Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 253–260Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites?: The case of Facebook Sang Yup Lee ⇑ Michigan State University, Telecommunications, Information Studies, and Media, Quello Center for Telecommunication Management and Law, 404 Wilson Rd., Room 406, Communication Arts & Sciences Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1212, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The social comparison theory and its subsequent studies say that comparing with others can influence an Available online 11 January 2014 individual in several ways (e.g., evaluation of oneself, influence on self-esteem/self-confidence, and efficient decision making) and people compare with others when they are confronted with information Keywords: of others. With the popularity of social network sites, many people acquire or are exposed to information Social comparison of others on social network sites, which implies that people are likely to frequently engage in social Social network sites comparison behavior on social network sites. The present paper examines social comparison behavior Facebook on social network sites (especially on Facebook) using a college students sample. We find that an individual’s personality characteristics (i.e., social comparison orientation, self-esteem, self-uncertainty, and self-consciousness) influence the person’s social comparison frequency on Facebook. A positive relationship between Facebook use intensity and social comparison frequency on Facebook is found. In addition, we find a positive association between social comparison frequency on Facebook and the frequency of having a negative feeling from comparison. Other findings are also reported in the paper. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction social comparison takes place in our everyday lives almost all the time, because people are easily exposed to or can effortlessly ob- People often compare themselves with others (e.g., friends, tain information of others through various routes; e.g., by directly parents, teachers, celebrities, and so on). Comparing with others interacting with others and by consuming media. can influence an individual in several ways. According to the social These days, one of the most commonly used means for interact- comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) and its subsequent studies, ing with others and acquiring information of others is the Internet. through comparison with others (i.e., social comparison), people The Internet provides diverse sources from which people can ob- evaluate their opinions and abilities (Festinger, 1954), emotions tain information of others such as email, instant message, and (Schachter, 1959), and personality traits (Thornton & Arrowood, blogs. As people spend more time online and have been able to 1966); and people also try to enhance their self-esteem and access the Internet ubiquitously, people likely engage in social self-concept by comparing with others (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). comparison behavior more frequently on the Web than before. Furthermore, people can feel positively or negatively about them- On the Internet, social network sites (e.g., Facebook and Twit- selves through comparison with others. How a person feels about ter) are one of the places where many people visit to interact with herself through social comparison varies depending on several fac- others and to see what and how others do. Thus, it is likely that tors, such as the person’s personal traits and who the person com- people frequently compare themselves with others on social net- pares with (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen, & Dakof, 1990; work sites, which also indicates that social network sites are an Buunk & Gibbons, 2006). important venue where people can evaluate themselves (e.g., opin- People compare with others when they acquire information of ions, abilities, and emotions), develop their own identities, and others (Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2006). In this regard, Mus- where people also can feel happy/unhappy or satisfied/dissatisfied sweiler et al. (2006) mentioned, ‘‘Whenever people are confronted with themselves from comparison with others. with information about how others are, what others can and can- Even though many people likely engage in social comparison not do, or what others have achieved and have failed to achieve, behavior on social network sites and the influence of social com- people relate this information to themselves.’’ This implies that parison on an individual can be significant, little research has examined social comparison behavior on social network sites. ⇑ Tel.: +1 517 285 5999. Accordingly, in this study, we examine social comparison behavior E-mail address:
[email protected] on social network sites, especially Facebook, based on the social 0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009 we use a college student sample. vidual differences that correlate to different social comparison most studies about Facebook use have focused on other topics – behaviors. social vidual differences that induce different social comparison behav- well-being (Burke. among college students. they did not explicitly examined the compares herself with others on Facebook and how the person relationship between self-esteem and Facebook use. little research has investigated social Another branch of the social comparison research is about indi- comparison behavior of college students on Facebook. person’s social comparison frequency on Facebook? RQ1-2: How does the number of Facebook friends of a person relate to the person’s social comparison frequency on 2. Ellison.254 S.. relationship between a person’s personality. self-esteem. 2010.e. Accordingly. Because few prior studies have examined the relationship quently engage in social comparison behavior than adults (Stipek between Facebook use and social comparison behavior.g.2. 2008). 2006). Yermolayeva. Steinfield. and the relationship developed a scale to assess social comparison orientation (SCO). 2007. In addition. depression. 2007). we ask: Section 4. then it would be possible to infer the direction of the quency has been confirmed by several studies (e.. depression. Bachrach.1 and the person’s Facebook use (e. if the general psychological characteristics of Facebook users tween a person’s SCO level and the person’s social comparison fre- were known. an individual who has a high SCO (e. According to the authors. of friends that a college student has on Facebook is 358. Amichai-Ham- characteristics (i. 2002). we do not college students is pervasive and conspicuous (Ellison.g. Literature review Facebook? 2.. Instead. and the & Tannatt. 