Technology Usage as Projections of Well-being: How Undergraduate Students’ Facebook

Activities Correlates with their Sense of Mattering

1. Introduction

1.1. College students and social networking sites

College life is markedly different from high school, in that students often begin to navigate

their life in many aspects with emerging self-reliance, from academic study to romantic

relationship to time management. Many students consider it a challenging experience to adapt

quickly and smoothly into college; compared with other age groups, college students are

especially prone to psychological disorders, including depression (Moreno, Jelenchick, Egan,

Cox, Young, Gannon, et al., 2011). According to Schlossberg (1989), students undergoing such

life transitions also may experience feelings of marginality, and as a result, a lack of mattering to

others. One of the effective ways to address the stress of the transition to college is to increase

and maintain a supportive network (Buote et al., 2007; Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester, 2008),

from which students receive recognition, help, and strength.

Social Networking Sites (SNS) such as Facebook, which are immensely popular among

college students in the United States and in many countries worldwide, provide a virtual space

where supportive networks and social relationships can be potentially created and nurtured. The

numerous functions of SNS, such as befriending, picture sharing, status updating, and

commenting and tagging on content, afford the maintenance of existing ties, as well as the

creation of new ties (Lonnqvist & Deters, 2016). This might lead to increased social capital and

improved interpersonal relationships, both of which are found to strongly correlate with people’s

subjective well-being (Lonnqvist & Deters, 2016), whose improvement may in turn elicit

positive development in social relationships (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005).

1.2. Facebook

As of September 2017, Facebook is the largest SNS worldwide, and has 2.1 billion active

monthly users (Statista, 2017). Since 2005, there has been a steady increase of number of

Facebook users in the United States from year to year, and the number is predicted to continue to

grow and reach 207.3 million in 2018 (Statista, 2017). As many as 87% of young adults aged 18-

29 years old have Facebook accounts, compared to 71% of the general population aged 18-65

years old (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015). The majority of undergraduates

log in daily (Bosch, 2009; Mazman & Usluel, 2010). Junco (2012) found that over 90% of

undergraduates spent more than one and a half hours per day on the site.

Since college students are one of the most active user groups, researchers have found it

particularly important to investigate how Facebook uses could impact, predict or correlate with

their physical, behavioral, and emotional statuses. For example, having a large number of friends

on Facebook may be perceived as a positive characteristic by others and thus result in one’s

increased level of happiness (Kim & Lee, 2011); time spent playing games on Facebook is

negatively correlated with their academic performance (Junco, 2012); some studies have

suggested that Facebook users have lower GPA than non-users (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010),

which implies that Facebook activities can influence real-life behaviors (Bond et al., 2012).

1.3. Facebook and well-being

During college, students take responsibility for their own health and well-being for the

first time (Ridner, Newton, Staten, Crawford, & Hall, 2016), and in some cases, there may be a

decrease in psychological well-being as students move from high school to college (Bray &

Born, 2004). Reductions in well-being can then result in depressive symptoms and suicidal

behaviors (Low, 2011; Keyes, 2012; Hooper & Huffman, 2014). Given the stress that college
students may experience, and the fact that they so frequently engage with Facebook, researchers

have explored a range of well-being outcomes related to Facebook use, including self-esteem,

depression, and social support.

While research findings paint an inconclusive picture as to the impact of Facebook on the

well-being constructs noted above, there is general agreement that time spent on the Internet for

non-communicative purposes such as scrolling through news feeds without interacting with other

Facebook users is negatively correlated with self-esteem and other well-being outcomes (Rohall,

Cotton, & Morgan, 2002; Kalpidou, Costin, & Morris, 2011; Henry, 2012; Burke & Kraut,

2016). Verduyn et al. (2015) suggested that non-communicative uses of Facebook results in a

decrease in well-being over time, perhaps caused by the development of envy. Tando et al.

(2015) found that heavy Facebook use leads to feelings of envy and depression; however, they

also found that non-communicative use in particular is negatively associated with depression for

some people, and suggested that envy is a mediating factor for depression. At the same time,

undergraduates use Facebook actively to create and maintain social capital, which may help low

self-esteem undergraduates integrate into university life (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007).

Wright et al. (2013) showed that students who use the internet to keep abreast of social events are

more satisfied with their support from Facebook, which is in turn negatively associated with

depression.

