Psychology of Social Networking

Online Social Networking 1

Running head: Online Social Networking

Online Social Networking: Why Does Everyone Do It?

Lauren L. Gundrum

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York


Abstract

Of all the topics one can discuss in popular psychology, social networking is one of

the most fascinating because it has spread virally over the last several years. With

over 500 million active users, Facebook is by far the most popular social network.

The reason Facebook is so successful is because it has become the place to build

one’s identity online. It has also redefined the way people communicate, allowing us

to satisfy belongingness needs even when we cannot physically be with our friends.

Some studies have examined predictors of Facebook use, such as low self-esteem

and narcissism, and others have explored the effects of social networking on

relationships and loneliness. Generally, research on the psychology of social

networking is sparse, and research that has been done focuses solely on Facebook

or MySpace (Facebook’s predecessor). Recently, however, several newer social

networks such as Twitter and Foursquare have emerged and are becoming

increasingly popular. Given that these new social networks are qualitatively

different from Facebook in terms of interactions between users and game

mechanics (e.g. points and awards for certain behaviors), the type of users that they

attract and their effects on relationships might also be different. Research regarding

psychological effects and correlates of Twitter and Foursquare use is needed.


Online Social Networking: Why Does Everyone Do It?

Of all the topics one can discuss in popular psychology, social networking is

one of the most fascinating because it has spread virally over the last several years.

When Google was born, it revolutionized the way people communicated and how

quickly and easily we could access information. Nobody ever thought another web

application could have as much of an impact as Google. Then Facebook came along

and started owning everyone’s online identity. Twitter is quickly becoming just as

ubiquitous, and there are several other online social communities that have millions

of users and see more activity than any academic journal or news source ever will.

So what is it about social networks that makes them so appealing?

There are several angles from which one could approach answering this

question. The psychological research on social networking is sparse, mostly

because it is a relatively new topic. Most of the work that has been done focuses on

individual differences and correlates between personality characteristics and the

tendency to use community-building social networks such as Facebook.

Some theoretical papers outline reasons for using Facebook as well as how

social networking can satisfy basic human needs. Park, Kee, and Valenzuela (2009)

conducted an Internet survey of 1,715 college-age Facebook users to determine

their reasons for using Facebook Groups. The authors gave them a list of 16

possible reasons such as “To get peer support,” “To make myself look cool,” and “To

learn about on-campus events.” The authors performed a factor analysis on the

responses, and were able to group the reasons for use into four factors:

socialization, entertainment, self-status seeking, and information seeking.


Bouman, Hoogenboom, Jansen, Schoondorp, de Bruin and Huizing (2008)

wrote a theoretical paper entitled “The Realm of Sociality: Notes on the Design of

Social Software” in which they outlined different ways that social networks can be

designed to satisfy needs such as Park et al.’s (2009) use cases. As the authors aptly

stated, “socialization can’t be designed, it can only be designed for;” in other words,

social networks should facilitate socialization. Thus, social networks should be

designed to enable an existing practice, to mimic reality, to actualize the self, or to

build identity.

With over 500 million active users, Facebook is by far the most popular social

network. The reason Facebook is so successful is because it has become the place to

build one’s identity online, and it has redefined the way people communicate.

Facebook enables users to add their information and pictures, connect with their

friends, and talk to their friends all in one centralized location. Facebook builds a

community so successfully because it exploits the need for belongingness, which

according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs comes third only to physiological and

safety needs (Maslow, 1943). Facebook satisfies this need by making it easier to

communicate with your core group of friends, and to remain in contact with them

even when you are not physically together. Facebook also facilitates face-to-face

interactions by allowing users to organize events. Additionally, it helps users

connect with people with whom they would not otherwise stay in contact. There is

no limit to the number of Facebook friends users can have, so it is easy to keep tabs

on people.


Facebook has become so successful at allowing users to build their online

identities (including their network of friends) that other social networks and

applications literally depend on Facebook to attract users. Applications such as

Twitter, Foursquare, Flickr, Color, Tumblr, Redrover, and many others all allow

users to “connect with Facebook” rather than creating unique log-in information.

The rationale for these applications to include a “log-in with Facebook” option is

that it is more fun for users to engage in any type of activity when their friends are

watching. By connecting with Facebook, users can share their activity on the new

site (Twitter, Foursquare, etc) on their Facebook walls, which allows their friends to

see, comment, or like it.

The Facebook wall is the central means of communication on Facebook. It is

a public forum where users can post, comment on, and like each other’s statuses.