1966) as others when they are confronted with information about how oth. Marlow. the results are reported. social capital (Ellison et al. Section 5 discusses the results RQ1-1: How does a person’s Facebook use intensity relate to the and concludes the paper. 2007).. and Calvert (2009). relationship between an individual’s psychological characteristics Zurriaga. the term ‘social comparison’ has been used only after Festinger’s imately 90% of undergraduates use Facebook (Steinfield. agreeableness. 2012. 1999).g. A sample of college social capital.g. Thus. Prior studies about Facebook use 2. approx. self-presentation (Mehdizadeh. In their study. (Garnier & Stein. people often engage in com- frequently engage in social comparison on Facebook. college students on Facebook. Facebook use Ellison et al...g. 2008).. which makes it easy to examine their behavior search question: on Facebook.g. Social comparison theory Facebook is one of the most popular online social network sites Despite the pervasive comparison behavior of human beings. rather they feels from the comparison. In More specifically. People also compare them- ers are and what others have done. 1984). people tend to compare with 1959) and their personality traits (Thornton & Arrowood. and Facebook use. students has been chosen because students tend to more fre. self-esteem. Kohli. (2008) used the construct of intensity and number of friends) on how often the person self-esteem in their studies. Zurriaga. One important individual difference is the level of Grasmuck.. Kosinski. Correa which measures an individual’s inclination to social comparison.. extraversion. Section 3 explains methods and measurements. identity (Zhao. (2007) and Steinfield et al. et al. the frequent Facebook selves with others to enhance their self-esteem and self-concept use among college students implies that they are likely to (Gibbons & Buunk. 2010). previous pay attention to and base their own behavior on the way others be- studies found that an individual’s psychological characteristics have. Gibbons and Buunk (1999) Strano.1. 2008). Most college stu. students are susceptible to peer influence relationship between Facebook use and psychological traits (e. prior literature RQ1: How does a person’s Facebook use relate to the person’s on Facebook and social comparison is reviewed and hypotheses are social comparison frequency on Facebook? developed... an individual with a low SCO score. behavior of comparing with others) social life among college students (boyd.e. most of col. and self-consciousness). Steinfield et al. Gonzalez-Roma. According to survey data in 2008. Buunk. Ross et al. But their One strand of social comparison behavior research on which activities on Facebook are somewhat passive. due to her desire to evaluate her opinions and abilities. psychological traits such as self-esteem and depression. 2010. and her Facebook use. As mentioned before. private/public-conscious. et al. people com- what others think and do rather than creating content (Pempek pare themselves with others to evaluate their emotions (Schachter. we examine the effects of an individual’s psychological Factor Model. 2008). scholars have focused is about why people compare themselves lege students on Facebook spend more time observing (or reading) with others. The positive relationship be- Thus. 1954) and its subsequent studies. self-esteem. little research has examined the relationship between a person’s psychological characteristics 1 The Five-Factor Model (FFM) separates the human personality into five different (e. 2009. & Martin.. & Subirats. focused on self-esteem as a moderator between Facebook use and For this. 2009). but they did not consider other on the way others behave. parison behavior to make judgments and decisions more efficiently Despite the possible frequent social comparison behavior of (Mussweiler et al. There are some studies that have examined the conscientiousness.. This paper is organized as follows. especially dents use Facebook everyday to interact with their friends and when there exist no objective standards for self-evaluation. The have a large number of friends on Facebook. According to the studies in this strand. Even though ness. 2010). iors. Previous studies have identified several important indi- e. . rather we develop the following re- & Lampe. and Facebook use among self-esteem. See Costa and MacCrae (1992) for more details. and self-consciousness) exert an score tends to be more inclined toward social comparison than important influence on the person’s social comparison behavior. inclination to compare with others. and self-consciousness) and her traits – neuroticism. & which individuals pay attention to and base their own behavior Stillwell. and self-uncertainty) and Facebook use (i. Graepel.. According to a study Festinger’s social comparison theory has evolved into several by Pempek. & work in 1954. privacy issues (Tufekci. well as their opinions and abilities. That is. propose a specific hypothesis. Buunk. 2008). measured by the Five Specifically. However. 2009). Facebook is an important place for comparison behavior (i.. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 253–260 comparison theory (Festinger. between personality and Facebook use (Ross et al.e. 2002. openness to experience. the average number different directions. Maxwell. In Section 2. SCO is defined as the extent to which individuals As will be reviewed in the following section in details. Festinger posited that a person engages in social Lampe.. 2003. social comparison inclination – the extent to burger & Vinitzky.Y. & Lento. depression. 1975. Another major stream of the social comparison research is quently than people with low self-uncertainty. In this study. 2000). Scheier & frequency and self-uncertainty (i.. by others and be more interested in what others think of them. we propose the tionality of comparison. with low self-esteem are more sensitive to social comparison infor- However.g.. A person’s self-consciousness will be positively related with found that students use social comparison as a means of self-eval- the person’s social comparison frequency on Facebook. and another main feature is that uncertainty and social comparison. the level of the person’s affective consequences are dependent on the direction of compar- self-esteem decreases and when present with undesirable people. Scheier.e. Prior studies of self-consciousness (e. some studies of social comparison (e. Stapel and Tesser There are a variety of studies that have looked at social compar- (2001) also found a positive relationship between a person’s self. 1996).g. we develop the following re- A few scholars have examined the relationship between a per. the degree to which a person Carver. 