The formation of Facebook wellbeing: The perspectives of self-disclosure, social support, stress, loneliness and fear of missing out
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
International Conference on Marketing in the Connected Age (MICA-2018), October 6th, 2018
Danang City, Vietnam
The Formation of Facebook Wellbeing: The Perspectives of
Self-disclosure, Social Support, Stress, Loneliness and Fear of
Missing Out
My Giang Chua* , Phuong Thao Nguyena
aFaculty of Marketing, University of Economics – TThe University of Danang, Danang City, Vietnam
A B S T R A C T
Social network websites have flourished since the age of Web 2.0. These websites are created specifically for
people to online socially connected and interacted with one another, on a particular subject or simply emotion
sharing. The success of such online services has received a considerable amount of criticism. In fact, there is
extreme comment derived from the criticism that social network sites (SNS) are used by operators as a tool to
keep users in front of the screens in order to enhance market control and competitiveness. Driving the users to
revisit the SNS is therefore a critical issue for operators to retain the competitive to understand the affective
behavioral patterns for SNS users to satisfy to the website. By conceptualizing the wellbeing regards an
individual user’s happiness or satisfaction, the aim of this study is to explore the formation of wellbeing on social
network websites from the perspectives of self-disclosure, social support, stress, fear of missing out, and
loneliness.
The data via surveys will be collected from Facebook users in Danang, Vietnam region. A total of 500 samples
expect to receive for data analysis. The results of the data analysis may support several findings: (1) Self-
disclosure, stress, social support, loneliness, and fear of missing out provided by Facebook significantly
influence users’ wellbeing on SNSs. (2) Self-disclosure significantly influences users’ social support. (3) Social
support, loneliness, and fear of missing out are the significant variables affect users’ stress. (4) Loneliness is a
significant variable affects users’ self-disclosure.
The findings of this study provide insights for both academics and practitioners regarding the potential
implications, which serve as useful sources for researchers and managers to understand how wellbeing on social
network websites might enrich and enhance online interactions with customers.
Keywords: Wellbeing; self-disclosure; stress; social support; fear of missing out; loneliness; social network sites
(SNSs)
1.
Introduction
Social network sites (SNSs) such as Facebook provide a user-friendly platform on which people meet and
talk to each other. SNSs refer to Web sites that not only display visually articulated lists of one’s social
connections, but also provide technological features, including public profiles through which users can present
themselves to others. These websites have flourished since the age of Web 2.0. Among SNSs, Facebook is the
most the popular one. Facebook has over 500 million users and every month over 700 billion minutes are spent
on this social network (Facebook, 2011). Past research focused on the wellbeing of people who use the Internet
have showed mixed conclusions. Pessimistic views assert that the use of the Internet and SNSs have a negative
effect on social life and wellbeing (Schiffrin et al., 2010). Nie (2001) argued that the time spent on the Internet
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: chugiangmarketer@gmail.com
20
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
displaced time spent offline socializing with family and doing face to face activities. One of the most important
reasons people use the Internet is to communicate with other people. In a sense, Valkenberg and Jochen (2007)
have indicated that Internet use can have a positive impact on wellbeing. In conceptualize, wellbeing as a
construct being comprised of various measures, which include an individual’s traits such as depression,
loneliness, smaller social circles, and overall life satisfaction. Additionally, SNSs are used to facilitate studying,
forming new relationships, maintaining preexisting personal ties, engaging in self-presentation, looking at
photos and user profiles of other people, commenting on messages posted by others, avoiding boredom, passing
the time, and procrastinating. These activities help individuals reduce loneliness and accumulate personal social
capital, including emotional satisfaction, access to information, increasing one’s wellbeing, and so on. However,
the effect produced by loneliness, fear of missing out whether it has a positive or negative effect on wellbeing
has yet to be resolved. These conflicting arguments are yet to be resolved and suggest that there is a certain
mechanism in which individual traits such as loneliness have an influence on wellbeing, referring to an
individual’s cognitive and affective evaluation of his/her life.
What factors enable individuals to manifest the happiness and satisfaction, especially in the context of
Facebook? Compared with studies on factors affecting Facebook wellbeing, the effects produced by self-
disclosure and the higher levels of social support may experience higher levels of wellbeing are not clear.
Shumaker and Brownell (1984) have shown that social support as an exchange of one point worth noting is that
people tend to disclose themselves on SNSs are interested in bridging, bonding, and maintaining social capital
on their SNSs are more likely to receive social support which is the cognitive, perceptual, and transactional
process of initiating, participating in, and developing online interactions or means of online interactions to seek
beneficial outcomes such as wellbeing.
The above discussion highlights the importance of self-disclosure, social support, stress, loneliness, fear of
missing out to explore users’ outcomes. However, there have been few attempts to address how wellbeing
develops and establish. To fill these gaps, the aim of this study is to explore SNSs users’ wellbeing while
individuals gained usage motivations including self-disclosure, social support, stress, loneliness, fear of missing
out. This study may contribute to the Facebook literature in several ways. First, from the perspective of self-
disclosure, this study demonstrates how self-disclosure obtained from the use of Facebook and loneliness
enables individuals’ wellbeing. Self-disclosure in the form of breath and depth was employed to predict
individual’s wellbeing. Second, from the perspective of social support, this study explains how social support
facilitates wellbeing obtained from self-disclosure Facebook. Third, the concept of loneliness, stress, and fear of
missing out were employed to explain users’ wellbeing. Fourth, this study shows how loneliness, social support
and fear of missing out perceived by users intervenes in users’ stress at the Facebook website. In short, this
study integrates the six different theoretical perspectives outlined above. It provides a richer model to better
examine the formation of wellbeing in social network sites. Such the framework building may provide a
complete understanding of how self-disclosure, social support, loneliness, stress, and fear of missing out may
occur and in turn lead to individuals’ wellbeing.
Research Questions
From the discussions above, it is important to understand the formation of wellbeing on SNSs. To fill the
gap in the previous research on self-disclosure, stress, social support, and loneliness, this research addresses the
following research question:
What are the determinants of the relational wellbeing in social network sites?
2.
Conceptual Background
2.1. Social Networking Sites
A social networking service is an online platform that is used by people to build social networks or social
relations with other people who share similar personal or career interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life
connections. The variety of stand-alone and built-in social networking services currently available in the
online space is described in three major aspects. First, SNSs is designed to help people establish online
presence, build social networks (Ahn, Han, Kwak, Moon & Jeong, 2007) and allow people to exchange
emotional supports, such exchange mainly occurs between strangers rather than acquaintance in real life.