The notion of comments and likes are another way that Facebook inspires repeat

user engagement. These features allow users to engage in self-status seeking. The

like acts as approval, showing users that they have the support and admiration of

their friends, and increasing their self-esteem. The sheer number of friends a user

has is another element of self-status seeking - the greater the number, the higher a

user’s status amongst his or her friends. Achieving the highest number of friends

inspires competition amongst users, and makes Facebook activity cyclical.

An interesting question that arises when discussing Facebook is why it has

been so much more successful than its predecessors. Facebook is not the first

community-building social network; MySpace was moderately popular several years

before Facebook came out and still maintains a decent user base. However, it has


not had nearly the viral impact that Facebook has. Part of the reason that MySpace

has not seen Facebook’s success is because Facebook draws on principles in social

psychology much more effectively: it does a better job facilitating communication,

helping users build identity, inspiring competition, and allowing self-status seeking.

Facebook’s superior implementation began with their release strategy. Facebook

was released one university at a time, which made it seem more exclusive and more

sophisticated. Users felt more comfortable sharing their real names and

information with their classmates, so it was easier to find their friends. MySpace

catered to the high school crowd from the beginning and had no feelings of

exclusivity, so users often acted under screen names. Screen names made it harder

to find friends, so it was harder to build a community. Even the difference in the

two slogans reflects differences in the degree to which the two social networks

inspire feelings of belongingness: Facebook’s slogan is “connect with your friends”

while MySpace’s slogan is “social entertainment.” Ironically, MySpace has begun

allowing users to connect with Facebook.

Generally, research has established the narcissism and self-esteem levels are

related to frequency of social network use (e.g. Buffardi and Campbell, 2008;

Mehdizadeh, 2010). Buffardi and Campbell (2008) examined narcissism as it relates

to levels of social networking on Facebook, content of the profile page, as well as

perceptions of narcissism by others. Participants (N=129) completed the

Narcissistic Personality inventory, and independent coders coded their Facebook

pages for number of friends, number of wall posts, number of groups, and number of

lines of text in the “about me” section. Coders also rated the “about me” and quotes


sections, the profile picture, and the first 20 photos of the user on characteristics

such as self-absorbed, self-conscious, self-important, self-promoting, and self-

centered. Raters also gave their impression of the degree to which the user was

narcissistic.

The authors found that narcissism was related to the number of friends and

wall posts, but not to the length of the self-descriptions. Narcissism was also related

to self-promoting information in the “about me” section, self-promoting information

in the quotes, and profile picture attractiveness. Raters’ narcissistic impressions of

the participants were related to the number of social interactions along with the

extent to which the profile picture was attractive and self-promoting.

Mehdizadeh (2010) conducted a similar study, assessing how narcissism (as

measured by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory or NPI-6) and self-esteem (as

measured by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) related to Facebook activity and self-

promotional content features. Raters coded the “about me” section, the profile

picture, the first 20 photos of the user, the notes, and status updates. Quotes were

also coded for the use of positive adjectives, self-promoting mottos, and metaphors.

For example, quotes such as “I’m so glamorous I bleed glitter” were considered self-

promoting, and quotes such as “A girl should always be two things: classy and

fabulous” were considered metaphorical. Self-promoting in the profile picture was

based on facial expression, picture enhancing (i.e. using photo editing software), and

whether the user wore revealing clothing.

Results indicated a positive correlation between scores on the NPI-6, the

number of times Facebook was checked per day, and time spent on Facebook per


session. Additionally, narcissism was positively correlated with self-promotion in

the profile picture, first 20 photos of the user, and status updates. However,

narcissism was not correlated with self-promotion in the “about me” section. Some

gender differences emerged, with males displaying more self-promotional

information in the “about me” section and women displaying more self-promotional

profile pictures. Apparently, women were more likely to self-promote by “showing”

whereas men were more likely to self-promote by “telling.”

Interestingly, self-esteem was negatively correlated with Facebook activity.

Specifically, individuals who scored lower on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

logged on to Facebook more times each day and spent more time per session on

Facebook. Lower self-esteem was also related to more self-promotion in the profile

picture. Mehdizedeh (2010) interpreted these results to mean that individuals with

low self-esteem utilized Facebook to project their idealized selves. That is, while

users could not project the hoped-for idealized self in face-to-face interactions

because of unattractive appearance or shyness, online environments provide a

“gate” for these individuals to actualize their hoped-for identities. The negative

correlation between self-esteem and profile picture self-promotion could indicate

an attempt to cover up undesirable physical features.

