (p. 79). The self as subject is found in daily experiences of life such as eating lunch, watching TV or waiting for the bus. The self as subject is an active participant in those experiences and not self-conscious. This is opposed to experiencing the self as object, people become the “object” of their own consciousness when they focus attention on the self. In a state of objective self-awareness people are prone to self-evaluations based on broader social standards and norm (behavior generally accepted by the society in which one lives), which usually result in a greater sense of humility (downgraded ratings of self) and increased pro-social behavior (behavior intended to benefit another) (p. 79). This theory is relevant to the effects of social networking sites on selfesteem because social networking sites provide a new platform to see the self as an object. What most commonly evokes objective self-awareness is a mirror, other stimuli include images of the self, audio feedback, having a camera pointed at oneself or writing autobiographical information. Even if one is not immediately under observation, people view themselves as they believe others do in response to these stimuli. Positive feelings and selfesteem usually decrease when people are exposed to these stimuli because most people often fall

Social Media Use and Well-Being 13

short of social standards when self-awareness is heightened (p. 80). In other words, most people do not feel that they live up to the perceived expectations of the society they live in. On social networking sites, users’ profiles include information about the self similar to the type of information that is stimuli for objective self-awareness. So according to the OSA theory, viewing one’s own profile should negatively affect one’s self-esteem. Except there is one big difference between social networking sites and say, a mirror. That difference is that social networking sites allow users to “selectively self-present”— users can take their time when posting information about themselves and carefully select what aspects they want to emphasize. These online self-presentations can actually become integrated into one’s self-perceptions and affect attitudes about the self. Because users’ online selfpresentation can be optimized through selective self-presentation, social networking profiles could provide sufficiently positively biased stimuli to counter traditional effects of objective selfawareness and instead prompt a positive change in self-esteem (p. 80). In other words, because users can present preferred or positive information about the self, social networking sites are a unique source of self-awareness stimuli in that they enhance awareness of the optimal self. Unlike looking in a mirror, viewing one’s own profile contributes to a positive self-esteem. However, this stimuli is most likely to be on one’s own profile, so what happens to one’s self-esteem when they view other peoples’ profiles? One study indicated that participants who viewed profiles other than their own during the study reported lower self-esteem than those who exclusively viewed their own profile (p. 81). Social networking sites not only provide a platform for the user to see themselves in a new light, but also serve as a way for people to form impressions of others. Social networking sites do not allow users to observe their online friends’ non-verbal expressions which compels users to rely only on the information they can get online.

Social Media Use and Well-Being 14

Comments posted by a user’s Facebook friends as well as the number of and attractiveness of their Facebook friends affect others’ impression of the user’s popularity and social attractiveness (Chou & Edge, 2012, p. 118). Online social networks also grow much faster than real-life social networks so it becomes nearly impossible for users to interact closely with each of their online friends. To manage the vast size of online social networks and to form impressions of others, especially those whom they do not know personally, users tend to employ some heuristics (mental shortcuts that allow people to quickly and efficiently solve problems and make judgments). When forming impressions of others it is easy for frequent social networking site users to recall pictures and statements posted by their online friends. This is called an availability heuristic—individuals base judgment on examples that they can easily recall (p. 118). People are motivated to make positive self-presentations and since social networking sites allow users to selectively self-present as discussed earlier, most of the information and images posted online are socially desirable. The information and photos users see that their friends post are most frequently of happy moments. Constantly viewing others’ reported positive life events can create a distorted perception for the user. Due to the availability heuristic, users may get the impression that others are always happy and have good lives. In contrast to their own lives, which aren’t always positive and happy, this can lead them to the idea that life isn’t fair and that they are worse off than their friends (p. 118). When users leave their own profile and start to view others, it can have the opposite effect on their self-esteem than when they’re exclusively viewing their own page. One study showed that the more time people spent on Facebook, the stronger their agreement was that others were happier, whereas those who spent more time with their friends in

Social Media Use and Well-Being 15

person, agreed less that others had better lives than themselves. Having more balanced information of others (more than just what is self-selected by them) gained through deeper interactions—like time spent face-to-face—can alleviate some of the problems of relying on an availability heuristic. On the whole, when people have more off-line interactions with their friends and know more stories about others’ lives—both positive and negative—they are less persuaded that others are happier than themselves (p. 119).