Second, communities in SNSs are connected in networks rather than in groups. Each user can define his/her
community egocentrically. Third, SNSs users are connected in a person-to-person manner and they must
explicitly state their relationship with other people. These make the relationships among members in a SNS
more visible, direct and interpersonal than the relationships among members in other online communities.
2.2. The Facebook
21
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
The Facebook is a social network catered to college and high school communities. Among online social networks,
Facebook stands out for three reasons: its success among the college crowd; the amount and the quality of personal
information users make available on it; and the fact that, unlike other networks for young users, that information is
personally identified. Accordingly, Facebook is of interest to researchers in two respects: (1) as a mass social
phenomenon in itself; (2) as a unique window of observation on the privacy attitudes and the patterns of information
revelation among young individuals. Facebook’s market penetration is impressive: it can draw more than 80% of the
undergraduate population in many colleges. The amount, quality, and value of the information provided is impressive
too: not only are Facebook profiles most often personally and uniquely identified, but by default they show contact
information (including personal addresses and cell phone numbers) and additional data rarely available on other networks
(Gross, 2005).
Facebook requires a college’s email account for a participant to be admitted to the online social networks
of that college (Anderson, 1991). Facebook increases the expectations of validity of the personal information
therein provided, as well as the perception of the online space as a closed, trusted, and trustworthy
community (Sege, 2005). Facebook, unlike other online networks, offers its members very granular and
powerful control on the privacy (in terms of search ability and visibility) of their personal information. Yet its
privacy default settings are very permeable: at the time of writing, by default participants’ profiles are
searchable by anybody else on Facebook network, and actually readable by any member at the same college
and geographical location. Thus, this study uses Facebook as a case study to demonstrate wellbeing on social
networking sites.
2.3. Self-disclosure
Self-disclosure is an important ingredient of tie strength (Granovetter, 1982; Marsden & Campbell, 1984). It
based on trust and can reinforce the closeness among people (Derlega, Winstead, Wong, & Greenspan, 1987).
As the relationship develops, persons are more willing to proffer information about themselves without specially
being asked for it (Berger and Calabrese, 1975). Previous research has shown that where ties are strong,
communicators can influence each other to adapt and expand their use of media to support the exchanges
important to their tie; those more strongly tied used more media to support the exchanges (Haythornthwaite,
2001, 2002, 2005; Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998). People an intimate relationship communicate more
frequently, discussing topics of wider breadth, and the depth of self-disclosure is deep (Laurenceau et al., 1998;
Marden & Campbell, 1984). Breadth of disclosure was operationalized as the word count for each disclosure.
Depth of disclosure was operationalized as the information that makes the discloser feel vulnerable in some
way, for instance, emotionally vulnerable. As relationships develop, the breadth and depth of interaction
increases (Altman & Taylor, 1973). The variety of topics, activities, and communication channels increases.
Regarding self-disclosure on Facebook, Christofides, Muise, and Desmarais (2009) found that Facebook users
tend to disclose personal information, including e-mail address, birthday, relationship, and educational
background on their profile pages. In a sense, Facebook’s mission statement is ‘‘to make the world more open
and connected’’ (Facebook.com, 2013) which rests on its users’ willingness to present their inner thoughts and
emotional states on Facebook. The characteristics of Facebook encourage such self-disclosure (Mazer, Murphy,
& Simonds, 2007).
2.4. Stress
Stress occurs when an individual perceives a situation as threatening, challenging, or harmful and does not
have an appropriate coping response (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). According to Bevan et al. (2014) stress is
defined as “a group of events consisting of a stimulus (i.e., a stressor) that triggers a reaction in a person’s brain
about whether or not there are resources necessary to meet the demands placed on them by the stimulus, which
then sparks a physiological fight-or-flight response”. Stevens et al. (2011) has pointed out that Facebook users
engage in the website as a way to ease stress. Frequent Facebook interaction was also found to be associated
with greater distress directly and indirectly via a two-step pathway that increases communication overload and
reduces self-esteem (Chen and Lee, 2013). Various longitudinal studies have found that stress predicted the
development of adolescents’ depressive symptoms (e.g., Hankin, 2008; Meadows, Brown, & Elder, 2006).
Especially young people experience substantial levels of stress in their daily lives, partly due to the various
changes that are typical for this developmental period (Arnett, 1999). Complex factors contribute to adolescents’
depressed mood, including stress (Grant, Compas, Thurm, McMahon, & Gipson, 2004). In a sense, stress is a
transactional process in which stressors are the stimuli that encounter an individual and strain is the individual's
response to the stressors (Cooper et al., 2001). Stressors are demands, conditions, events, or situations in the
environment that can generate stress (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008).
2.5. Fear of missing out
22
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
Fear of missing out (FoMO) is described as “a pervasive apprehension that others might be having
rewarding experiences from which one is absent” and “a desire to stay continually connected with what others
are doing” (Przybylski et al., 2013). This fear, in turn, prompts individuals to turn to social media such as
Facebook because social media enables them to stay in touch with their peers (Shapiro and Margolin, 2013).
Przybylski et al. (2013) argued that FOMO was associated with lower need satisfaction, mood and life
satisfaction, and was robustly linked to higher levels of social media engagement. In line with this view, Beyens
et al (2016) revealed that adolescents’ need to belong and need for popularity were related with increased
FOMO, which, in turn, was associated with increased Facebook use. Also, Alt (2015) stipulated the mediating
role of FOMO in the relationship between college students’ academic motivations and social media engagement.
These studies highlight the importance of FOMO in explaining social media use and extends prior research that
focused on the role of FOMO among college students and adults. Wortham (2011) proposes that FoMO may be
a source of negative mood or depressed feelings in part because it undermines the sense that one has made the
best decisions in life. FoMO is as ‘‘the uneasy and sometimes all-consuming feeling that you’re missing out that
your peers are doing, in the know about, or in possession of more or something better than you (Morford, M.,
2010). Furthermore, past researches have suggested the effects FOMO may have on behavior, well-being, and
health, through affecting individuals’ media use. For instance, people may experience sleep deprivation or
develop irregular eating habits out of FOMO, because they increasingly feel a need to use media and continually
connect with their peers through their media devices (Oshima et al., 2012; Van den Bulck and Eggermont,
2006). As such, FOMO may be an unexplored explanation for perceived stress and well-being.
