Facebook profile data, was used in assessing the actual behaviors of participants.
Measures: Profile Data. Facebook profile data were recorded in order to
determine the degree to which one was concerned with image control and to ensure that the self-report data collected in Part 1 was an accurate depiction of the individual’s actual activity on Facebook.
Four specific areas were evaluated: photos, status updates, the wall, and
information section. Items in the photos, status updates, and the wall, pertained mainly to the quantity or frequency of postings. For example, “number of profile pictures”, “total number of status updates”, “most recent date participant has updated their status” and so forth.
Items in the information section were considered image control variables and covered the following categories: relationship status, language, religion, political views, quotes, work, education, music, books, movies, television, games, sports, and activities and interests.
I developed a coding sheet to score whether the presence or absence of items on each Facebook profile suggested image control concerns or self-expression (see
Appendix D). Items in the photos and information sections were coded by recording the number of items posted, or categorically (1 = Yes, 0 = No). The more fields that were available on one’s Facebook profile suggested the use of Facebook for self-expression, whereas fewer fields available indicated a greater concern for image control. An overall scale score for image control was calculated by summing together all of the “Yes”
responses (α = .82). Additional details regarding the reliability and scoring of this measure is provided in the results section.
A team of five trained undergraduate research assistants was provided with instructions for coding the profiles of participants who were categorized as high (M > 15) or low (M < 10) self-monitors, based on a quartile split. The coding stage involved a “test” run, where each research assistant coded five profiles. I checked to make sure that the profiles were being coded in the correct way. I made revisions to the coding sheet to improve clarity and increase accuracy. I then divided all the remaining profiles amongst the research assistants for coding. To ensure that the coding remained unbiased, I did not disclose the self-monitoring scores of the participants to the research assistants, and I made sure that every research assistant received profiles of both high and low self- monitors. Also, to account for any discrepancies between raters, each participant profile was coded by at least two out of the five research assistants. To determine consistency among raters, I performed an inter-rater reliability analysis on the information section (image control variables) using the Kappa statistic and found that Kappa = 0.91-1.00 (p <.0.001).
Once the profiles were coded, I reviewed the coding sheets; if there were
discrepancies between the responses of two research assistants, I used the average of the two values for analyses (e.g. Coder #1 says Participant A has 50 friends, Coder #2 says Participant A has 54 friends; I use 52 friends for analyses). If the discrepancies between two responses were judged to be too large, I looked at the participant’s Facebook profile and made a final decision (e.g. Coder #1 says Participant B has 20 photos, Coder #2 says
Participant B has 500 photos; I look at Participant B’s profile to determine the number of photos).
For items pertaining to status updates and the wall, research assistants were instructed to scroll to the bottom of a Facebook profile and click “older posts” two times so that a comparable amount of information was downloaded and saved for each profile.1 A rate for the frequency of status updates and wall postings was determined by observing the downloaded profile data. I recorded the most recent date a participant responded to a posting on his or her wall as well as the oldest date a participant responded to a posting on his or her wall. I then computed a response rate based on the time elapsed between these two dates and the number of total postings recorded. I used the same procedure to determine a rate for status updates.
Procedure
Interested participants were provided a link to SurveyMonkey, an online survey- hosting site, to complete an online survey at a time and place of their choice. All
participants began by providing informed consent to participate and then proceeded with completing the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974) and Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991). All participants answered questions regarding their Facebook history. Those who had deactivated their Facebook account or had never opened an account were asked to briefly describe their reasons. Those who currently had an active Facebook account were directed to complete the extended version of the Facebook Questionnaire and to log on to their Facebook account for reference. Participants then answered a few demographic
questions and asked whether they would like to participate in part 2 of the experiment, which involved the behavioral measures.
Those who elected to participate in the second portion of the experiment were asked to send a Facebook “friend request” to the “SJSU Psych” alias to allow the experimenters to gain temporary viewing access to their account. Participants were notified that access was only temporary, and that the connection would be removed at the conclusion of the experiment. Part 2 participants were given additional course credit and were entered for a chance to win a $15 gift card.
Once the friend request was confirmed, trained research assistants downloaded the Wall, Photos, Info, and Notes tabs of participant Facebook profiles in order to capture a static image of the profile. The research assistants then used a coding sheet (Appendix C) to assess the number of friends, status updates, amount and type of profile
information, and pictures on the static versions of the participant profiles. Having access to view participant profiles allowed me to compare information from the self-report responses on the Facebook Questionnaire with actual profile data for a more accurate understanding of participant Facebook usage.
Results
Although current Facebook usage was not a requirement to take part in the study, I found that a majority of the participants were current members of Facebook (82.7%). The rest of our participants had either never opened a Facebook account (5.5%), or had deactivated their Facebook account (2.9%).
Those who had deactivated their Facebook account were significantly lower in self-monitoring (M = 8.38, SD = 3.58) than those who were current users (M = 12.63, SD = 3.94), t(231) = 3.01, p < .01. In contrast, current Facebook users tended to score higher in self-monitoring when compared with those who had never opened a Facebook account, though this result was not significant (M = 10.87, SD = 4.24), t(238) = 1.67, p = .10. These findings suggest that high self-monitors may be more satisfied and likely to engage in the Facebook experience than I had originally hypothesized.