Significance To summarize, subjective well-being is overall satisfaction with life and the core contributor to well-being is meaning in life which refers to actualizing human potential. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs gave us a better idea of what this means with self-actualization at the top of his pyramid and self-esteem, feelings of accomplishment, love, friendship, and intimacy right below. In order to reach the top and actualize one’s human potential, one needs to meet the needs of love, friendship and intimacy as well as the needs for positive self-esteem and feelings of accomplishment. This is where social media and smartphone use can impact one’s subjective well-being. Are social media and smartphones fulfilling the need for social relations as well as contributing to a positive self-esteem and feelings of accomplishment? To answer the first part of this question regarding social relations, we defined the fundamental human need of relatedness—the need to connect and belong—as it is a function pertaining to social relations that contributes to meaning in life and in turn well-being. The question then became, how social media and smartphone use contributes to this need to connect and belong. What it came down to is the two components of relatedness, seeking connecting and avoiding isolation, and once the difference between these two components is defined, it’s clear

Social Media Use and Well-Being 16

why communication through social media or smartphones cannot replace face-to-face communication. Remember, face-to-face communication serves both functions of relatedness while communication through social media and smartphones only serves one, seeking connectedness. Social media and smartphones may increase the efficiency of communication, but in any case, they do not provide the key functions needed for relatedness and therefore cannot be a substitute for face-to-face communication. The answer to the second part of the question was a bit more complicated. Although social media can actually boost self-esteem through self-selection and viewing one’s own profile, viewing others’ profiles can do the opposite. Seeing the best presentation of oneself is great for them but when they start to view others self-selected presentations it can make them feel as though others are living happier lives than themselves. Again, this is because of the availability heuristic, people tend to make judgments based on the information they can most easily recall and if the information posted on social networking sites is self-selected, most of it is only going to be of happy moments leading to the belief that others have better lives. But why should we care? First off, social media and smartphones are everywhere. In the developed world, smartphones have become so replied upon that being away from them, as well as social media, is a cause for anxiety in people who frequently use this technology. A Mobile Mindset Study (as cited in Rosen et al., 2013, p. 1245) found that 58% of adult smartphone users and 68% of young adults do not go one hour without checking their phones. The study also found that 73% of American smartphone owners (84% of women) panic when they misplace their device, another 14% feel desperate and 7% feel sick when their smartphone is missing. Concern about missing out on all-important smartphone and social media communication is

Social Media Use and Well-Being 17

becoming more widespread as people become more dependent on their devices and social media accounts (Rosen et al., 2013, p. 1251). Not only is social media and smartphone use prevalent in our society, use is increasing across generations. Six years ago, less than one tenth of adult internet users were active on social networking sites. Within three years 29% of adults engaged in activities on social networking sites and as of 2011, it’s up to two thirds. Social media use is even more common for young adults, 72% of adults between 18 and 29 use social networking sites (Wang et al., 2012, p. 1829). More than ever before younger generations are growing up in a media-saturated world with social media and smartphone use starting earlier and earlier. For instance, it’s not uncommon to see an infant handed a smartphone by a parent and the youngster knowing exactly how to do what they want to do and often parents turn to their teens when they can’t figure out a device. The clear generational differences in use of these technologies, younger generations using more, illustrate part of the overriding phenomenon: that the use of these tools in the social world is increasing. Children growing up in the U.S. are going to be using some type of social media for likely their whole lives so it is important to look at its impact as it’s advancing and, perhaps, make some changes. For the reasons stated above, this study is looking for correlations between social media/smartphone use and subjective well-being.