2.6. Social support
Social support defined as resources exchanged with others through one’s social ties (Cohen & Hoberman,
1985). It has been widely studied as one of the key determinants influencing individuals’ heath. In fact,
community interaction influences the community commitment of members (J. Heehyoung, L. Olfman, K.
Islang, K. Joon, K. Kyungtae, 2008). The main reason why people join online communities is for social support
and to exchange relevant information (C.M. Ridings, D. Gefen, 2004). According to S. Cobb and Presidential
address (1976) social support can be defined as perceived care, love and support of members of a group. In a
sense, individuals receive supportive resources in relationships developed with friends in their communities (B.
Wellman, S. Wortley, 1990). As for SNSs, the relationships and ties between members provide emotional aid
and information support (M. Huang, F. Cai, A.S.L. Tsang, N. Zhou, 2011; B. Wellman, S. Wortley, 1990).
Members of an online community carry out different individual actions, which contribute to the group by
information sharing about a product or service (R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia, 2002).
2.7. Loneliness
Loneliness is defined as initial interpersonal relationships being less than desired or experienced, including
uneasy feelings, distress, and perceptions of deficiencies in one’s social relations, either quantitatively or
qualitatively (Russell, 1996). Loneliness has been found to be associated with fewer close friends, less time
spent with close friends, more time spent alone, fewer dates and lower friendship quality (Jones et al., 1982;
Kraus et al., 1993; Russell et al, 1980). Studies also have found that lonely people tend to have poor social skills
as well as certain personality traits such as shyness and low self-esteem (Marangoni & Ickes, 1989). Feelings of
loneliness might have evolved as a signal to human beings that their social connections are in need of repair
(Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008). However, it remains unclear whether SNSs provide the same respite from
loneliness as these more traditional media. Russell (1996) has indicated that loneliness is as initial social
relationships being less than desired or achieved, including uneasy feelings, distress, and perceptions of
deficiencies in one’s social relations. Some researchers have found that Internet use leads to negative outcomes
for the individual user, such as loneliness (Livingstone, 2008).
2.8. Wellbeing
Wellbeing concerns what lay people might call happiness or satisfaction (Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 1999).
It is defined as ‘‘a global assessment of a person’s quality of life according to his chosen criteria’’ (Shin and
Johnson, 1978). Wellbeing comprises the scientific analysis of how people evaluate their lives both at the
moment and for longer periods such as for the past year (Argyle, 2001; Kahneman et al., 1999). These
evaluations include people’s emotional reactions to events, their moods, and judgments they form about their
life satisfaction, fulfillment, and satisfaction with domains such as marriage and work. Wellbeing reflects
people’s evaluations of what is happening in their lives, the facets of wellbeing such as positive affect, lack of
negative affect, and life satisfaction show some degree of independence (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Lucas et al.,
23
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
1996). The essays suggest that wellbeing important affective outcome of users’ self-disclosure, social support,
loneliness, stress, and fear of missing out in the context of Facebook.
3.
Hypotheses Development
Self-disclosure, stress, social support, loneliness are widely adopted to determine the wellbeing of virtual
communities. As shown in Figure 1, this essay proposed a research model (see Fig. 1) in which wellbeing is
conceptualized as what lay people might call happiness or satisfaction.
Fig 1. Research Prosomal Framework
3.1. Social support and stress
Soial support in this study is considered as the relationships and ties between members peorvied emotional
aid and information support. While social support has been established, Facebook users are likely to releive
stress (Maija Reblin et al., 2008). If those with more Facebook friends perceive themselves to have a broad
social network, they will likely perceive themselves to have at their disposal a wealth of potential social support,
regardless of actual support provided. As the perception of social support availability should increase the
perception of resources available to meet life’s demands, perceived stress should be reduced and negative health
impacts minimized (Robin L. Nabi, Abby Prestin, and Jiyeon So, 2013). If individual gained social support, they
are able to reduce perceive stress. As Facebook user feel there is a special person with whom they can share
their joys and sorrows, users may deal successfully with irritating life hassles. As the above discussion, social
support perceived by individuals may reduce stress. The following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: Social support is positively related to stress
3.2. Social support and wellbeing
Social support is a communication behavior that plays a critical role in the maintenance or disruption of
mental and physical health (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). Social support in this study is considered as
the relationships and ties between members peorvied emotional aid and information support. While social
support has been established, Facebook users are likely to have someone they can get emotional support from,
they can lean on when they are feeling down, so on. According to Cacioppo et al (2006) members of an online
community contribute to the group by information sharing about a product or service that implicated in the
experience of wellbeing. Kim and Lee (2011) have indicated that with honest self-presentation have a long- term
perspective in socializing and want others to support their social identities, which influence wellbeing. This
essay took a specific interest in the work that social support plays on wellbeing on Facebook Website. We
suggest that if individual gained social support, they are able to have someone whom they can talk about the
pressures in their life or they can share the most things with. As the user feels a sense of social support on
Facebook, they may satisfy with their life in general. Thus, social support perceived by individuals may
influence their wellbeing on SNSs. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2: Social support is positively related to wellbeing
3.3. Self-disclosure and social support
Social networking sites (SNSs) are virtual communities that allow people to connect and interact with others on
a particular subject or just hang out together online (Murray & Waller, 2007). Among SNSs, Facebook is
characterized by high amounts of self-disclosure because it is well-established that self-disclosure is a crucial
element in relationship development (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973). Once of the resources people accumulated on
24
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
SNSs is social support which is the cognitive, perceptual, and transactional process of initiating, participating in,
and developing online interactions or means of online interactions to seek beneficial outcomes (LaCoursiere SP,
2001). Social support in this study is considered as the relationships and ties between members peorvied
emotional aid and information support. As the relationship develops, people are more willing to proffer
information about themselves without specially being asked for it. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, & Lampe C (2007)
indicated that people tend to disclose themselves on SNSs are interested in bringing, bonding, and maintaining
social support. This study took a specific interest in self-disclosure plays on social support. We suggest that if
individuals disclose personal information, including e-mail address, birthday, relationship, and educational
background on their SNSs are more likely to receive social support. As Facebook user usually tell their friends
exactly how they feel or they could confide with friends about almost anything via Facebook, they are able to
have someone to talk about the pressures in their life, share most things with or makes them feel worthwhile.