Social support may be the mechanism through which outcomes are mediated on

Facebook. Users who receive and accept friend requests, or who update their statuses frequently

report greater perceived social support (Hampton, Goulet, Marlow, & Rainie, 2012). Liu and

Yu’s (2013) study of Taiwanese college students also revealed a relationship between both online

and general social support and well-being, suggesting that college students may use online
spaces to ask for help when needed. Nabi, Prestin, and So (2013) found that the number of

Facebook friends is positively related to college students’ perceived social support and thereby

their perceived well-being. Oh, Ozkaya and LaRose (2014) showed that the number of college

students’ SNS friends is positively related to supportive interactions, which are positively related

to positive affect, which in turn has both direct and indirect effects on life satisfaction.

Importantly, the indirect effects were mediated through students’ perceptions of the support they

received. As with the research cited above, this study suggests that it is the quality of the

interactions, not the structural components (e.g., intensity) that predict well-being. A young

person’s identity development depends on the establishment of mutuality in relationships, but

this first requires that he perceives someone else is aware he exists (Elliot, Kao, & Grant, 2004;

Mark & Marshall, 2004).

1.4. Mattering Commented [WZ1]: Made changes and the new logic goes
like this: definition, components and examples, how it
happened, why it is important and in what way, how it
One critical yet under-researched well-being construct in SNS literature is mattering, connects with SNS, but is under-researched

which is “an empirically verified and validated concept from the field of social psychology”

(Chew, Ilavarasan, & Levy, 2013, p. 1). Developed by Rosenberg and McCullough in 1981,

mattering refers to the subjective perception of how significant we are to others. According to

Elliot, Kao and Grant (2004), it can be operationalized in three dimensions: the extent to which

we feel that we are the object of another’s attention, whether positive or negative (awareness);

that we are important to others (importance); that others rely on us (reliance). For example, when

people attentively listen to and/or respond to what we say, or notice what we wear, we think that

people are paying attention to us; when others remember our birthdays, and congratulate on our

milestones, we may feel that we are important to them and they really care about us; finally,

when people turn to us at moments of need, and when we can bring joy to and even empower
them with our achievements, we may conclude that others are relying upon us. These three

aspects collectively contribute to the sense of mattering. Conversely, we might think that we are

not important, irrelevant or even transparent if people do not seem to listen to us, care what

happened to us and get on well without us.

France and Finney (2009) contend that mattering is “important for developing one’s

identity, self-concept, sense of
 belonging, and understanding of one's purpose in life” (p. 104).

Feeling acknowledged and valued by others correlates with positive physical and mental health

development (Raque-Bogdan, Ericson, Jackson, Martin, & Bryan, 2011). Adolescents who

perceive themselves as mattering little to others are more prone to suffer from depression, low

self-esteem, anxiety and other negative moods (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981; Dixon &

Robinson, 2008). Such feelings are believed to partially explain why some teenagers would

behave in unimaginable ways such as suicide, so as to gain others’ attention and regain the

feeling of mattering (Pernice, Biegel, & Kim, 2017).

From an interpersonal perspective, mattering facilitates the development of relationships.

Mattering occurs as a result of repeated interactions with specific others (Marshall, Liu, Wu,

Berzonskey, & Adams, 2010). We feel we matter more to those we have extended experiences

with than to strangers or people we have only just met. Indeed, as Maslow (1970) reminds us,

mattering is connected to belonging: “...belonging is necessary to foster feelings of mattering;

likewise, greater feelings of mattering may increase a sense of belonging” (p. 104). In other

words, when we feel matter, we feel as though we belong. Interestingly, studies have indicated a

difference in mattering among college-aged men and women; Raque-Bogdan, Ericson, Jackson,

Martin and Bryan (2011) found that women report higher mattering scores than men. Marshall et
al. (2011) showed that even though mattering decreases over time in college, women feel they

matter more to their parents and friends than men do at the end of their college experience.

While mattering would seem to be highly relevant to SNS research, given that it

emphasizes the importance of repeated social interactions which regularly occur on SNS, the

specific connection between social media use—including Facebook use – and mattering has

received some, but surprisingly little attention from the research community. One study of

undergraduate Internet use and well-being outcomes found a relationship between Instant

Messenger use, gaming, and mattering, with more frequent Instant Messenger use related to an

increase in mattering, and more frequent gaming related to a decrease in mattering (Cotton &

Bowman, 2005). The authors suggested that maintenance of multiple network ties might mediate

the IM use and mattering relationship. Henry (2012) included mattering as a measure of “sense

of community”, and similarly found that more time with social technologies led to increased

scores on well-being and community, while time on non-communicative technologies did not.