Methods Procedure & Participants An anonymous self-report questionnaire was designed and posted online using Google forms as well as handed out in paper form. Before completing the questionnaire participants received brief information on its intended purpose. Participants were recruited through personal

Social Media Use and Well-Being 18

networking (friends, acquaintances and family) and two high schools. As a result, the questionnaire was completed in a variety of environments and at different times: at home online, with a group of friends, at school, etc. Originally, this study was aimed to look for differences between students attending Scattergood Friends School in West Branch, Iowa—the boarding high school I currently attend—and friends back in my home town of Minneapolis, most of whom at one point attended Southwest High School in Minneapolis, MN. These two groups of students were chosen because of the vast differences I noticed in smartphone and social media use among my friends and classmates at Scattergood and my friends and acquaintances back home. Keep in mind that Scattergood is a small Quaker boarding school, currently at 41 students, whom are from all over the world. However, looking at these two different groups posed some problems. For one, most of my friends back home are no longer in high school so there was a definite age difference. I managed to get about 40 people I know back home, some of whom are away at college in other parts of the country, to complete the questionnaire. But because they’re no longer at Southwest, there was no longer that controlled variable of them going to the same high school. Luckily, I was also able to get an old math teacher I had at Southwest give the questionnaire to about 90 of his students so I did end up with current Southwest high school students and could still use my sample to compare Scattergood student’s use and well-being to that of other high school students, corresponding to my original idea for this questionnaire. These efforts resulted in a convenience sample of 166 participants. Nine participants were eliminated based on incomplete answers on the WEMWBS (see below). Overall, the participants (N = 157) ranged in age from 13 to 26 years with a mean (M) age of 17.42 (standard

Social Media Use and Well-Being 19

deviation [SD] = 1.65) and a modal age of 17. 118 (75%) participants were in high school, 27 (17%) participants were in college and the remaining 12 (8%) participants were not currently in school. Participants included 92 (59%) females and 64 (41%) males. 102 (65%) participants were from Minneapolis, MN, 29 (18%) participants were from West Branch, IA and the remaining 26 (17%) participants were from other parts of the U.S. Scattergood’s phone policy is not only stricter than Southwest’s but most students seem to actually abide by it as well. At Scattergood, students are not allowed to use their phones outside of the dorms, so you don’t see cell phones out under the table in class, at meals, or when students are hanging out. At Southwest, cell phone use is permitted in the hallways between classes, however, students often use their phones in class due to a combination of bigger class sizes making it easier to text without the teacher noticing and teachers not strictly enforcing the rules of taking a student’s phone if they see it in class. My initial hypothesis was that Scattergood students would use social media and smartphones much less than students at Southwest and that this could have a positive impact on their overall well-being. However, after reading the literature and seeing that this technology has both positive and negative effects, I still considered my hypothesis but was much more open to the possibility of finding data that could disagree.

Materials & Measures The questionnaire consisted of 25 questions (some of which were multiple part matrix questions) making up three sections and took approximately five minutes to complete. The first section was comprised of four questions measuring demographics such as age, gender, where they live and current school status. The second section had 13 questions and addressed social

Social Media Use and Well-Being 20

media (SM) use including frequency, accessibility, types of use, number of friends and SMrelated feelings or beliefs including value and importance of SM. The questionnaire included the following definition of SM: For the following questions, social media can be defined as forms of electronic communication (websites and software) that serve the primary function of allowing users to connect and interact with each other. This definition includes overlapping domains: social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), tools for communication with others (e.g. email, chat), and sites for sharing information which generally can be commented on or altered by others (e.g. blogs, YouTube).

The third section consisted of eight questions that addressed subjective well-being. This section attempted to measure participants’ overall satisfaction with life using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) subjective wellbeing questions and three other carefully selected questions. A copy of the questionnaire is available in the appendix on page 32. The WEMWBS is a 14 item scale of mental well-being covering subjective well-being and psychological functioning. All items in the WEMWBS are worded positively and address aspects of positive mental health. The scale is scored by summing responses to each item answered on a 1 to 5 Likert scale with the minimum score of 14 and the maximum of 70. According to the WEMWBS a score below 32 indicates very low subjective well-being, 32-40 is below average, 41-59 is average and a score greater than 59 is considered above average subjective well-being. The sample’s overall mean well-being scores reflect that of average subjective well-being (M = 49.87, SD = 8.25).