Therefore, self-disclosure perceived by individuals may influence their social support on Facebook.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed to examine the effects of self-disclosure on users’ social
support on Facebook.
H3: Self-disclosure is positively related to social support
3.4. Self-disclosure and wellbeing
The degree of self-disclosure is often based on trust and can reinforce the closeness among people (Cozby,
1973). Self-disclosure is in this study considered tend to disclose personal information, including e-mail address,
birthday, relationship, and educational background on their profile pages. In previous studies in the context of
SNSs, the effects produced by self-disclosure are not clear. The impact of self-disclosure on wellbeing may be
mediated by social support. This result implies that people with honest self-presentation have a long-term
perspective in socializing and want others to support their social identities, which influence wellbeing. We
suggest that individuals can disclosure, they are likely to satisfy with their life in general. As Facebook users’
communication with Facebook friends ranges over a wide of topics, Facebook user feel that they could confide
with Facebook friends about almost anything, they have gotten the important things they want in life. Thus,
self-disclosure perceived by individuals may influence their wellbeing on Facebook. Accordingly, the following
hypothesis is proposed to examine the effects of self-disclosure on users’ wellbeing on Facebook:
H4: Self-disclosure is positively related to wellbeing
3.5. Loneliness and self-disclosure
On SNSs, people have opportunities to engage in self-disclosure using profile construction, status updates,
photo management, message posting, replying to messages posted by their friends, and so on. Online
interactions using social networking sites such as Facebook foster more self-disclosure, and a user reveals
oneself more compared to face to face interactions (Lee et al., 2011). The characteristics of Facebook encourage
users to present their inner thoughts and emotional states on Facebook (Mazer et al., 2007). People are prompted
to disclose information through profile construction, status updates, photo management, message posting,
replying to messages posted by their friends, and so on. Previous studies have suggested that loneliness would
motivate people to increase their self-disclosure. Komarovsky (1974) has indicated that loneliness generates the
need to share feelings and thoughts with others. As a staple for social networking, Facebook was viewed as
more useful for self-disclosure and social connection for lonely people (Jin, 2013). In line with this argument,
Lee et al (2013) revealed that loneliness positively influences self-disclosure, implying that lonely people
usually lack social skills in an offline context, and rely on. Sheldon (2008) also found that people who felt
anxiety and fear about face to face communication used Facebook in order to pass time and to relieve lonely
feelings. Additionally, McKenna and her colleagues (2004) conducted a series of studies and found that socially
anxious or lonely people tended to form interpersonal relationships easily on the Internet and manage them well.
Online communication often does not reveal visible shyness and social anxiety, which help individuals who are
less socially skilled foster online friendship. Skues et al. (2012) further explained that lonely people use the self-
disclosing feature of Facebook to gain access to the friends of their friends via status updates, comments and
photos, making them feel more connected to others and reducing their sense of isolation. We suggest that if
individuals suffered loneliness, they likely tend to disclose more personal information on SNSs. As Facebook
user suffered no people they can turn to or their interests and ideas are not shared, they are able to tell Facebook
friends exactly how they feel or what they like about him/her. Based on these arguments, loneliness perceived
by individuals may influence their self-disclosure on Facebook. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is
proposed to examine the effects of loneliness on users’ self-disclosure on Facebook:
H5: Loneliness is positively related to self-disclosure
3.6. Loneliness and stress
25
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
According to Russell (1996) loneliness is as initial social relationships being less than desired or achieved,
including uneasy feelings, distress, and perceptions of deficiencies in one’s social relations. Past research of
Cacioppo and colleagues (2002) as well as related findings in the literature (Hawley et al., 2003) show that
lonely people often have greater exposure to stress, are more likely to appraise the events that they encounter as
stressful, have more exaggerated physiological stress responses, and have compromised recuperative processes.
Stress in this study is considered as a group of events consisting of a stimulus that triggers a reaction in a
person’s brain about whether or not there are resources necessary to meet the demands placed on them by the
stimulus, which then sparks a physiological fight-or-flight response. While Facebook users suffered loneliness,
they were unable to control the important things in their life or they could not cope with all the things what they
had to do. Thus, loneliness perceived by individuals may influence their stress. Hence, the following hypothesis
is proposed.
H6: Loneliness is positively related to stress
3.7. Loneliness and wellbeing
Past studies have inconclusive results with regard to the effect of loneliness on well-being. Skues et al.
(2012) reported that students with higher levels of loneliness reported having more Facebook friends. This
finding is consistent with Ellison and colleagues’ (2007) theory that individuals with low social capital use
Facebook to build social capital and experience higher levels of well-being. However, many studies have
suggested that loneliness has a negative impact on well-being (Caplan, 2007; Ceyhan and Ceyhan, 2007; Kim et
al., 2009; Kraut et al., 1998). Ceyhan and Ceyhan (2007) pointed out that loneliness is associated with
problematic use of the Internet. According to Valkenburg and Peter (2009), the Internet takes away time from
the users for social activities and thus replaces social ties, which in turn hinders an individual’s wellbeing.
Lonely people lack social communication skills and tend to stick to compulsive Internet use, resulting in
negative life outcomes (Kim et al, 2009). In this research, loneliness is as initial social relationships being less
than desired or achieved, including uneasy feelings, distress, and perceptions of deficiencies in one’s social
relations. Kraut et al. (1998) has suggested that loneliness has a negative impact on wellbeing. Wellbeing
concerns what lay people might call happiness or satisfaction. This essay took a specific interest in the work that
loneliness plays on wellbeing on Facebook Website. While individual suffered loneliness, they are unable to be
wellbeing. As the user feels a sense of loneliness on Facebook, they may not satisfy with their life in general.