Wilson, Fornasier, and White (2010) took these studies a step further by

examining personality characteristics and levels of self-esteem as predictors of use

and addictive tendency toward the use of social networks (Facebook and MySpace).

Participants completed the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (FFI, which assesses

neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness), the


Coppersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI), and the Addictive Tendencies Scale

(which measures importance of the social network, inability to control social

network use, and withdrawal symptoms participants experienced when they were

unable to access their social network sites).

Results indicated that unconscientiousness and extroversion were positively

correlated with social network use. This result was counterintuitive given previous

research (e.g. Amiel, 2004; Goby, 2006) indicating that extraverts do not view the

Internet as an appropriate replacement for face-to-face interactions. However, this

previous research focused on the Internet in general, which may be qualitatively

different from social network use. Another surprising finding was that self-esteem

was unrelated to social network use. It is possible that while individuals with low

self-esteem use social networks as a substitute for self-actualization in face-to-face

interactions to actualize, individuals with high self-esteem use social networks as a

supplement to face-to-face interactions. Predictors of addictive tendencies were

similar to predictors of social network use. Extroversion was positively correlated

and conscientiousness was negatively correlated with addictive tendencies. Self-

esteem and addictive tendencies were unrelated.

Going even more in depth into predictors of Facebook use, Stefanone,

Lackaff, and Rosen (2011) evaluated contingencies of self-worth and social-

networking behavior, with the expectation that contingencies more specific than

self-esteem might add explanatory power to models of people’s online behavior.

The authors examined approval, appearance, competition, academic achievement,

family support, virtue, and God’s love as antecedents to specific online behaviors


(e.g. time online and photo sharing). Correlation analyses revealed that many

contingencies were related, so the contingencies were reduced to two factors: public

contingencies (appearance, approval, and competition) and private contingencies

(family support, virtue, and God’s love). Results indicated that participants who

identified with public contingencies of self-worth spent more time managing their

social networks and shared more photos. Females spent more time managing their

social network than males, and young people had larger social networks and were

more promiscuous in terms of sending friend requests to others.

In addition to research on psychological predictors of social network use,

some work has explored the effects of social network use on psychological well-

being and the self. Gonzales and Hancock (2011) examined mechanisms by which

Facebook affects self-esteem levels. Two competing theories were presented. The

Objective Self-Awareness Theory (Duval and Wucklund, 1972) posits that Facebook

would increase participants’ objective self-awareness, causing them to evaluate

themselves based on broad social standards and norms, which would increase

humility and result in lower self-esteem. By contrast, the Hyperpersonal Model

(Walther, 1996) argues that Facebook allows users to selectively present

themselves, choosing which aspects they would like to emphasize. Recent research

in computer-mediated communication (CMC) suggests that selective self-

presentations can become integrated into our self-views (Gonzales and Hancock,

2008). Since individuals usually choose to emphasize their positive aspects online,

identity shift incorporating this self-presentation would increase self-esteem.


Results were consistent with the Hyperpersonal Model, indicating that Facebook

users engaged in selective self-presentation, which increased their self-esteem.

Some research on avatar-creation supports the notion that selective self-

presentation in virtual environments may have a positive effect. Jin (2009)

examined the effects of priming the actual self versus the idealized self on users’

interaction and immersion into an avatar-based exercise video game (Wii Fit).

Overall, users who created an avatar reflecting their ideal self perceived the game as

more interactive than users who created an avatar reflecting their actual self.

However, users who were primed with hope and aspirations about weight loss

experienced less immersion in the game when they were then primed to create the

ideal self versus the actual self. That is, the effect of priming hope and aspirations

was moderated by the actual-ideal self-concept discrepancy, with self-discrepancy

leading to less immersion in the exercise game.

It is interesting that self-discrepancy can have a positive effect in some

situations and negative effect in others. Drawing on self-discrepancy theory

(Festinger, 1957; Higgins, 1987), perhaps users who created avatars mirroring the

ideal self were motivated to exercise in order to obtain the physical appearance of

the ideal self, thereby reducing discomfort caused by the discrepancy. It also makes

some intuitive sense that hope would increase activity when users were focused on

how they look rather than how they would like to look. That is, users primed with

the actual self may be motivated to exercise when they feel hopeful, but feelings of

hope may be “washed out” when users are primed with the ideal self and experience

feelings of discrepancy. This explanation would be somewhat consistent with self-


discrepancy theory, which states that anxiety can arise from discrepancies between

one’s actual and ideal selves (Higgins, 1987). It would be interesting to determine

the extent to which social network users choose to construct their ideal versus

actual selves in their social network profiles, and the psychological effects of doing

so.