Social Media Use and Well-Being 21

Results To establish the dependence (correlation) between two variables—different aspects of social media use and subjective well-being—the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient “r” was used. A two-tailed distribution test was used to determine the P-value—the probability of significance—that is associated with the correlation coefficient. If the P-value was less than 0.05 for r, the correlation is considered significant. Results below that include data about participants’ hours spent on social media per day do not include four participants who reported spending more than 10 hours per day on social media, as these were considered outliers that did not seem reliable and could easily skew the data. Frequency of Use & Well-Being Figure 1

WB score

Checking phone and well-being 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20

y = 0.7014x + 47.373 R² = 0.0347

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Scale used for the # of times participant reports checking phone in a day: 0: 0-5 times/day 1: 6-10 times/day 2: 11-20 times/day 3: 21-40 times/day 4: 41-80 times/day 5: 81-160 times/day 6: 161-320 times/day 7: 321-640 times/day 8: 640-1280 times/day 9: more than 1280 times/day

scaled # of times check phone/day

Although figure 1 (above) shows a significant positive correlation (r = 0.186, P = 0.019) between the number of times participants reported checking their phone in a day and their wellbeing score. Participants who scored above average on the WEMWBS reported spending fewer

Social Media Use and Well-Being

22

hours a day using social media (M = 1.99, SD = 1.81) than those who scored average (M = 2.66, SD = 1.99) and below average (M = 2.92, SD = 3.21). Figure 2

Figure 2 (right) shows a strong negative correlation (r = - 0.263, P = 0.001) between hours spent per day on social media and how happy the participants reported being on a scale

Not at all happy - Completely happy

Hours per day and reported feelings of happiness 12

y = -0.2792x + 8.1474 R² = 0.0693

10 8 6 4 2 0

from one to ten, one being

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Hours spent on social media per day

not at all happy and ten being completely happy. There was also a stronger positive correlation between number of times participants reported checking their phone per day and hours spent per day on social media for those who scored above average on the well-being scale (r = 0.453, P = 0.033) than those who scored average (r = 0.216, P = 0.016). Although those who scored average on the well-being scale also had a significant positive correlation between reported number of times they checked their phone per day and hours spent on social media per day; those who scored below average on the wellbeing scale had an insignificant negative correlation between the two variables (r = -0.049, P = 0.843).

Social Media Use and Well-Being

23

Frequency of Use & Anxiety Figure 3

Anxiety

Checking phone and anxiety

y = -0.2526x + 7.3883 R² = 0.056

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Scale used for the # of times participant reports checking phone in a day: 0: 0-5 times/day 1: 6-10 times/day 2: 11-20 times/day 3: 21-40 times/day 4: 41-80 times/day 5: 81-160 times/day 6: 161-320 times/day 7: 321-640 times/day 8: 640-1280 times/day 9: more than 1280 times/day

scaled # of times check phone/day

Anxiety level is based on a scale from one to ten with one being completely anxious and ten being not at all anxious.

Figure 3 (above) shows the significant negative correlation between the number of times participants reported checking their phone in a day and their reported anxiety (r = -0.237, P = 0.003). There was also a significant negative correlation between how important participants believe social media is for feeling connected to others and how anxious they reported feeling (r = -0.169, P = 0.034) as shown below in figure 4. Figure 4

Connectedness and anxiety

Social media importance scale: 0: Very unimportant

2: Somewhat important 3: Very important

Anxiety level is based on a scale from one to ten with one being completely anxious and ten being not at all anxious.