Thus, loneliness perceived by individuals may influence their wellbeing on SNSs. Accordingly, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H7: Loneliness is negatively related to wellbeing
3.8. Fear of missing out and stress
According to Beyens et al (2016), adolescents’ FoMO was related with increased perceived stress due to not
belonging to their peers on Facebook and not being popular among their peers on Facebook. Cheever et al
(2014) reported a relationship between anxiety and not being able to use wireless mobile devices. Because
FoMO is closely related to anxiety and anxiety is often associated with feelings of stress among adolescents
(Kim et al., 2011; Przybylski et al., 2013), it is very likely that adolescents’ FoMO is related with higher levels
of stress. Particularly, in the context of social networking sites, users may feel pressured to stay on and access
the site often due to the fear of missing out and to keep up with relationship maintenance demands (Fox and
Moreland, 2015). For adolescents, being excluded from interactions with their peers and being neglected by
peers is stressful (Frankel, 1990) and creates feelings of stress (Leary, 1990). Therefore, feelings of missing out
from peer interactions can be perceived as very stressful for adolescents. As such, FOMO likely increases
adolescents’ stress related to using Facebook. In line with several indications in the literature (e.g., Fox &
Moreland, 2015; Rosen et al., 2013), and based on the empirical evidence provided by previous studies (Beyens
et al., 2016; Chiou et al., 2015; Jones, 2014). Therefore, fear of missing out perceived by individuals may
influence their stress on Facebook. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed to examine the effects of
fear of missing out on users’ stress on Facebook:
H8: Fear of missing out (FoMO) is positively related to stress
3.9. Stress and wellbeing
Bevan et al. (2014) pointed out that the more time spent on and the more social network memberships, the
higher stress and lower quality of life, thus detrimental to user wellbeing. In the context of social networking
sites, however, studies on the relationship between stress and wellbeing related to Facebook use have yielded
mixed results. Past studies have confirmed the inverse association between stress and physical and
psychological wellbeing. Nabi et al. (2013) confirmed that the number of Facebook friends was associated with
greater perceived social support, which in turn associated with reduced stress, and in turn less physical illness
26
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
and greater psychological wellbeing. People look for SNSs such as Facebook because they may experience a
specific positive affective state and feel less distressed (Stevens et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2013). However,
numerous researches have indicated that using SNSs such as Facebook may be associated with increased stress
levels, thus detrimental to user wellbeing (Campisi et al., 2012; Chen and Lee, 2013; Clayton et al., 2013;
Grieve et al., 2013; Jelenchick et al., 2013; Rosen et al., 2013). Based on these arguments, stress perceived by
individuals may influence uses’ wellbeing on Facebook. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed to
examine the effects of stress on users’ wellbeing on Facebook:
H9: Stress is negatively related to wellbeing
3.10. Fear of missing out and wellbeing
Wellbeing and FoMO we hypothesized that fear of missing out would be negatively associated with general
mood and overall levels of life satisfaction across the general population. Feeling excluded from ones’ social
connections has been seen to lead to decreases in psychological wellbeing (Bevan, Pfyl, & Barclay, 2012). On
this basis therefore it might be assumed that suffering from FoMO has the potential to negatively impact on any
psychological benefits from using SNSs. Fear of missing out in this study is considered as a pervasive
apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent and a desire to stay
continually connected with what others are doing. Przybylski et al. (2013) indicated that FOMO was associated
with lower need satisfaction, mood and life satisfaction, and was robustly linked to higher levels of social media
engagement. In line with this view, Beyens et al (2016) revealed that adolescents’ need to belong and need for
popularity were related with increased FOMO, which, in turn, was associated with increased Facebook use.
Also, Alt (2015) stipulated the mediating role of FOMO in the relationship between college students’ academic
motivations and social media engagement. In a sense, past researches have suggested the effects FoMO may
have on wellbeing through affecting individuals’ media use. In line with this view, Beyens et al (2016) revealed
that adolescents’ need to belong and need for popularity were related with increased FoMO, which, in turn, was
associated with increased Facebook wellbeing. We suggest that if individuals lay on happiness or satisfaction on
their life are more likely to avoid the negative of fear of missing out. For instance, Facebook users may satisfy
with their life and would change almost nothing, because they can share the details online (e.g. updating status)
or they are able to understand their friends ‘‘in jokes’’. Hence, fear of missing out perceived by individuals may
influence their wellbeing. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed to examine the effects of fear of
missing out on users’ wellbeing on Facebook
H10: Fear of missing out is negatively related to wellbeing
4.
Research method
The aim of this study is to investigate the formation of Facebook wellbeing. A survey conducted in the
context of Facebook to measure the following six constructs proposed in the research model: (1) loneliness, (2)
Social support, (3) Stress, (4) Self-disclosure, (5) Fear of missing out, (6) wellbeing.
4.1. Procedure
A questionnaire will be administrated to collect data. The pilot test will conduct to refine the formal
questionnaires. A total of 500 formal questionnaires will distribute to young people. The samples for this study
will draw from young people in Danang, Vietnam. Facebook was chosen as the target SNS site because it is the
second most popular site in the world, with more than a billion members (Alexa, 2014 traffic rankings; Facebook
Newsroom, 2014). Furthermore, Facebook is the dominant player in the SNSs industry, growing daily. Because of
our target subjects are those users with wellbeing, the questionnaires in which the respondents answer the
frequency of Facebook usage is equal to or above four days per week are remained for the subsequent analysis.
The respondents answer the usage of Facebook is below four days per week and will be discarded.
4.2. Measures
The scale items will use in this study were adapted from previous related studies as indicated in table 1
Multiple item measures are used for all of the variables (see Appendix A in English for details). The instrument
used to measure the various research variables is described below.
27
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
Table 1. Measurement constructs
Number of
Source
Item no. in the
questionnaire
Components
Self-disclosure
Social support
items
5
6
Rau (2008)
16-20
10-15
Kyung-Tag Lee, Mi-Jin Noh, and
Dong-Mo Koo (2013)
Cohen S, Kamarck X,
Mermelstein (1983)
Stress
14
31-44
Kyung-Tag Lee, Mi-Jin Noh, and
Dong-Mo Koo (2013)
Loneliness
5
45-49
21-30
Fear of missing out
10
Przybylski et al., 2013
Ed Diener, Robert A. Emmons,
Randy J. Larsen & Sharon Griffin
(1985)
Wellbeing
4
50-53
Note: The questionnaire is described in detail in Appendix A (English version)
Measurement items were adapted from the literature. The questionnaire was originally developed in
English and then translated into Vietnamese .This study used one-way translation, in which the author
translated the questionnaire from English into Vietnamese version as well as verified the conceptual rather
than the literal equivalence between these versions. A pre-test of the questionnaire will conduct to assess
its logical consistency, easy of understanding, and contextual relevance by using 2 scholars who had
experience of human computer interaction. All scale items will be measured using a five-point Likert scale
ranging from one (“strongly disagree”) to five (“strongly agree”). As for stress and loneliness’s scale
items, will be measured Likert scale ranging from one (“never”) to five (“very often”). Measurement items
of six constructs proposed in the research framework.