1988. For example. Campbell (1990) found anxiety (Amoroso & Walters. For example. to the best of our knowledge. Based on these studies.. uation. search question rather than proposing a specific hypothesis: son’s self-consciousness and the person’s social comparison frequency. Most McCormick (1994) also found that a person who is less certain of the studies in this research area have focused on different affec- about her own opinions is more likely to be motivated to compare tive consequences of social comparison depending on the direc- him/herself with others. perceived personal attri. More- structs: self-concept clarity.e. and about different affective consequences of social comparison. Frey and Ruble (1985) found that . Morse & Gergen. which will be viewed by others. internally consistent. & 1985. intolerance of uncertainty. over. been conducted to investigate students’ social comparison in class we propose the following hypothesis: (or school). Self-concept clarity is the extent to which the con. and reduce comparison frequency and self-esteem.g. It has been also found that social comparison Buss. is that users can leave postings and upload their photos. 1970). to respond to his/her postings. comparisons to a better-off) are not consistent (i. 1970).. Buunk et al. Meanwhile. especially Face- related to the person’s social comparison frequency on Facebook. Nauta. There have been changes with age. Some scholars argued that present with socially desirable people. Based on this prior research we no studies. With regard to the relationship between social hance self-esteem. Stapel & Tesser. A person’s social comparison frequency on Facebook will be uncertain event or situation. Buunk and Gibbons (2006) following hypothesis: argued that individuals high in SCO tend to have negative affect from downward social comparison (i. Scheier & Carver. Aboud. Turner. Marsh. especially with regard to school performance (e. 1999. Several studies H4a. Thus. they also found that people who are more interested in what others feel and care about tend to en. Gibbons & Buunk. 1985) found that people with high is an important factor influencing adolescents’ identity develop- self-consciousness tend to more care about how they are viewed ment (Abrams & Hogg.Y. ence a person’s self-esteem.. Gibbons and Buunk (1999) found that people who more RQ2: What is the relationship between a person’s social com- engage in reflection on their own thoughts and are more conscious parison frequency on Facebook and the frequency of having a of themselves in the presence of others tend to compare with oth. A person’s self-uncertainty will be positively related to the off).. S. especially use of social network sites. that have examined the propose our first hypothesis: relationship between a person’s self-consciousness and the per- son’s internet use. Intolerance of uncer- tainty is defined as ‘‘a predisposition to react negatively to an H4b. Thus. One of H1. Furthermore.e. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 253–260 255 Peíró. 1985). book. According to the investigated the relationship between a person’s social comparison studies of self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al. 1969. Some scholars have studied the relationship between self. Fenigstein. which consists of four sub-con. no prior studies of affective consequences of social mation. frequency. Morse and Gergen (1970) examined how that people with high self-esteem are more likely to feel positively the presence of socially desirable (or undesirable) people can influ- from comparison regardless of the direction of comparison (i..3. They found that when a person is upward or downward comparison). A person’s self-esteem will be negatively related to the quency is related to the frequency that the person feels negatively person’s social comparison frequency on Facebook. 2005). Most of them have consciousness and the person’s social comparison frequency. & Dugas. Thus.e. some people have negative affect from the upward comparison. 1975). negative feeling from comparison on Facebook? ers more frequently. Butzer and Kuiper (2006) they can leave comments on other’s postings.e. Gosselin. upward comparisons tend to generate negative affect (Marsh ison more frequently than people with high self-esteem and people & Parker... ison. A person’s social comparison orientation will be positively the main characteristics of social network sites. 1984. One of the primary topics of these studies has been why adolescents engage in social comparison. They claimed that in general downward comparisons en- the opposite is true. ison behavior among adolescents and youths. Weary. (1990) found cial comparison behavior. we also propose the following hypothesis: and temporally stable (Campbell et al. generate positive emotions. 2001) found a positive relationship between tents of an individual’s self-concept (e. Gibbons and Buunk (1999) also found a negative relation- comparison examined the relationship between a person’s social ship between a person’s self-esteem and her social comparison comparison frequency and the frequency of the person having a frequency. Some scholars looked at how social comparison behavior selves than people with low self-consciousness. we are interested in examining how a person’s social comparison fre- H3. a person’s self-consciousness and the person’s social comparison butes) are clearly and confidently defined. we propose the following hypothesis: negative or positive affect from comparison. Thus. In con- that people with low self-esteem tend to engage in social compar- trast. while Other scholars have studied the influence of self-esteem on so- others have positive affect). Butzer and Kuiper found that people with high self-uncertainty are likely to engage in social comparison more fre. & Gosalvez.. 1975.g. comparison to a worse- H2. Morse & Gergen. and depression. Butler. it is possible that people with high self-conscious- feels uncertain about herself). ness more care about how others respond to their postings. son (i.. from comparison on Facebook. Social comparison among adolescents and youths gage in social comparison more frequently than people who are less interested in what others feel and care about. 2. independent of its probability of positively related to the degree to which the person expects others occurrence and its associated consequences’’ (Ladouceur. 1998). anxiety. but the affective consequences from upward social compari- person’s social comparison frequency on Facebook. and ‘‘I always pay a lot of attention analysis.3. These questions were than younger students. Letarte.’’ .1. the 5-point Likert scale items developed by Campbell et al. twelve To assess the frequency of social comparison on Facebook. Monteil. construct. I become nervous and jumpy. The level of reliability of each scale (i. imately how many Facebook friends do you have at MSU?’’. (2007) were used. Examples are: ‘‘I often compare how year = 31%. several studies have examined whom adolescents To measure the number of friends of a person on Facebook. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 253–260 comparisons related to personal aspects of peers reduced with age. Frequency of social comparison on Facebook and depression. and 4th year = 16%. 5 items developed by Ellison et al. 3rd agree) to 5 (strongly agree). 191 were my loved ones (boy or girlfriend. agree).Y. we The answer options varied from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly used a sample of college students.’’ This scale was developed to assess a person’s was 19. Nor- cause those are the primary activities that people do on Facebook. ‘‘When I read news feeds (or see others’ photos). and ‘‘Approximately how many of your (2001) found that students tend to compare themselves more often Facebook friends do you consider close friends?’’ These questions with close friends. is composed of four different sub-con- structs – self-concept clarity.3. Individual personality characteristics 3. 3.5. Among 199 participants. Some of examples of the scale through an online survey. ‘‘Approximately how many of your Facebook friends do you con- dard of comparison). ues) more often than a comparative reference group (a mere stan.’’ reads news feeds (or sees other’s photos) on Facebook.’’ The used. The scale consists which is between 18 and 29. students are susceptible to peer influence (Garnier 3. The students were given an extra credit for their participa. and Genestoux sider actual friends?’’. I often think that others are having a better life are: ‘‘I get rattled easily’’. inclination to compare him/herself with others. Method 3. This is a short version of the original version of intolerance of uncertainty. Aboud (1985) found that older students are more from others’’ A 5-point Likert scale was used. to how I do things compared with how others do things. Measures 3. Social comparison orientation & Stein. Exam- Facebook ples are: ‘‘Unforeseen events upset me greatly’’. intolerance of uncertainty. because they tend to more fre. Facebook use intensity 3. which was administered in February. Number of friends on Facebook Meanwhile. This age range falls into that of major Facebook users.256 S. (2005). agree). I often unexpected situations. This answer options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly question is a modified version of the question used by Buunk et al. 3. respondents Nine 5-point Likert scale items created by Costello and Comrey were asked the following questions: ‘‘When I read news feeds (or (1967) were used to access a person’s anxiety level. 3.1. 2002. which measures the degree to which a person feels Cronbach alpha) is reported in the result section. In their study. Steinfield. Maxwell. and ‘‘When faced with excitement or than me’’. family members. Self-uncertainty level In this section. 2nd year = 24%. ton.. Sample To assess a person’s Facebook use intensity. and Lampe (2011). and ‘‘It frustrates To assess how often a person thinks negatively when the person me not having all the information I need. To assess a person’s self-concept clarity.’’ 3. Dumas.. and ‘‘When I read whereas comparisons related to performance assessment in. and Asmundson (2007). and val.2. The school years of respondents were of eleven 5-point Likert scale items ranging from 1 (strongly dis- distributed as follows: 1st year = 29%. and ‘‘On one day I might have one opinion feeds or checking out others’ photos?’’ 5-point Likert scale was of myself and on another day I might have a different opinion. we describe how the constructs used in this According to Butzer and Kuiper (2006).2.2.. Guldemond and Meijnen ticipants were asked the following question: ‘‘How many Facebook (2000) found that adolescents tend to compare themselves with friends do you have?’’ In addition. For example. Frequency of having a negative feeling from comparison on Freeston. Example items see others’ photos). anxiety. and Ladouceur (1994).3. uncertain about herself. and ‘‘I feel 2011. used twelve 5-point Likert scale items developed by Carleton. tain a better measure of Facebook usage than frequency or dura- dents in two communication classes at Michigan State University tion indices (Ellison et al. The present study focuses on the comparison tendency that In order to measure a person’s intolerance of uncertainty. As mentioned in the introductory section. derived from the questions used Buunk et al. According compare with someone who is in a similar socioeconomic status. they were also asked: ‘‘Approx- a normative reference group (a source of norms.) are doing Facebook users and 8 non-Facebook users were not included in the with how others are doing’’. out of touch when I haven’t logged onto Facebook for a while.2. friends on Facebook are considered as actual friends if they have offline connections as well.4. attitudes. Dugas. we occurs when users are reading feeds and seeing friends’ photos be. to them. ranging from 1 likely to engage in more sophisticated social comparison behavior (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). I often think that I am isolated creased with age. 2002).’’ tions in the survey. ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).e. dents compare themselves with their peers more frequently as they grow.9. (2005). Stipek and Tannatt (1984) found that stu. think that others are doing better than me’’. quently engage in social comparison behavior than adults (Stipek & Tannatt. Rheaume. and their average age ers behave. 2007).1. 2007). self-uncertainty study were measured. Regner and Monteil (2007) found that students were drawn from Ellison. social makes it easy to examine their behavior on Facebook. Huguet. news feeds (or see others’ photos). and Facebook use among college The present paper used the social comparison orientation scale students is pervasive and conspicuous (Ellison et al. Example items are: ‘‘My beliefs about myself often con- compare myself with others on Facebook when I am reading news flict with one another’’. etc. par- compare themselves with. (1996) participants were asked the following question: ‘‘I think I often were used. comparison orientation is defined as ‘‘the extent to which individ- The sample consisted of 62% males and 38% females. The scale was developed to ob- Data were collected from a purposive sample of 199 college stu.2. are: ‘‘Facebook has become part of my daily routine’’. The ages of uals pay attention to and base their own behavior on the way oth- the respondents ranged between 18 and 23. which developed by Gibbons and Buunk (1999).2. which was developed by 3.2. 1984). 66 0.54. respectively). PUSC = Public Self- Consciousness (rated 1–5). correlation coeffi.54** 0. All hypotheses are items developed by Radloff (1977). AXT = Anxiety (rated 1–5).45. self-uncertainty. because it had reduced the reliability level (measured correlation. SCF – 2. EXP 0..77 0. p < 0. Table 1 Correlation coefficients.79 3. to measure a person’s depression level.711 and after taking it out.49** 0.32 (p < 0.e.45** 0.6** 0.78 3.4.72 0.30** 0. IU = Intolerance of Uncertainty (rated 1–5).47. ‘‘I did not feel like eating.01.90 0. and ‘‘I feel that I have a number of good correlated with both private and public self-consciousness (H4a.40.59** 0.3.63 0. 