Anxiety

1: Somewhat unimportant

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0

1

2

y = -0.4274x + 7.2772 R² = 0.0229

3

Social media importance for feeling connected to others

4

Social Media Use and Well-Being

24

Gender Differences There were strong correlations between gender and anxiety (r = -0.269, P = 0.001). With ten considered not at all anxious and one judged as completely anxious, male participants overall reported being less anxious (M = 7.24, SD = 2.01) than female participants (M = 5.96, SD = 2.43). Female participants reported checking their phone a greater number of times per day (M = 3.95, SD = 2.3) at 41-80 times, than male participants (M = 3, SD = 1.94) who on average reported checking their phone 21-40 times a day. Only 13% of males reported checking their phone more than 80 times a day while 34% of females reported checking their phone more than 80 times a day. Figure 5 (below) illustrates the differences between the number of times male and female participants reported checking their phone per day. Reported Number of Times Participant Checks Phone a Day

Figure 5

321-640 times 161-320 1% times 5%

Males 641-1280 times 2%

81-160 times 3%

Females >1280 times 2% 321-640 times 11%

0-5 times 12% 6-10 times 9%

41-80 times 28%

21-40 times 22%

11-20 times 16%

161-320 times 16%

641-1280 times >1280 2% times 1% 0-5 times 9% 6-10 times 11%

81-160 times 14%

11-20 times 8% 41-80 times 12%

21-40 times 16%

Social Media Use and Well-Being

25

Scattergood Students Compared to Southwest Students Scattergood students’ mean number of times they checked their phone (M = 1.32, SD = 1.47) at 5-10 times was much less than students at Southwest (M = 4.2, SD = 2.1) at 40-80 times. However, the mean number of hours students at both schools spent on social media per day was much closer, with Scattergood students’ mean slightly higher (M = 2.88, SD = 2.09) than Southwest students’ (M = 2.35, SD = 1.78). Both sets of students also overall felt that social media was somewhat important for feeling connected to others, with students at Scattergood having a slightly higher mean again (M = 1.86, SD = 0.93) compared to Southwest students’ (M = 1.7, SD = 0.83). Scattergood students mean well-being score (M = 45.43, SD = 6.2) was about five points less than Southwest students’ (M = 50.63, SD = 8.07), although both means were in the average well-being range. Southwest students reported being more anxious (M = 5.6, SD = 2.7) than students at Scattergood (M = 7.61, SD = 1.52).

Findings The purpose of this study was to explore the correlations, if any, between subjective wellbeing and social media and smartphone use of high school and college aged young adults with an additional focus on specifically two different high schools as well as gender differences. Social media and smartphones are becoming more and more integrated into our society and social lives so it’s important to look at the implications that may come with them. Although this study originally aimed to look at students attending Scattergood Friends School compared to other students, it expanded to include analysis of the sample as a whole. This section discusses the results and interprets what these findings might indicate.

Social Media Use and Well-Being

26

Frequency of Use & Well-Being The positive correlation shown in figure 1 suggests that participants who reported checking their phone more actually scored higher on the well-being scale. This is interesting when compared to figure 2, which indicates that those who spent more hours per day on social media reported feeling less happy. This concurs with the mean number of hours spent per day on social media of three different groups of participants broken up by well-being scores; those who scored above average, average and below average on the scale. These means indicate that on average, those who scored higher on the well-being scale also reported spending less time using social media per day than those who scored average or below average. In fact, those who scored below average on the well-being scale had the highest mean number of hours spent per day using social media. So, although those participants who scored higher on the well-being scale reported checking their phone more often, they also reported spending less time using social media than those who scored at or below average on the well-being scale. At first I thought these differences in reported number of times participants checked their phone per day and hours spent per day on social media between the different well-being score groups indicated that those who scored above average and average were more aware and honest about their use. I assumed that if one checks their phone more, they most likely spend more hours per day on social media. The strong positive correlation between number of times participants checked their phone per day and hours per day for those who scored above average well-being supports this assumption, as does the slighter weaker positive correlation for those who scored in the average well-being range.