4.3. Method of Data Analysis
The data analysis will be performed using Smart Partial Least Squares (PLS) version3.0 software. It is
primarily intended for causal-predictive analysis and is suitable for high-complexity research that involves
low levels of theoretical information (Joreskog and Wold, 1982). PLS is appropriate to handle both
reflective and formative constructs and constructs with mixed scales (Chin, 1998). The PLS approach to
structural modeling includes two stages, measurement model testing, and structural model testing. The
former tests the reliability and validity of the research of the research model, whereas the latter examines
the significance of the path coefficient between the variables and evaluates the predictive ability of the
proposed model.
References
[1] Andrews, F. M. and S. R. Withey, (1976). Social Indicators of WellBeing (Plenum Press, New York)
[2] Kyung-Tag Lee, Mi-Jin Noh, and Dong-Mo Koo (2013). Lonely People Are No Longer Lonely on Social
Networking Sites: The Mediating Role of Self-Disclosure and Social Support. Cyberpsychology, behavior,
and social networking Volume 16, Number 6, 2013. 413-417.
[3] Mirra Komarovsky (1974). Patterns of Self-Disclosure of Male Undergraduates. Journal of Marriage and
Family, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Nov., 1974), pp. 677-686.
[4] Shumaker and Brownell (1984). Toward a Theory of Social Support: Closing Conceptual Gaps. Journal of
Social Issues. Vol. 40, No. 4, 1984, pp. 11-36.
[5] RS Lazarus, S Folkman (1984). Coping and adaptation. The handbook of behavioral medicine, 1984 - New
York: Guilford.
[6] J. S. House, D. Umberson, and K. R. Landis, (1988) Structures and Processes of Social Support. Ann. Rev.
Sociol. 1988. 14:293-318.
[7] M. Huang, F. Cai, A.S.L. Tsang, N. Zhou (2011) Making your online voice loud: the critical role of WOM
information. European Journal of Marketing Vol. 45 No. 7/8, 2011 pp. 1277-1297
28
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
[8] B. Wellman, S. Wortley (1990) Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social
Support. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96, No. 3 (Nov., 1990), pp. 558-588
[9] S Cobb (1976). Presidential address-1976. Social support as a moderator of life stress, 1976 - Psycho som
Med.
[10]Morford, M. (2010, August 4). Oh my god you are so missing out. San Francisco Chronicle.
[11]C.M. Ridings, D. Gefen (2004) Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang out Online. Journal of
Computer-Mediated
[12]J Wortham (2011) Feel like a wallflower? Maybe it's your Facebook wall. New York Times, 2011
Communication,
Volume
10,
Issue
1,
1
November
2004,
[13]Heehyoung, J., Olfman, L., Islang, K., Joon, K., & Kyungtae, K. (2008) The influence of on-line brand
community characteristics on community commitment and brand loyalty. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 12(3), 57–80.
[14]Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a
developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112
1984, Pages 482–501
[16]Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Crawford, E., Ernst, J., Burleson, M., Kowalewski, R., et al. (2002)
Loneliness and health: Potential mechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 407–417.
[17]Robin L. Nabi, Abby Prestin, and Jiyeon So (2013). Facebook Friends with (Health) Benefits? Exploring
Social Network Site Use and Perceptions of Social Support, Stress, and Well-Being. Cyberpsychology,
behavior, and social networking Volume 16, Number X, 2013
[18]Maija Reblin and Bert N. Uchino (2008) Social and emotional support and its implication for health. Curr
Opin Psychiatry 21:201–205.
[19]Richard E. Lucas, Ed Diener, and Eunkook Suh (1996) Discriminant Validity of Weil-Being Measures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, Vol. 71, No. 3, 616-628.
[20]Shin and Johnson (1978) Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social
Indicators Research 5 (1978) 475-492.
[21]Ed Diener , Robert A. Emmons , Randy J. Larsen & Sharon Griffin (1985) The Satisfaction With Life
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1985,49, 1, 71-75.
[22]Pettegrew, L. S., & Wolf, G, E. (1982) Validating measures of teacher stress. American Educational
Research Journal, 19, 373-396.
[23]Myers DG. (2000) The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist 2000; 55:56–67.
ꢀ
[24]Skues J, Williams B, Wise L. (2012) The effects of personality traits, self-esteem, loneliness, and
narcissism on Facebook use among university students. Computers in Human Behavior 2012; 28:2414–19.
[25]Kim J, Lee JR. (2011) The Facebook paths to happiness: effects of the number of Facebook friends and
self-presentation on subjective wellbeing. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2011; 14:359–
64.
[26]Archer JL. (1980) Self-disclosure. In Wegner D, Vallacher R, eds. The self in social psychology. London:
Oxford University, pp. 183–204.
[27]Ellison NB, 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 2007;
12:1143–68.
[28]Kalpidou M, Costin D, Morris J. (2011) The relationship between Facebook and the wellbeing of
undergraduate college students. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2011; 14:183–9.
[29]LaCoursiere SP. (2001) A theory of online social support. Advances in Nursing Science 2001; 24:60–77.
[30]Valkenburg PM, Peter J, Schouten AP. (2006) Friends networking sites and their relationship to
adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2006; 9: 584–90.
[31]Berg JH, Derlega VJ. (1987) Themes in the study of self- disclosure. In Derlega VJ, Berg JH, eds. Self-
disclosure: theory, research, and therapy. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1–8.
[32]Schiffrin H, Edelman A, Falkenstern M, et al. (2010) The associations among computer-mediated
communication, relationship, and well-being. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2010;
13:299–306.
[33]Boyd DM, Ellison NB. (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 13:210–30.
[34]Bargh JA, McKenna KYA. (2004) The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology 2004;
55:573–90.
[35]Nie NH. Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: reconciling conflicting findings. American
Behavioral Scientist 2001; 45:420–35
[36]Myers DG. (2000) The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist 2000; 55:56–67.
29
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
[37]Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, et al. (2002) Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues 2002;
58:49–74.
[38]Liu X, LaRose R. (2008) Does using the Internet make people more satisfied with their lives? The effects of
the Internet on college students school life satisfaction. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2008; 11:310–20.
[39]Shaw LH, Gant LM. (2002) In defense of the Internet: the relationship between Internet communication and
depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2002;
5:157–70.
[40]Valkenberg P, Jochen P. (2007) Online communication and adolescent wellbeing: testing the stimulation
versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 12:1169–82.