0. SCC = Self-Concept Clarity (rated 1–5).’’ 0.76 0.01). It turns out that there is a positive relationship between a creased to . A person’s (less than 1 day)) to 4 (most or all of the time (5–7 days)). ** p < .20* 0.63 SCF = Social Comparison Frequency on Facebook (rated 1–5). p < 0. coefficient value between social comparison frequency and the fre- ness and the other seven for public self-consciousness. This result indicates that a person who compares with 3. Private and public self-consciousness tends to more expect others to respond to her postings (H4b. and the correlation coef- Self-esteem was measured using seven items from the Rosen- ficient between depression and SCF is 0. p < 0.01).90 4. clarity ( 0. and depression). of Cronbach alpha was .01).40 3. SE = Self-Esteem (rated 1–5).64 0.50** – 8.01).40** 0.89 0.49. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 253–260 257 Finally. A items are: ‘‘I feel that I’m a person of worth.33** 0.83 0.782. SCC 0. person’s social comparison frequency (SCF) and the frequency of having a negative feeling from comparison on Facebook (0. The correlation coefficient be- or friends.89 0.01. berg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg. self- ples are: ‘‘I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother concept clarity.37** – 9. SE 0.’’ tween self-concept clarity.20 2.32** 0.16 0. EXP = Expectation to others’ responses (rated 1–5). DPR 0. The items represent twenty dif.05.88 Alpha – 0. 0. of having a negative feeling from comparison on Facebook. . Exam.01. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.45** 0.28** 0.31 (p < 0.3.41.39** – M 2.Y.07 – 4.60** – 10. Thus.38** 0. ten for private self-conscious.07 SD 0. PSC = Private Self-Consciousness (rated 1–5). supported. which is negatively correlated to self- uncertainty. The item is asking ‘‘Generally.18* 0. scale developed by Fenigstein et al.45 0. p < 0. PUSC 0. and ‘‘If no one responded to sonality characteristics as well – four uncertainty constructs and my postings then it would be sad.48 1. AXT 0.29. at least on an equal person’s social comparison frequency on Facebook is positively plane with others’’. we also report the correlations between the frequency by Cronbach alpha) significantly. This scale consists of In order to answer research question 1 (RQ1). S. IU 0. my appetite was poor’’. We have found that a person’s social comparison orientation is This scale asks how often a person has felt each way during the last positively correlated with her social comparison frequency (SCF) week. (1975). and so- I’m not very aware of myself. Private and public self-consciousness were measured using a p < 0.37 3.54 (p < 0. measured by four different constructs (i. we have developed the following two Table 2 suggest that the frequency of having a negative feeling 5point Likert scale items: ‘‘I expect others to respond to my post- from comparison on Facebook might be correlated with other per- ings when I compose the postings’’.87 0.36** 0. SCO 0.01).40** 0.43** 0. The result is reported in Table 2. and SCF is 0.62** – 7.25** 0. Furthermore. Among ten quency of having a negative feeling from comparison on Facebook items for private self-consciousness.26** 0. anxiety. we used twenty are reported in the gray cells of Table 1. 1989).54** 0. and descriptive statistics.01.01). 0.38** – 6. and ‘‘I felt has been found to be positively correlated to the person’s compari- that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family son frequency on Facebook (H2). DPR = Depression (rated 1–4). intolerance of uncertainty. correlation coefficient = 0. the value in. me’’.01). We have also found that a person who more frequently compares with others on Facebook 3.50 0. p < 0. Self-esteem between anxiety and SCF is 0. the results in to respond her postings.10 0.36** 0.3. * p < .59 0.47** 3. p < 0.31** 0.83 0. The results for hypotheses H1 to H4b and depression (0. Cronbach’s alpha. the correlation between intolerance of uncertainty and SCF is 0. the correlation 3.2.’’ private/public self-consciousness.08 0.79 2. qualities.33** 0. p < 0.’’ Before taking the item out.29** 0.25** 0. the correlation coefficients between them are obtained (see Table 3). 4.46.01) and it is positively correlated with anxiety cient values are obtained.56** 0. PSC 0. The answer options range from 1 (rarely or none of the time on Facebook (H1. In addition to the this study.56** – 5. Example cial comparison frequency on Facebook (H3.34** 0. respectively). Results We found that the frequency of having a negative feeling from comparison on Facebook is negatively correlated with self-concept In order to test hypotheses from H1 to H4b. the correlation seventeen 5-point Likert scale items.29** 0.32** 0.79 0.25 (p < 0.01. one item was removed from was obtained. p < 0. Expectation to others’ responses others more frequently is more likely to feel negatively when she In order to measure the degree to which a person expects others compares with others on Facebook.01).49 3. 0.50.51 0.43** 0. SCO = Social Comparison Orientation (rated 1–5). ferent ways that a person might have felt during the past week.21** 0. The answer options Self-esteem has been found to be negatively correlated with so- range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).25** 0.46** 0.3. the value cial comparison orientation and self-esteem. 13 First. of the ‘social comparison orientation’ variable (i.54 ** .0004* .05. School year .18 PSC . Facebook use intensity and the number of friends on Facebook) and socio-demo- NCF = Frequency of having a negative feeling from comparison on Facebook (rated graphic variables (i.02 . compare with others. frequency when others are controlled for. (R2 = . SCF = Social Comparison Frequency on Facebook (rated 1–5).25* NCF = Frequency of having a negative feeling from comparison on Facebook (rated Dependent variable = SCF.01).40* . we have studied how college students compare ** p < .01. p < 0. Gender.36** .12 .63. we looked at the relationship between Facebook use and social comparison fre- quency. Table 3 Correlations between NCF (frequency of having a negative feeling from comparison comparison orientation and self-uncertainty is more likely to on Facebook) and other constructs.07 . Variable SCF SCO SE Mean SD Alpha Variable SCO SE SU PSC PUSC NCF . FUI = Facebook Use when other things are equal. error error SCO .41 .50 ** . and how an individual’s social comparison frequency is related to the fre- In order examine the second research question (RQ2. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 253–260 Table 2 Table 5 Correlations with the frequency of having a negative feeling from comparison on Regression of social comparison frequency on Facebook on personal psychological Facebook. and Facebook use intensity parison frequency (SCF) on Facebook.39. PSC = Private Self-Conscious- standard deviation size.16 .01 5. p < .14 SE .0002 a few regressions in addition to the bivariate correlation analyses. It turns out that the influence of the SCO (social comparison orientation) and FUI Table 4 (Facebook use intensity) are the most significant when other Correlation between SCF. PUSC = Public Self-Consciousness (rated 1–5).63** 6. Variable SCC IU AXT DPR PSC PUSC In addition. Regression analysis SU .16 . p < . TF# = number of total friends on Facebook. The positive coefficient value in Table 4.10 FUI .35 . p < .20 .44* .2. The results are reported in Table 6. * p < .25* . how an individual’s psychological characteristics influence 4. Social Comparison Frequency on Facebook (rated 1–5).13 In order to see the unique contribution of each variable to PUSC .52** 2.08 explaining social comparison frequency on Facebook. AXT = Anxiety (rated 1–5). 0.001). Comparison Orientation (rated 1–5).345. The results are presented Tables 5 and 6 support this finding. TF#. The mean value. . and FUI and number of friends.07 .001).01.. But it has been found Variable Model 1 Model 2 that a person’s social comparison frequency is not correlated with Coefficient Standard Coefficient Standard the number of friends on Facebook.05.06 tion of each psychological characteristic to social comparison R2 . gender and school year) in improving the 1–5). SCC = Self-Concept Clarity (rated 1–5). F statistic change 18. we ran a regression to assess the potential unique contribu.15 . Consciousness (rated 1–5). This result implies that as a person regards Facebook as Table 6 Hierarchical regression of social comparison frequency on Facebook.41** . How does quency of having a negative feeling from comparison on Facebook. SE = Self-Esteem (rated 1–5).30 ** . FUI. a person’s Facebook use2 relate to the person’s social comparison We first found that an individual’s social comparison orienta- frequency on Facebook?). tic = 18. and School year) in improving the model fit is significant (F statistic change = 6. The regression results in and the number of friends on Facebook. In this study. CF# = number of close friends on Facebook.. characteristics. Gender .258 S.36. F-statis- ** p < . PSC = Private Self-Conscious- ness (rated 1–5). 1–5). SE = Self-Esteem (rated 1–5). we first obtained correlation coefficients tion plays an important role in explaining the person’s social com- between social comparison frequency.e.12 4. composed of four constructs.43 frequency. self-uncertainty are significant predictors of social comparison SCO = Social Comparison Orientation (rated 1–5). PUSC = Public Self-Consciousness (rated 1–5).83 Coefficient . SU = Self-Uncertainty. more important and uses it more frequently. and Cronbach alpha are for the NCF scale.52** -.Y.. Social Comparison Frequency on Facebook (rated 1–5). Facebook use and social comparison frequency the person social comparison frequency on Facebook. Specifically. The results are reported in Table 5. we also ran TF# . DPR = Depression (rated 1–4). Discussion SCF = Social Comparison Frequency on Facebook.19 ..01** It turns out that a person’s social comparison orientation and Dependent variable = SCF. AF# = number of actual friends on Facebook.39** .46** contribution of Facebook use-related variables (i. The results show that the contribution of the new variables (i.01.e. Variable FUI TF # AF # CF # SCF . SCO = Social SCO = Social Comparison Orientation (rated 1–5). SE = Self-Esteem (rated 1–5). ** 2 We focus on a person’s Facebook use intensity and number of friends. composed of four constructs. p < .18 . variables are controlled for. a person who has high scores in social Intensity (rated 1–5).e.01.13 . PSC = Private Self- regression model of social comparison frequency on Facebook.39 .91 .40 ** ** .14 .33** . ** p < .14 .002 . themselves with others on Facebook. we also ran a hierarchical regression to see the NCF . IU = Intolerance of Uncertainty (rated 1–5). FUI = Facebook Use Intensity (rated 1–5).44* . * p < .52** .1.13 .06 . TF# = number of total friends on Facebook.32** -. PUSC = Public Self-Consciousness (rated 1–5). ness (rated 1–5). This result indicates that SU = Self-Uncertainty. ** p < .01.01.01) In turns out that a person’s social comparison frequency is positively correlated to the person’s Facebook use intensity (0.e. the person more fre- quently compares with others on Facebook. (1985). we did not Facebook. book can influence its users (in terms of. T. psychologi- parison. But it is difficult to determine social comparison frequency on Facebook. 1289–1295. more postings that boast is more likely feel negatively.e. The regression results in Table 6 also show that the coefficient We have also found that a person’s expectation to others’ value of the ‘Facebook use intensity’ variable is positive and statis. (2012). The positive and statistically significant that as a person more frequently compares with others on Face- coefficient value of the variable in the regression simply means book. the opposite is also possible. we also obtained correla. students with low self-esteem. people tend to feel negatively when Gibbons and Buunk (1999). 11(4). which is similar to the findings of and Morse and Gergen (1970). frequently on Facebook. S. Y. C. & Stillwell. In order to into account the valence of postings (i. computing systems. If this is the case. G. then the latter scenario is plausible. Children’s application of attribution principles to social of Buunk and Gibbons (2006). Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 253–260 259 in the regression analysis can be interpreted that a person who is it is likely that people feel more negatively when they engage in more inclined toward social comparison is more likely to compare more comparison. then we can possibly conclude that 6. On the one hand. patterns of Facebook usage. Development. The relationships between those variables found in offline environments by prior studies were also found on Facebook. 682–688. (or thinks it more importantly) is more likely to engage in social comparison on Facebook. First. D. then we can say that Face. they engage in social possible that the actual comparison frequency of college students comparison behavior’’. If that people are reluctant to admit that they have engaged in social Mussweiler et al. There can be two possible scenarios for the causal relationship the positive relationship between those two variables implies that between these two variables: (1) a person who has a high inclina. etc. (1969). N.e. it is likely that Another weakness of the present study is that we did not take the person is exposed to more information of others. Abrams. M. it might be are confronted with information of others. intolerance of uncertainty. D. 56(3). & Kuiper.. cal characteristics and social comparison frequency in our study. on Facebook is higher than what they reported. for example. tions between social comparison frequency (SCF) and psychologi- cal traits. because as a person uses Facebook more frequently. and high self- tion toward social comparison is more likely to use Facebook consciousness are more likely to expect their friends to respond to intensely. Butzer. 