Happy Online and in Real Life too?

FAKULTÄT BZW. TITEL

Happy Online and in Real Life too?

Anne Suphan, Ph.D. Institute of Law and Social Science - Sociology -

How Social Media Interactions Affects Real Life Well-being of Students in U.S. and Germany

@Apostelschnecke #happyonoff

INTRODUCTION The effects of Social Media usage 1

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

social capital

social support

benefits for mental health

social inclusion

social isolation

negative well-being

positive

positive

positive

positive

negative

negative

positive negativeSOCIAL MEDIA

?

negativepositive REAL LIFE

onlin

eof

fline

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

(RQ1)

positive negativeSOCIAL MEDIA

?

negativepositive REAL LIFE

onlin

eof

fline

culture of usage

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

(RQ2)

(RQ1)

THEORY Theoretical background & developed hypotheses2

involvement in social media

emotional outcome

Emotional outcome of most recent Facebook use*

negativepositive

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

joyful/ fun satisfied informed excited relaxed

bored angry

frustrated tired sad

lonely envious

H1

*Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. (2013). Envy on Facebook: A Hidden Threat to Users’ Life Satisfaction?

general subjective well-being

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

H2

*Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.

POSITIVEemotional outcomes of social media use

NEGATIVE

satisfaction joy fun

jealousy frustration sadness

SNS as part of every day life*

INCREASE DECREASE

onlin

eof

fline

frequency of real life activities

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

H3

*DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social Implications of the Internet. Annual Review of, 27, 307–336. **Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems -

CHI ’10 (pp. 1909–1912). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press*** Bude, H., & Lantermann, E.-D. (2006). Soziale Exklusion und Exklusionsempfinden. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 58(2), 233–252.

involvement in social media

perception of exclusion

cultivation of current relationships* H4 participation

in online groups**

H5social resources***

onlin

e

offli

ne

frequency of real life activities

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

H6

*Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. **McKenna, A. (2011). A Human Right to Participate in the Information Society. New York: Hampton Press.

** Bude, H., & Lantermann, E.-D. (2006). Soziale Exklusion und Exklusionsempfinden. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 58(2), 233–252.

general subjective well-being

perception of exclusion

H8social ressources

(offline* & online**) as important components

involvement in social media

H7position within

society*** as important component

onlin

e

offli

ne

△ individualism*

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

H9

*Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks.**Krasnova, Hanna, and Natasha F. Veltri. "Behind the curtains of privacy calculus on social networking sites: the study of Germany and the USA." 10th International Conference on

Wirtschaftsinformatik. Zurich, Switzerland, 2011.

differences on self-disclosure (trust)

between U.S. and German

social media users**

social media usage△ uncertainty avoidance* on

line

DATA

Data collection & Data analysis3

Profile of respondents:

• 85% undergraduates, 64% 20-22 years

• 73% use the Internet for > 4 years

• 75% use the Internet on a daily base

• 94% have a social media account - mainly on Facebook

U.S. students (2013) Online survey n=490

German students (2014) Online Survey

n=168

Testing H1-H8: Structural Equation Modelling Testing H9: Multiple Group Analysis

digital natives

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

positive negative

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

Involvement in real life activities

positive negative

Digital Life Real Life

emotional outcome

well-being in general

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

offli

ne

onlin

e

RESULTS Estimated loadings & group differences4

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

positive (R2=0.524***)

negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

positive (R2=0.284***)

negative (R2=0.294***)

Digital Life Real Life

emotional outcome

well-being in general

0.724*** 0.168*** -0.124**

0.206**

0.179***

-0.236***

-0.232**

0.375***

0.523***

-0.186*

0.189***

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

positive (R2=0.524***)

negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

positive (R2=0.284***)

negative (R2=0.294***)

Digital Life Real Life

emotional outcome

well-being in general

0.724*** 0.168*** -0.124**

0.206**

0.179***

-0.236***

-0.232**

0.375***

0.523***

-0.186*

0.189***

***p<0.001 **p<0.01 *p<0.05 n.s. p>0.05

!Value (Chi-squared) 1325.984Degrees of Freedom (df)

542

P-Value 0.0000Chi-squared/ df 2.45RMSEA 0.050CFI 0.915TLI 0.906SRMR 0.066

Model fit

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

positive (R2=0.524***)

negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

positive (R2=0.284***)

negative (R2=0.294***)

emotional outcome

well-being in general

0.724*** 0.168***

Negative emotional outcomes are less influenced by involvement in social media.