Social Media Use and Well-Being

27

Those who scored below average well-being however had a negative insignificant correlation between the two variables. This strong positive correlation compared to the insignificant negative correlation of those who scored below average on the well-being scale made me think that those who scored above average on the well-being scale were more aware and honest of their social media and smartphone use and their self-reported use was more accurate. Perhaps those who scored below were ashamed or in denial about their use and didn’t accurately report their usage. After looking at the data more though, what seemed more likely was that those who reported checking their phones more but spending less time scored higher on the well-being scale because when they checked their phone, it was more frequent but they spent less time each time they checked. This could indicate that they were actually communicating with someone and checking their phones every time they got an alert of a new message, text, update, etc. Whereas those who reported checking their phones less but spending more time could have scored lower on the well-being scale because they were staying on their social media account for extended period of times and perhaps not actually communicating with people at all but just getting lost in other people’s online lives. Those who are spending extended periods of time on social media could have lower wellbeing because of the availability heuristic. Constantly seeing other people’s happy updates and pictures could leave these participants feeling like others have better lives than themselves, leaving them feeling less positive about their own lives, as previous literature has found and was discussed earlier. Those who spent less time on social media are less likely to apply the

Social Media Use and Well-Being

28

availability heuristic and have that negative impact on their well-being of believing others have better lives than them. Those who checked their phone more frequently but spent less time on social media could also have scored higher on the well-being scale because their frequent but short phone checks could indicate that they were physically with people and therefore just quickly checking their phone and not getting sucked into the world of social media because they have real people to get back to. The short and frequent checks could also indicate that they were making plans to meet up with people rather than just sitting on a social media site because they have nothing else to do. Both of this possible indications would mean that those who checked their phone more frequently but spent less time on social media were spending more face-to-face time with people which could be a contributing factor to their higher well-being scores. The people who spent more hours on social media could have reported lower well-being because that time they spent on social media was consuming time that could have been spent on face-to-face communication. Also, that these people who spent more time on social media but reported checking their phone less could indicate that they weren’t getting any alerts from their phone which could mean that they weren’t actually communicating with anyone. These possible indications illustrate social media’s inability to allow users to avoid social isolation. A person can spend hours on a social media site seeking connectedness but still not feel connection or belonging (relatedness) because they’re failing to avoid social isolation and this can negatively affect their well-being. Those who check their phones quite often but don’t spend large quantities of time on social media could be using their phones and social media to expand and increase the efficiency of their communication with people who they also see and

Social Media Use and Well-Being

29

communicate with in person. In this way they would be meeting both components of relatedness and the use of smartphones and social media this would positively affect their well-being. The difference is letting social media replace face-to-face communication rather than just using it in addition to face-to-face communication, as was discussed earlier in this study and in previous literature. Although these are simply possible scenarios, they could explain why those who reported checking their phone more scored higher on the well-being scale (figure 1) and those who reported spending more hours per day on social media reported feeling less happy (figure 2).

Anxiety The negative correlation shown in figure 3 indicates that participants who reported checking their phone more also reported feeling more anxious. So, even though those who reported checking their phone more often generally had a higher well-being, they were also more anxious. This could indicate that while checking one’s phone may have a positive effect on wellbeing, it has the opposite effect on anxiety. Those who reported feeling that social media was very important for feeling connected to others, also reported feeling more anxious than participants who felt that social media was very unimportant for feeling connected to others. This negative correlation is shown in figure 4. Although gender was not discussed very much in the literature review of this study, a difference between genders that supports the findings indicated in figure 4 was found and included in the results. Overall, males reported lower anxiety than females. Males also reported

Social Media Use and Well-Being

30

checking their phone less frequently than females, as shown in figure 5. These gender differences between anxiety and the number of times participants check their phone support the negative correlation shown in figure 3 that could indicate that checking one’s phone more may lead to higher anxiety. This is also interesting compared with the study done by Mobile Mindset because even though their findings were about reactions to misplacing one’s device, they found that the majority of people felt panicked, the percentage being higher for women.

Scattergood Students Compared to Southwest Students My initial hypothesis was somewhat accurate, Scattergood students reporting checking their phones much less per day than students at Southwest. However, they actually reported spending more time on social media per day than Southwest students. Consistent with my previous findings, Scattergood students’ average well-being score was slightly less than Southwest students’. This is in tune with the correlations I found between the number of times participants reported checking their phone per day and well-being score (shown in figure 1). Students at Southwest reported feeling more anxious than students at Scattergood which is also consistent with the correlation between the number of times participants reported checking their phone and reported anxiety level. Students at both schools close means of hours spent per day on social media and belief of social media’s importance for feeling connected to others does not however coincide as much with the previously stated correlations between important of social media for feeling connected and anxiety as well as hours spent per day and well-being score. This is not to say that there is not similar correlations between these two sets of data and the whole data sample as I did not

Social Media Use and Well-Being

31

look at all the same variables and groupings with the two sets of students as I did with the whole data set.