Another somewhat popular topic in this area is how social networking affects

relationships and feelings of belongingness. Ong, Chang, and Wang (2011)

examined the effects of online chatting on loneliness, in three different contexts:

familial, romantic, and social (i.e. friends). Time spent chatting online was used as a

predictor of how close participants felt to their friends, families, and romantic

partners (if applicable). Results indicated that chatting was associated with greater

familial loneliness because it reduced the amount of time participants spent with

their families. However, social loneliness was not related to time spent chatting

online, and romantic loneliness was actually reduced by online chatting because it

facilitated communication between partners.

Similarly, Kujath (2011) found that MySpace and Facebook do not

necessarily deteriorate relationship quality by reducing face-to-face contact

between users. The study assessed the extent to which participants used Facebook

and MySpace to communicate with friends rather than communicating in person, as

well as how often participants used their social network to communicate with

people they had never met in person. The majority of participants had very few

“friends” in their social networks that they had never met in person, indicating that

social networks were used more for relationship maintenance rather than


formation. Consistently, 55% of participants sometimes or frequently using social

networks to communicate rather than communicating face-to-face, meaning that

45% rarely or never used social networks as a substitute for face-to-face interaction.

These results suggest that Facebook and MySpace are generally used as extensions

of, rather than substitutes for, face-to-face interaction.

Despite the work on psychological predictors and effects on relationships of

using Facebook or MySpace, virtually no studies have examined why people use

other social networks. Most of the studies outlined above attempt to generalize

findings regarding Facebook or MySpace use to social network use in general;

however, other types of social networks have recently emerged. Use of these social

networks may be differentially related to personality traits, self-esteem, etc, and

might attract different types of users. To illustrate differences between newer social

networks, it is important to review their purposes as well as means by which they

attract users. That is, while Facebook is communications-based, many other social

networks are based on competition and game mechanics. Because of these

differences, findings regarding psychological antecedents to Facebook use may not

generalize to social networks such as Twitter, for example.

Twitter is a social network that, like Facebook, has revolutionized how

people communicate. However, it has done so in a much different way. The unit of

communication on Twitter is a “tweet,” which is a 140-character status update.

Twitter allows users to follow and be followed by others, and when users go to their

home page they see a stream of tweets that the people they follow have posted. In

this way, Twitter acts like more of a news feed than a profile page. As such, the


connections that people make on Twitter are qualitatively different from the

connections people make on Facebook. Whereas Facebook’s purpose is to “connect

with your friends,” Twitter’s purpose is to stay informed about what people – your

friends, celebrities, and leaders in your field – are doing. Self-status seeking occurs

when users compete to get the most followers or to get important people to follow

them. “Retweets” (when someone re-posts your tweet in agreement) and “@

mentions” (when someone sends you a direct message or acknowledges you in their

tweet) also serve to increase users’ status and boost self-esteem.

These “gaming mechanics” that Twitter and Facebook employ are great

examples of how the desires for competition and status-seeking are exploited in

social networks. Attempts to have the most friends, likes, followers, and retweets

are all competitive behaviors. Since all activity is shared with the user’s social

network, his/her friends know when the user achieves something, which may boost

his/her self-esteem. It would be very interesting to examine self-esteem as a

function of the number of followers a user has, or as a function of the difference

between the number of people a user follows versus the number of people that

follow the user. Similar to the finding that narcissism and number of wall posts on

Facebook are related (Buffardi and Campbell, 2008) narcissism may also be

predictive of frequency of tweeting. Competition may also play a role in the amount

of time a user spends on Twitter as well as the number of followers a user has.

Another social network that exploits game mechanics and the desire for

competition is Foursquare. The only thing users do on Foursquare is “check in” to

places that they go (bars, restaurants, school, even their homes), and earn badges


for certain activities. The badges rarely ever translate into real-world rewards, but

people still want them. Foursquare is brilliant because they make sharing check-ins

and badges with friends very easy by automatically posting them to Twitter and

Facebook, which most people checks several times a day. When users see that their

friends have checked in to more places than they have, it becomes a competition to

see if they can catch up. Foursquare allows users to become the “Mayor” of a place if

they have checked in there more often than anyone else, which easily lends itself to

creating competition between friends. “Mayorship” occasionally carries privileges

such as discounts on drinks or appetizers, but the most salient benefit is bragging

rights – an increase in status. Foursquare is fun because it inspires competition, it

gives users a reason to share with their friends, and it increases self-esteem by

rewarding users with badges and Mayorship.