[41]Ahn, Y.-Y., Han, S., Kwak, H., Moon, S. B., & Jeong, H. (2007). Analysis of topological characteristics of
huge online social networking services. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide
Web (WWW’07), Banff, Alberta, Canada.
[42]Gross, R., Acquisti. (2005). Privacy and information revelation in online social networks. In: Proceedings
of the ACM CCS Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES ’05).
[43]B. Anderson. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
Verso, London and New York, revised edition.
[44]Sege, I. (2005). Where everybody knows your name. Boston.com
[45]Granovetter, M. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. Marsden and N.
Lin (eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 105–130.
[46]Granovetter, M. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. Marsden and N.
Lin (eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 105–130.
[47]Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). The strength and the impact of new media. In Proceedings of the 34th
annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 10.
[48]Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The
Information Society, 18(5), 385–401.
[49]Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship, and media use for information
exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
49(12), 1101–1114.
[50]Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process:
The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in
interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238– 1251.
[51]Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook:
Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 341–
345.
[52]Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on ‘‘Facebook’’: The effects of
computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom
[53]Bevan JL, Gomez R, Sparks L. (2014) Disclosures about important life events on Facebook:
Relationships with stress and quality of life. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 39: 246-253.
[54]Stevens S, Humphrey K, Wheatley T, Galliher RV. (2011) Links among obsessive- compulsive personality
characteristics and Facebook usage. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research 2011; 16: 106–112.
[55]Hankin, B. L. (2008). Rumination and depression in adolescence: Investigating symptom specificity in a
multiwave prospective study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 701–713.
[56]Meadows, S. O., Brown, J. S., & Elder, G. H. Jr., (2006). Depressive symptoms, stress, and support:
Gendered trajectories from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 93–
[57]Arnett, J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54, 317–326.
[58]Grant, K., Compas, B. E., Thurm, A. E., McMahon, S. D., & Gipson, P. Y. (2004). Stressors and child and
adolescent psychopathology: Measurement issues and prospective effects. Journal of Clinical Child and
[59]Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of
theory, research and applications. CA: Sage Publications.
[60]Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress
for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems
Research, 19(4), 417e433.
[61]Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and
behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841e1848.
30
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
[62]Shapiro, L. A. S., & Margolin, G. (2013). Growing up wired: social networking sites and adolescent
psychosocial development. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17, 1e18.
[63]Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarack, T., & Hoberman, H. M. (1985). Measuring the functional
components of social support.
[64]In I. G. Sarson & B.R. Sarson (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and application, 73– 94.
[65]Russell, D. (1996). The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.
[66]Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New
York: Norton.
[67]Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social
networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10, 393-411.
[68]Diener E. (1984) Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 95:542–75
[69]Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HE. (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol.
Bull. 125:276–302
[70]Argyle M. (2001) The Psychology of Happiness. New York: Taylor & Francis
[71]Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N, eds. (1999) Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology.
New York: Sage Found.
[72]Bevan, J. L., Pfyl, J., & Barclay, B. (2012) Negative emotional and cognitive responses to being unfriended
on Facebook: An exploratory study. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1458e1464.
[73]Beyens I, Frison E, Eggermont S. (2016) “I don’t want to miss a thing”: Adolescents’ fear of missing out
and its relationship to adolescents’ social needs, Facebook use, and Facebook related stress. Computers in
Human Behavior 2016; 64: 1-8.
[74]Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out.
Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111e119.
[75]Oshima, N., Nishida, A., Shimodera, S., Tochigi, M., Ando, S., Yamasaki, S., et al. (2012) The suicidal
feelings, self-injury, and mobile phone use after lights out in adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
37, 1023e1030.
[76]Van den Bulck, J., & Eggermont, S. (2006) Media use as a reason for meal skipping and fast eating in
secondary school children. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 19, 91e100.
[77]Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Chavez, A. (2014) Out of sight is not out of mind: the
impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users.
Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 290e297.
[78]Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015) The dark side of social networking sites: an exploration of the relational
and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior,
45, 168e176.
[79]Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Rab, S., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013) Is Facebook creating
‘‘iDisorders’’? The link between clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders and technology use, attitudes,
and anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1243–1254.
[80]Chiou, W.-B., Lee, C.-C., & Liao, D.-C. (2015) Facebook effects on social distress: priming with online
social networking thoughts can alter the perceived distress due to social exclusion. Computers in Human
Behavior, 49, 230e236.
[81]Jones, T. (2014) Students’ cell phone addiction and their opinions. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate
Research in Communications, 5, 74e80.
[82]Hawkley, L. C., Burleson, M. H., Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2003) Loneliness in everyday life:
Cardiovascular activity, psychosocial context, and health behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 105–120.
[83]Clayton, R. B., Osborne, R. E., Miller, B. K., & Oberle, C. D. (2013) Loneliness, anxiousness, and
substance use as predictors of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 687–693.
[84]Campisi, J., Bynog, P., McGehee, H., Oakland, J. C., Quirk, S., Taga, C., et al. (2012) Facebook, stress and
incidence of upper respiratory infection in undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 15, 675–681.
[85]Nabi RL, Prestin A, So J. (2013) Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use
and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking
2013; 10: 721–727.
[86]Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Tolan, G. A., & Marrington, J. (2013). Face-toface or Facebook: Can
social connectedness be derived online? Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 604–609.
[87]Zhang, Y., He, D., & Sang, Y. (2013) Facebook as a platform for health information and communication: A
case study of a diabetes group. Journal of Medical Systems, 37, 1–12.
[88]Chen, W., & Lee, K.-H. L. (2013) Sharing, liking, commenting, and distressed? The pathway between
31
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
Facebook interaction and psychological distress. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16,
728–734.
[89]Jin B. (2013) How lonely people use and perceive Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 2013; 29:
2463–2470.
[90]Sheldon, P. (2008) The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students’ Facebook use.
Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20, 67–75.
[91]McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002) Relationship formation on the Internet:
What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.
[92]McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1999) Causes and consequences of social interaction on the Internet: A
conceptual framework. Media Psychology, 1, 249-269.
[93]Caplan SE. (2007) Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic Internet use.
CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:234–42.
[94]Ceyhan A, Ceyhan E. (2007) Loneliness, depression, and computer self-efficacy as predictors of
problematic Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 11:699–701.
[95]Frankel, K. A. (1990) Girls’ perceptions of peer relationship support and stress. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 10, 69e88.