Understanding how mattering relates to Facebook use may help stakeholders understand how to

increase a sense of belonging for users. For example, educators may design activities that

intentionally increase level of mattering, and/or identify at an early stage students who may have

a low sense of mattering and take remedying actions.

1.5. Current study and hypotheses

Based on the previous literature, two hypotheses were created. First, we propose a

structural model in which intensity of Facebook use is positively associated with mattering.

Because one’s perceived sense of mattering grows through frequent interaction with others such

as parents and friends (Marshall, Liu, Wu, Berzonsky, & Adams, 2010), a vital function of
Facebook (Duggan et al., 2015), we expected to find a positive relationship between college

student Facebook intensity of use and mattering：

H1: There is a positive correlation between college students’ Facebook intensity of use and

level of mattering.

Second, existing research on Facebook use and well-being suggests that certain types of

Facebook activities are related to well-being—specifically, activities in which students are not

passive consumers of information but actively engage in communication on the site.

Furthermore, given that mattering results from interactions with others, in this study we chose to

only ask about activities that would be considered communicative or active (rather than passive)

uses of Facebook. We were interested in finding out which of these specific activities support

mattering:

H2: Students who acknowledge recent communicative or active acts will also report

greater mattering and self-esteem scores compared to students who did not report such

activities.

2. Theoretical Framework

Currently, the academic community mainly defines the user experience in three ways. First

of all, user experience may refer to the continuous flow of information to the human brain, and the

user confirms the experience through self-perception. A second perspective decomposes user

experience as things that are special and satisfying. This experience has nothing to do with the

material feel but the outcome of the experience process. And to some extent, such experiences can

change the user and the environment, and lead to users’ behavioral change. Thirdly, user

experience can be seen as a period of experience that costs users’ time and energy. In general, user
experience is considered an individual's unique experience in a particular interaction. Experience

is seen as an individual's reaction and its relation to environmental and social factors.

Having integrated these three channels of user experience (namely, information

processing, subjective feeling of experiences and individual reactions to social and

environmental factors), Mahlke (2002) proposed a research framework that illustrated the

experience process, as interpreted and illustrated in Figure 1. He believes that the process of user

experience is the process of user information processing, and system characteristics will affect

the user's perception, thus influencing users’ cognitive information processing through

technological and non-technological features, and engendering a variety of user results such as

the user's evaluation of the system and interest in continual usage. System features also directly

affect the user's emotional response, which, together with the emotional results generated by the

information processing, results in different behavioral and emotional outcomes for the user.

Figure 1 The interpreted Sascha Mahlke’s research framework for user experience
 In his book Emotional Design, Norman (2004) proposed that human responded to everyday

things on three levels: visceral level, behavioral level, and reflective level. Specifically to human-

computer interaction, user experience comes from the interaction process between the user and the

computer interface, which mainly consists of the macro facet and micro facet. The former consists

of three layers of elements: 1) the appearance layer elements on web pages, including color palette

uses, text decorations, image processing and web page layout; 2) framework layer elements that

determine the placement of action buttons, lists, images and other first-level texts; 3) the structure

layer, which governs how various features and functions integrate with each other; 4) the

functionality layer that epitomizes the provided features and functions on the site; and 5) the final

strategic layer elements that mainly concern with the site goal and user targeting and segmentation.

At the micro level, user experience elements mainly refer to the key components that help create

a positive user experience, including information building, information design, workflow

organization, resource conversion, interface design, and cross-platform compatibility.

The above elements and the three levels of human responses proposed by Norman

(2003) are interwoven in the following ways. First of all, elements on the macro-level elicit our

brain’s responses on the visceral level, which resembles the cognitive dimension in Mahlke’s

framework. Secondly, micro-level elements mainly appeal to users’ reflective level of brain

activity, which also echoes with Mahkle’s emotional response facet. Finally, a third level of

human response, namely behavioral level, may be triggered by both macro- and micro-leveled

elements, and is congruent with the construct of behavioral outcomes in Mahlke’s premise.

However, what is missing from Mahlke’s framework is how users’ evaluation and

behavioral outcomes can then mutually impact their knowledge of system characteristics. For
example, the more one enjoys using a system, the more likely he or she will know better about

the affordances and characteristics of the system, making it a positive cycle of use.

The present research aims to explore how user behaviors on a technological platform (i.e.