388–396. evaluation: Examination of a novel developmental hypothesis. Burke. & Walters. (2007).e. For example. and digital media volume. According to Gibbons and Buunk (1999). M. In Paper presented at the 28th international conference on Human factors in vidual’s psychological traits can be this third factor. 0. esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. identity. which is similar to the findings Aboud. and (2) a person who uses Facebook more frequently their postings and feel sad if not. Journal of Personality and Social comparison on Facebook. would be interesting to investigate the consequences of social In addition to the regression analysis. D. Social network use and personality. 41. responses to her postings is positively correlated to the person’s tically significant (i. P. But it is not sure which case is correct. That is. Boyd. Buckingham (Ed. 1054–1073. Marlow. Child ison than people with high self-esteem and low self-uncertainty. Limitations people use Facebook as a place where they can compare with oth- ers and if the latter scenario is correct. it is possible on the regression analysis. Effects of anxiety and socially mediated frequency and the frequency of having a negative feeling from anxiety reduction on paired-associate learning. 317–334. which means that a person who is less In the present study. Bachrach. 26(6). E. & Vinitzky. it is likely that examine how the frequent social comparison behavior on Face- a person with high self-uncertainty engages in more social com. & Hogg. a person who is more aware of herself in the pres. A. (2006)’s claim. 18(4). B. Kosinski. Georgia. and about themselves on Facebook than bad things. MacArthur foundation This positive correlation can be due to several different reasons.. depression. Either variable can according to the findings on the relationship between psychologi- cause the other variable. Y. If the first scenario is correct. Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. Comments on the motivational status of self- (2006) argued. R. D.33. In this sense. But. One of the difficulties in social comparison research is the fact book use makes people engage in more social comparison. 69(4). 167–176. F. the person more expects others to respond to her postings that the variable explains more of the variation in the dependent and on the other hand. people with low self-esteem and high self-uncertainty can engage Butler. Personality and between social comparison frequency on Facebook and the fre. Moreover.. there can be a third factor that influences both comparison MA: MIT Press.. as Buunk and Gibbons comparisons. a longitudinal study should tains positive or negative content) that the respondents had read be conducted by measuring social comparison orientation and (or seen) when we measured the frequency of having a negative Facebook use intensity at several time points – before starting a so. they engage in upward social comparison.01). Child Development. Atlanta.. M. which says ‘‘Whenever people comparison (Buunk & Gibbons. In D. others are having a better life and doing better than the comparer).. variable than do other explanatory variables. European Journal of ence of others tends to engage in social comparison more Social Psychology. We have found that a positive correlation Psychology. Social network activity and social well- being. frequency and the frequency of having a negative feeling. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 3rd quency of having a negative feeling from comparison (i. comparison frequency. high self-uncertainty. R. We also studied the relationship between social comparison Amoroso.. Amichai-Hamburger. anxiety. in order to enhance self-concept through social cal/physical health. M. is valid.. whether a posting con- investigate the accurate causal link. Age trends in the use of social and temporal comparison for self- in more comparison and have more negative feelings from compar.. it comparison. academic performance. we cannot draw the direction of the causal relationship between ‘Facebook use any causal relationship between these two variables from our find- intensity’ and ‘Social comparison frequency on Facebook’ based ing because it is just a correlation. we found that a negative relationship between self-esteem and SCF on Facebook. T. think annual ACM web science conference. Cambridge.Y. (2010). it is possible that Facebook users post more good things comparisons and self-concept clarity. Computers in Human Behavior. we also found an individual’s self. It is possible that a person who reads cial network site and while using the site. (1988). H. because according to Marsh and Parker (1984). series on digital learning – Youth. herself with others on Facebook. In this regard. the valence of the postings that respondents read can influence uncertainty is an important factor explaining the person’s social how they feel and how often they feel positively or negatively. Kohli. feeling from comparison. . Graepel.). 2006). (1998). & Lento. Personality and Individual Differences. However. (2010).. (2006). comparison behavior on Facebook on its users. From the regression analysis.. Nonetheless. Relationships between the frequency of social Second... A. the focus is on the factors that might affect certain about herself more frequently compares with others on social comparison frequency on Facebook. References For example.). p < . An indi. tendency and its beneficial impact on performance. (1975). Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Conflicting goals in social comparison and performance assessment in the Research on Cyberspace. CA: Stanford University Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.. Connection strategies: Social capital for use with general populations1. B. S. S. Social comparison orientation: A new Marsh. 54(1). 1238–1249. (2001).. (1990). & Asmundson. M. (1966). Self-presentation 2. C. Self-concept clarity: Measurement. upward and downward comparisons as a determinant of relative deprivation at Mehdizadeh.. Journal of Applied Developmental Carleton. 28(1).. New York: Cambridge University Press. R. Social comparison Zhao.. H. Self-evaluation. Grasmuck. 385–401.. Journal of Educational Psychology.. (1975). Orr. Steinfield. F. Marsh. & Epstude. 