[96]Leary, M. R. (1990) Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and
low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221e229.
[97]Murray, K. E., & Waller, R. (2007) Social networking goes abroad. International Educator, 16(3), 56–
59
[98]Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973) Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
[99]Kraut R, Patterson M, Lundmark V, et al. (1998) Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces
social involvement and psychological wellbeing. American Psychologist 1998; 53:1017–31
[100]Cozby, P. C. (1973) Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79(2), 73–91.
[101]Rau, Pei-Luen Patrick, Qin Gao, and Yinan Ding. (2008) Relationship between the level of intimacy
and lurking in online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (6), 2757-2770.
[102]Chin, (1998) Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, 22 (1).
Appendix A. Scale items associated with specific constructs
Questionnaire for Facebook users
The questionnaire will conduct a research for understanding the Facebook users’ wellbeing
development, entitled: “The Formation of Facebook Well-Being: The Perspectives of Self-
Disclosure, Stress, Social Support, And Loneliness”. This study will attempt to help practitioners and
provider’s social network sites such as Facebook to understand what factors enable a social network
site to enrich the service interactions and how to manage relations with the users properly. Thank you
for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire. Your response will contribute to this academic research.
Your answers will be treated with complete confidentiality. If you have any questions about this
questionnaire, please contact:
Chu My Giang, Lecturer of Marketing Faculty, Danang University – The University of Economics
1. Personal Information
1. Gender：□ Male □ Female
2. Education：□ High school□ Bachelor □ Master/ Doctor □ Other＿＿＿＿
3. Age： □ 15 - 22 □ 23 - 30 □ 31-40 □ > 40
4. Average daily time spent on Facebook:
□ < 30 minutes □ 30 minutes - 1 hour □ 1 – 2 hours □ 2 - 3 hours □ > 3 hours
5. Average times connect to Facebook per day (You can select more than one answer)
□ I log on to Facebook frequently during the day, but only shortly each time
□ I have Facebook open in my browser while doing other stuff
□ I open Facebook when I get “push”- notifications
□ I check Facebook few times a day
6. Number of Facebook friends:
□ 0 - 50 □ 51 – 250 □ 251 – 500 □ 501 – 1000 □ >1001
7. Frequency of using Facebook per week:
32
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
□ < 1 day □2-3 days □ 4-6 days □Everyday
8. Facebook using experience:
□ <1 year □ 1-2 years □ 2-3 years □ > 3 years
9. Working status:
□ Students □ Working □ Non-Working □ Other＿
2. The aim of the following questions is to understand what and the degree of social support,
stress, self-disclosure, loneliness you received from using Facebook and your relational
wellbeing development.
For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you very often, often, sometimes, almost
never, or never with the statement. Choose one answer for each statement. Please rate your level of
agreement with the following statements.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Section A: How does Facebook support you?
10) There is someone (on Facebook) I can
talk to about the pressures in my life.
11) There is at least one person (on
Facebook) that I can share most things with.
12) When I’m feeling down, there is someone
(on Facebook) I can lean on.
13) There is someone (on Facebook) I can get
emotional support from.
14) There is at least one person (on
Facebook) that I feel I can trust.
15) There is someone (on Facebook) that
makes me feel worthwhile.
Section B: Did you disclosure yourself on
Facebook?
s
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
16) My communication with Facebook friends
ranges over a wide of topics.
17) Once my communication with Facebook
friends started, we easily move from one topic
to another.
18) I usually tell Facebook friends exactly how
I feel via Facebook.
19) I have told Facebook friends what I like
about him/her.
20) I feel that I could confide with Facebook
friends about almost anything.
Section C: The Fear of Missing Out of you on
Facebook
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
21) I fear others on Facebook have more
rewarding experiences than me.
22) I fear my Facebook friends have more
rewarding experiences than me.
23) I get worried when I find out my Facebook
friends are having fun without me.
33
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
24) I get anxious when I don’t know what my
Facebook friends are up to Facebook.
25) It is important that I understand my
Facebook friends ‘‘in jokes’’.
26) Sometimes, I wonder if I spend too much
time keeping up with what is going on
Facebook.
27) It bothers me when I miss an opportunity
to meet up with Facebook friends.
28) When I have a good time it is important
for me to share on Facebook the details online
(e.g. updating status).
29) When I miss out on a planned get-together
on Facebook, it bothers me.
30) When I go on vacation, I continue to keep
tabs on what my Facebook friends are doing.
Almost
never
Fairly
often
Very
often
Never
Sometimes
Section D: Have you ever been stressed?
31) In the last month, how often have you been
upset because of something that happened
unexpectedly?
32) In the last month, how often have you felt
that you were unable to control the important
things in your life?
33) In the last month, how often have you felt
nervous and stressed?
34) In the last month, how often have you
dealt successfully with irritating life hassles?
35) In the last month, how often have you
were effectively coping with important changes
that were occurring in your life?
36) In the last month, how often have you
confident about your ability to handle your
personal problems?
37) In the last month, how often have you felt
that things were going your ways?
38) In the last month, how often have you
found that you could not cope with all the
things that you had to do?
39) In the last month, how often have you been
able to control irritations in your life?
40) In the last month, how often have you felt
that you were on top of things?
41) In the last month, how often have you felt
that you were on top of things?
42) In the last month, how often have you
found that yourself thinking about things that
you have to accomplish?
43) In the last month, how often have you been
able to control the way you spend your time?
34
My Giang Chu, Phuong Thao Nguyen/ MICA 2018 Proceedings
44) In the last month, how often have you felt
that difficulties were piling up so high that you
could not overcome them?
Almost
never
Fairly
often
Very
often
Never
Sometimes
Section E: Loneliness in you
45) How often do you feel alone?
46) How often do you feel that your interests
and ideas are not shared by those around you?
47) How often do you feel that your
relationships with others are not meaningful?
48) How often do you feel that no one really
knows you well?
49) How often do you feel that there are no
people you can turn to?
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Section F: How is your life?
50) I am satisfied with my life.
51) The conditions of my life are excellent.
52) So far I have gotten the important things
I want in life.
53) If I could live my life over, I would
change almost nothing.
Thank You!
35
16 trang
15140
Free
Bạn đang xem tài liệu "The formation of Facebook wellbeing: The perspectives of self-disclosure, social support, stress, loneliness and fear of missing out", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- the_formation_of_facebook_wellbeing_the_perspectives_of_self.pdf