While Twitter and Facebook are brilliant at exploiting the need to

communicate, Foursquare is perhaps even more brilliant because they have built an

enormous (eight million users) business around playing a game that almost never

results in a tangible reward. Other social networks also exploit the desire for

competition. RunKeeper draws on the need for belongingness and competition in

sports. Runners earn Foursquare badges when they reach the 5K or marathon level,

so it is easy to show their friends how they have accomplished. RunKeeper Elite

even allows users to live broadcast races so that their friends and family can watch

online.

These case studies only scratch the surface of the social networks that are

available today. Friendster is another community-building social network that is


centered around gaming and music. Status-seeking occurs when users receive

popularity votes and share their progress in games. Flickr and Color are social

networks built around sharing pictures. Etsy is a social network for buying and

selling vintage and handmade goods online. Etsy is an interesting case study

because it essentially has the same purpose as ebay (an online marketplace), and

although it still does not have the same number of users as ebay, it is growing faster

and the users it does have are much more active. Part of the reason for this

differential is that Etsy allows users to have profiles and communicate with each

other, whereas ebay’s transactions are all anonymous. Etsy allows users to

“favorite” items and stores, which boosts the seller’s self-esteem, and users can add

each other to their “circle” and follow each other’s activity.

The common factor amongst all of these social networks is that they help

people stay connected online. Some focus more on group communication, while

others focus on status updates. Many exploit the motivation for competition and the

need to self-enhance. All of them are designed around principles from social

psychology. Generally, academic research on psychology and social networking is

sparse. Some studies examine psychological correlates of social network use,

mostly focusing on self-esteem and narcissism (e.g. Buffardi and Campbell, 2008;

Mehdizadeh, 2010). Others explore the effects of social networking on

relationships, with results indicating that social networking does not necessarily

reduce face-to-face contact and may actually reduce loneliness in some contexts

(Ong et al., 2011; Kujath 2011). However, these studies generally only assess

Facebook and MySpace, and do not address psychological characteristics or


personality traits that are associated with use of other social networks. Given the

differences between Facebook/MySpace and applications like Twitter and

Foursquare, it is necessary to examine the same questions as they apply to newer

social networks.


References

Amiel T, Sargent SL. Individual difference in Internet usage motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 711–26.

Bouman, W., Hoogenboom, T., Jansen, R., Schoondorp, M., de Bruin, B., and Huizing, A. (2008). The realm of sociality: Notes on the design of social software. PrimaVera Working Paper Series, 1-24.

Buffardi, L., and Campbell, W.K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1302-1314. DOI: 10.1177/0146167208320061.

Duval S, Wicklund RA. (1972) A theory of objective self awareness. New York: Academic Press.

Festinger L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Goby, V. P. (2006). Personality and online-offline choices: MBTI profiles and favored communication modes in a Singapore study. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9, 5–13. DOI:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.5.

Gonzales, A.L., and Hancock, J.T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 79-83. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0411.

Higgins ET. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. DOI:10.1037//0033-295X.94.3.319.

Jin, S.A. (2009). Avatars mirroring the actual self versus projecting the ideal self: The effects of self-priming on interactivity and immersion in an exergame, Wii Fit. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12, 761-765. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0411.

Kujath, C.L. (2011). Facebook and MySpace: complement or substitute for face-to-face interaction? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 75 – 78. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0311.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. DOI:10.1037/11305-004.

Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 4, 357-364, DOI: 10.1089=cyber.2009.0257.

Ong, C., Chang, S., and Wang, C. (2011). Comparative loneliness of users versus


nonusers of online chatting. Cybyerpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 35-40. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0321.

Park, N., Kee, K., and Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 6, 729-733. DOI: 10.1089=cpb.2009.0003.

Pelling, E.L., and White, K.M. (2009). The theory of planned behavior applied to young people’s use of social networking web sites. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12, 755-759. DOI: 10.1089=cpb.2009.0109

Stefanone, M.A., Lackaff, D., and Rosen, D. (2011). Contingencies of self-worth and social-networking-site behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 41-49. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0049.

Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.

Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., and White, K. (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.

Psychology of Social Networking

Documents

Transcript of Psychology of Social Networking