Conclusion & Areas for Future Research On the whole, the results from this study seem to indicate a strong correlation between checking one’s phone more and a higher well-being as well as higher anxiety. Areas for future research could include how much time people spend on social media compared to how much time they spend actually communicating with people on social media and any differences in well-being, social media’s effects on specific areas of well-being, motivations to use social media/main reasons for checking one’s phone compared to well-being as well as looking more into the anxiety that smartphones may elicit—just to name a few in this broad and complex area of research.

Social Media Use and Well-Being

32

Appendix Age: _______

Gender: M

F

What city/state do you currently live in? _______________________________ Please circle the statement that reflects your school status: I am in high school

I am in college

I am not currently in school

Part 1-Social Media Use: For the following questions, social media (SM) can be defined as forms of electronic communication (websites and software) that serve the primary function of allowing users to connect and interact with each other. This definition includes overlapping domains: social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), tools for communication with others (e.g. email, chat), and sites for sharing information which generally can be commented on or altered by others (e.g. blogs, Pinterest).

1.) Do you own a cell phone? Yes No 2.) If yes, is it a smartphone? Yes No 3.) How many times do you think you check your phone in a day? Put an X on the line:

5

10

20

40

80

160

320

640

1280

4.) How accessible is social media (SM) for you? Please circle the statement that best describes your accessibility: a. Somewhat restricted (ex. I can’t use SM at school or work, I can only use SM when I have access to a computer, etc.) b. Basically unrestricted (ex. I have a smartphone and can use SM whenever) 5.) How often do you use any of the following social networking sites/applications? Please check the box that best describes the frequency of your use: Never Facebook Twitter Instagram Snapchat Vine Google Plus+ Tumblr Pinterest

Less than once a week

A few days a week

About once a day

Several times a day

Many times a day

Social Media Use and Well-Being

33

6.) How important would you say SM is for feeling connected to others? a. Very important b. Somewhat important c. Somewhat unimportant d. Very unimportant

7.) Which do you value more about social media, the sending/sharing of information or receiving/viewing of information? a. Sending/Sharing b. Receiving/Viewing c. Value both equally 8.) Roughly how many hours a day do you spend on SM-including the sites/apps listed above, email text and chat, blogs and/or other forms of electronic communication? Please write in number: ____________hours per day 9.) For the social networking site/app (like those listed above) you use the most, about how many friends/followers/contacts do you have? a. Don’t use social networking sites/apps b. 0-100 c. 101-250 d. 251-500 e. 501-1,000 f. More than 1,000 10.) Please indicate how often you speak to the following categories of people using social networking sites/apps like the ones listed above: Never Rarely Fairly Often All the time Family that lives close Family that lives far away Friends that live close Friends that live far away Peers Co-Workers Strangers/People you do not already know 11.) Over the last year, would you say that the amount of time you spend using SM sites/apps on a typical day has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same? a. Increased b. Decreased c. Stayed about the same 12.) Considering your current use of SM, do you want to spend MORE time on SM sites/apps, LESS time, or about same amount of time on SM sites/apps as you do now? a. More time

Social Media Use and Well-Being

34

b. Less time c. About the same amount of time

13.) Roughly how long have you been using SM? a. Less than a month b. 1-6 months c. 7-12 months d. 1-2 years e. 3-4 years f. 5+ years Part 2-Subjective Well-Being: 1.) Below are some statements about feelings and thoughts. Please check the box that best describes your experience for each statement over the past two weeks None of the time