H1

✔

Digital Life Real Life

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

positive (R2=0.524***)

negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

positive (R2=0.284***)

negative (R2=0.294***)

emotional outcome

well-being in general

0.189***

-0.124**

Positive emotional outcomes of social media use do not influence subjective well-being significantly.

H2

✔

Digital Life Real Life

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

positive (R2=0.524***)

negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

Positive (R2=0.284***)

Negative (R2=0.294***)

emotional outcome

well-being in general

There is no estimated significant influence between involvement in social media an real social life activities.

H3✗

Digital Life Real Life

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

Positive (R2=0.524***)

Negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

Positive (R2=0.284***)

negative (R2=0.294***)

emotional outcome

well-being in general

0.179***

Individuals’ perception of exclusion is positive enhanced by involvement in social media.

And it is reduced by real life activities.

H4

-0.232**

H5✔

Digital Life Real Life

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

positive (R2=0.524***)

negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

positive (R2=0.284***)

negative (R2=0.294***)

emotional outcome

well-being in general

0.375***

Positive well-being status in real life is significantly affected by involvement in real life activities, but not the negative well-being.

H6✔

Digital Life Real Life

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

Positive (R2=0.524***)

Negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

positive (R2=0.284***)

negative (R2=0.294***)

Digital Life Real Life

emotional outcome

well-being in general

0.206**

-0.186*

Both, positive and negative well-being are influenced by involvement in social media.

H7

✔

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

positive (R2=0.524***)

negative (R2=n.s.)

Involvement in social media

Perception of exclusion

(R2=0.940***)

Involvement in real life activities

(R2=n.s.)

positive (R2=0.284***)

negative (R2=0.294***)

emotional outcome

well-being in general

-0.236*** 0.523***

Digital Life Real Life

Individuals’ perception of exclusion reduces positive well-being and increases negative well-being.

H8✔

Intercept/ MeansGerman students

(compared to U.S. students)

Involvement in social media -1.181***Positive emotional outcome of social media involvement 0.346*

Negative emotional outcome of social media involvement n.s

Involvement in real life activities 1.048***Perception of exclusion -1.051***positive subjective well-being -1.046***negative subjective well-being n.s.

H9✔ Compared to U.S. students German students …

… are less involved in social media but more involved in real life activities. … feel less excluded. … have lower positive well-being status.

RelationshipU.S.

studentsGerman students

Sign. (z-value)

H1 Involvement in SM —>

Positive emotional outcome

0.735*** 0.674*** Δ sign. (z= -0.009)

Involvement in SM —>

Negative emotional outcome

n.s. 0.298** Δ sign.

H2 Positive emotional outcome —>

positive general well-being

0.158** n.s. Δ sign.

Negative emotional outcome —>

positive general well-being

0.134* n.s. Δ sign.

Negative emotional outcome —>

negative general well-being

0.241*** n.s. Δ sign.

H4 Involvement in SM —>

perception of exclusion

0.101* n.s. Δ sign.

H5 Involvement in real life activities —>

perception of exclusion

0.218** n.s. Δ sign.

RelationshipU.S.

studentsGerman students

Sign. (z-value)

H1 Involvement in SM —>

Positive emotional outcome

0.735*** 0.674*** Δ sign. (z= -0.009)

Involvement in SM —>

Negative emotional outcome

n.s. 0.298** Δ sign.

H2 Positive emotional outcome —>

positive general well-being

0.158** n.s. Δ sign.

Negative emotional outcome —>

positive general well-being

0.134* n.s. Δ sign.

Negative emotional outcome —>

negative general well-being

0.241*** n.s. Δ sign.

H4 Involvement in SM —>

perception of exclusion

0.101* n.s. Δ sign.

H5 Involvement in real life activities —>

perception of exclusion

0.218** n.s. Δ sign.

H9

✔The influence form involvement in social media on positive emotional outcome is stronger for U.S. students.

The influence from involvement in social media on negative emotional outcomes is only significant for German students.

In general, most relationships are only significant for U.S. students.

DISCUSSIONConclusion, limitations & future research5

INTRODUCTION ⎜ THEORY ⎜ DATA ⎜ RESULTS ⎜ DISCUSSION

… in a nutshell 1. Involvement in social media results more in positive emotional

outcomes than in negative ones. 2. There is no direct significant impact of social media

involvement on real life activities. 3. German students tend to separate between online and offline

sphere more strongly.

… could be better!? 1. Student sample as a representation of digital natives? 2. A third group for testing cultural differences would be useful. 3. Longitudinal research design is needed to test for directions of

hypotheses (casualty).

Thank you for your attention!Any questions?