59. (2010). M. Self-activation increases social comparison. & Carver. Research and Therapy. A. J. A. Monteil. C.. Experimental manipulation of affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and intolerance of uncertainty: A study of a theoretical model of worry. 7. New Media & 687–699.. Letarte. Strano. consciousness: Assessment and theory. (1985). J.. Social capital. N. & Ruble. C.. W. A. 557–578. Engaging in behaviors. intergroup behaviour. Stipek. A. (1967). VanYperen. Hinsley. Applied Psychology. J. intersection of users’ personality and social media use.. J. P. (2011). A. & Ladouceur. M.). unknown: A short version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. G. F. Stanford... & Martin. 38(9). networking experiences on Facebook. S. 75–84. 76(1).0: Narcissism and self-esteem on work: A longitudinal study. Norton. H. R. Nauta. 550–562. (2005). Behaviour downs. personality correlates and cultural Pempek. X. & Tannatt. S. G. Guldemond. Human Relations. Costello. 76(1). A theory of social comparison processes. A. Behavior. E. Psychology. better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you do not learn to Guimond (Ed. Gosselin.. 87–104. Correa. Behavior. 1143–1168. Arseneault. Ellison.. 30(3). and culture. R. R. Collins. 61–80. Middletown.. P. P. (2008). Sisic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Journal of Press. (2002). 117–138. ed. (1954). & Monteil. & Gibbons. F. Stapel. J. J.. A. & Dugas. Why do peers’ academic competence. Who interacts on the Web?: The Ross. Y. L. C. Determinants of student self-concept: Is it perspective on those who do and those who do not compare with others. comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition. P. H. G.. X. and the comparisons at work as related to a cooperative social climate and to individual concept of self. T. G. D. Group effects on individual learning Weary. J. implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices.. Trapnell. S. K. S. B. Ellison. L. (2007). 47(1). (2002). & Orr.. 21(1). Friends: The role of peer influence across adolescent risk Buunk. L. Mussweiler. Computers in Human Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Journal of Vocational Behavior. L.. Buunk. M. Ruter. Simmering. & Buunk. 5. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. adolescent drug use and delinquency.. S. Bulletin of Science. N.. In S. S. Social Morse. (1977). T.. 1. 4(2). . motives. Facebook. self-esteem. & Dakof. & McCormick. online social network sites. Dumas. J. and culture. F.. D. 538–549. Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. 31(5). L. European Journal of Social 1816–1836. Peíró. 227–238. the general population. Dugas. C. M. (1970).. & Gosalvez.. 267–277. Rheaume. Social Personality and Social Psychology. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in Anxiety Disorders.. H. & Comrey. J.). P. Fearing the Psychology.. K. C. Children’s judgments of their own and their Freeston.. 1461444810385389.. 933–941. online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. N. & Subirats. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Steinfield. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. P. (2006). K.. self-enhancement. What children say when the teacher is not around: through Facebook profile images. E. G. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1(1). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Schachter... 1–34.Y. M. of Personality and Social Psychology. H. P. B. Individual differences in social comparison: 20–36. Costa.. M. differences in social comparison orientation. & Tesser. 105–117. who. A. & Lampe.. Lee / Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 253–260 Buunk. (2010). & Parker. self-consistency. I... Campbell. R. Scales for measuring depression and anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 247–253. 434–445. B. M. (2000). D. S. (2007). M. 578–586. G. D. B. L. people worry? Personality and Individual Differences. 117–129. Scheier. 15(8). (2000). and Social Networking. J. and the Garnier. Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. 148–156. Journal of comparison: A social-cognition perspective. M. 303–313. A. 16(1). K. J. L. C. J. Gibbons. M. 5(1). R. & Calvert. & De Zuniga. (2009).. and how of social Campbell. (1984). (2006).. intergroup relations.. & Stein. I. J. M. C. 370–388. M. 62(2). A. (2008). Zurriaga. W. 167–180. G. W. 213–231. Computers in Human Behavior. 129–142. (1994). 12(4). 43(4). Applied Psychological Measurement. (2008). 31(1). H. and Society. R. 11. Katz. Society. Journal of Radloff. Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for and Social Psychology. Rosenberg.. A. (1990).. S.. The why. F. S. 2(2). K. Journal Fenigstein. Lavallee. A. Cyberpsychology. (1992). Computer-Mediated Communication.. S. & Lampe. J. W. Zurriaga. C. T. A. User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation Frey. College students’ social comparison behavior.. Z. Maxwell. K. European Journal of Social Psychology. 117–140. J. (2001). Journal of Psychology. M. J. R. Huguet. M. 17(6).. A. & Lampe. & MacCrae. The Ladouceur. 40–48. classroom. V. J. The self-consciousness scale: A revised version Ellison.. Gonzalez-Roma. International Review of Social Psychology. W. Yermolayeva. 29(6). Taylor. An 18-year model of family and peer effects on locus of social comparison. H.. Tufekci. Developmental Psychology. (1999). (2007). Guimond (Ed. (1994). 31(4). 742. R. N.. CT: Wesleyan University Press.. (2003). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in 45–56. Buunk. R. Scheier. Technology. 66(2). (2009). Low and high socioeconomic status students NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI): Professional Manual: Psychological preference for ingroup comparisons and their underpinning ability Assessment Resources.. F. C. Journal of Applied Festinger. A. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.. and use of Psychology. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and Regner. Public and private self. 81(4). N. D. The psychology of affiliation.. (1989). B. Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition. Journal of Personality Turner. (1996).. N. 24(5). 26(2). G. Depression and social comparison achievement. (1985). & Lehman. 522–527.. Identity construction on Facebook: Digital choices in the classroom: Further evidence for students’ upward comparison empowerment in anchored relationships.. P. D.. P. J. E. Computers in Human Behavior. 791–802. M.. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. expectations. M. In S. A.260 S. L. swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Social Psychology of Education. Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. 48(3). R. L. (2008).. D. & Meijnen. 20(1). Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 13(4). Heine. (1959). T. 25(2). 59(6). J. Social comparison. (1984). intergroup relations. 24(1). M.. & Buss.. & Genestoux.). Steinfield. B. & Arrowood. D. & Gergen. R. N. 357–364. New York: Cambridge University Press.. Thornton. I.