Rarely

Some of the time

Often

All of the time

I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future I’ve been feeling useful I’ve been feeling relaxed I’ve been feeling interested in other people I’ve had energy to spare I’ve been dealing with problems well I’ve been thinking clearly I’ve been feeling good about myself I’ve been feeling close to other people I’ve been feeling confident I’ve been able to make up my own mind about things I’ve been feeling loved I’ve been interested in new things I’ve been feeling cheerful For the following 5 questions please circle a number from 1 to 10: 2.) Overall, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays? Extremely dissatisfied

Extremely satisfied

Social Media Use and Well-Being

1

2

3

35

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

3.) Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? Not at all worthwhile 1

2

Completely worthwhile 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

4.) Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? Not at all happy 1

Completely happy 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5.) Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? Not at all anxious 1

2

Completely anxious 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

6.) Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people? Can’t be too careful 1

2

Most people can be trusted 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

7.) All things considered, how satisfied are you with your personal relationships? a. Very satisfied b. Fairly satisfied c. Fairly dissatisfied d. Very dissatisfied 8.) To what extent do you agree that you have time to do the things that you really enjoy? a. Definitely agree b. Tend to agree c. Tend to disagree d. Definitely disagree

10

Social Media Use and Well-Being

36

Acknowledgements i.

Special thanks to Mr. Towne for giving the questionnaire to his students at Southwest High School.

ii.

The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) was funded by the Scottish Government National Program for Improving Mental Health and Well-being, commissioned by NHS Health Scotland, developed by the University of Warwick and the University of Edinburgh, and is jointly owned by NHS Health Scotland, the University of Warwick and the University of Edinburgh.

References Ahn, D., & Shin, D. (2013). Is the social use of media for seeking connectedness or for avoiding social isolation? Mechanisms underlying media use and subjective well-being. Computers in Human behaviors, 29, 2453-2462. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from the Elsevier database. Cherry, K. (n.d.). The Five Levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm Chou, H. G., & Edge, N. (2012). "They Are Happier and Having Better Lives than I Am": The Impact of Using Facebook on Perceptions of Others' Lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 117-121. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/71528600/they-are-happier-having-betterlives-than-am-impact-using-facebook-perceptions-others-lives

Social Media Use and Well-Being

37

Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1-2), 79-83. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from http://www.indiana.edu/~telecom/people/faculty/gonzaamy/Gonzales-11-Mirror-FB%20wall.pdf Islam, Z. (2013, December 24). Average User Looks at Phone 150 Times a Day. tom's HARDWARE: the authority on tech. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Smartphones-Phones-Handsets-UserCell,20645.html McLeod, S. (2007.). Carl Rogers. Simply Psychology. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.htm Reeve, J. (2009). 5th edition. Understanding Motivation and Emotion. New York: Wiley Press. Rosen, L., Whaling, K., Rab, S., Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. (2013). Is Facebook creating "iDisorders"? The link between clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders and technology use, attitudes and anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1243-1254. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships. The Future of Children, 18(1), 119-146. Wang, Z., Tchernev, J. M., & Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of social media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1829-1839. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from the Elsevier database. Well-being Concepts. (2013, March 6). Health-Related Quality of Life. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from http://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm#three

Social Media Use and Well-Being

Bibliography for Questionnaire: Deacon, L., Carlin, H., Spalding, J., Giles, S., Stansfield, J., Hughes, S., ... & Bellis, M. A. (2010). North West mental wellbeing survey 2009. North West Public Health Observatory, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool. Michaelson, J., Mahony, S., & Schifferes, J. (2012). Measuring Well-being–A Guide for Practitioners. New Economics Foundation, London. Social Media Survey Questions. (n.d.). Survey Writing and Survey Design. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.surveyquestionexperts.com/question-examples/social-mediasurvey-questions.html Social networking Questionnaire. (n.d.). Online Market Research. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.marketest.co.uk/market-research-questionnaire/47/social-networkwebsites Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt P, Joseph S,Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, StewartBrown S (2007) The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation, Health and Quality of Life Outcome; 5:63 doi:101186/1477-7252-5-6

38

Social Media Use and Well-Being

39

Suggest Documents