Facebook) correlates with, or even predict their emotional outcomes (i.e. perceived sense of

mattering). It is built on both Norman’s hypothesis and Mahlke’s framework but with our own

interpretation and adaptation, as is illustrated in Figure 2. Particularly, we decomposed

behavioral outcomes as users’ intensity of use and recent activities on Facebook, as opposed to

the original framework, in which continuance to use was the main behavioral outcome. Also, we

focused on investigating one particular type of emotional outcome, that is, one’s perception of

the extent to which they matter. Most importantly, because we speculate how users’ evaluation

of system as well as their behavioral outcomes can impact their knowledge of system

characteristic (also the cause of emotional outcomes), we proposed the following hypotheses. Commented [MSW2]: Zhuo, this is an interesting and well-
written section. However, I don’t understand how this
theoretical framework matches the intent of the study. It never
is touched on again in the discussion either.

But I will trust you know what you are doing by including it.

Figure 2 Our accommodated research framework for user experience on Facebook and its

relevant outcomes (with additions in dashed frames)

3. Method

3.1. Participants and date collection

 Undergraduates (N = 391) from a mid-size university in the Mid-Atlantic United States

participated in this study. The students were recruited through convenience sampling.

Specifically, respondents were recruited through advertisements in the university daily

newsletter, posters in campus buildings, and invitations to faculty colleagues. Two rounds of data

collection resulted in captures of n = 274 and n = 161 responses (n = 435 total). Complete data

were available for n = 384. A drawing for one $50 gift card to the University Store was offered

as remuneration. The demographic information of participants is presented in Table 1. The

majority of participants were white (75%, n = 292), 13% (n = 50) were Black/African American,

6% (n = 25) Asian/Pacific Islander, 3% (n = 12) Hispanic/Latino, 3% other/preferred not to

respond (n = 12). Most participants were female (82%, n = 319), and the average age was 20.5

(SD = 3.9, Median = 20, range = 18-56). Twenty-eight percent (n = 110) identified themselves as

freshman, 21% (n = 83) sophomores, 27% (n = 105) juniors, and 23% (n = 89) seniors. The

modal major for participants was Education (28%, n = 108), followed by Psychology (7.7%, n =

30), Nursing (7.4%, n = 29), and Business Administration (5.6%, n = 22). The remaining

students consisted of majors across all colleges at the university.

The data collection process asked participants to voluntarily complete an online survey

posted on the University’s website. The survey was available between November 2012 and

February 2013and students could elect to complete some or all of the survey.

Table 1. Participant Demographics and Facebook Usage Characteristics

N %
Gender
Male 72 18.4
Female 319 81.6
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian 292 74.7
Hispanic/Latino 12 3.1
 Asian/Pacific Islander 25 6.4
Black/African American 50 12.8
Other (please specify) 5 1.3
Prefer not to respond 7 1.8
Class standing
Freshman 110 28.1
Sophomore 83 21.2
Junior 105 26.8
Senior 89 22.8
Other 4 1.0
Facebook usage
About how many total Facebook friends do you have?
10 or fewer 4 1.0
11 - 100 10 2.6
101 - 200 41 10.5
201 - 300 55 14.1
301 - 400 65 16.6
401 – 500 216 55.2
About how much time did you spend on Facebook yesterday?
10 minutes or fewer 81 20.7
11 - 30 minutes 99 25.3
31 - 60 minutes 83 21.2
1 - 2 hours 85 21.7
2 - 3 hours 28 7.2
More than 3 hours 15 3.8
In the past week, approximately how many times have you checked
(read/logged in/…) to Facebook?
0 7 1.8
1-5 55 14.1
6 - 10 60 15.3
11 - 15 53 13.5
16 - 20 50 12.8
More than 20 times 166 42.5

3.2. Measures

The survey consisted of a set of demographic questions, a 21-item Facebook usage

questionnaire, the 24-item Mattering scale (Elliott et al., 2004), and the ten-item Rosenberg Self-

Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965).. These measures are explained further below.
 Communicative activities on Facebook. We asked which of the following twelve

communicative activities the participants had experienced in the past month: sent or accepted a

friend request, accepted or had a friend request accepted; liked a friend’s content or had content

liked; sent or received a private message; sent or received a comment on a post; received a wall

post or had been tagged in a photo.

Facebook Intensity. We modified Ellison, Steinfeld, and Lampe’s (2007) Facebook Commented [MSW3]: I can see that there is a lot of detail
about the measures that I left out. Thank you for the reminder.
I think including this additional detail strengthens the
Intensity Scale to measure frequency of Facebook use, as well as attitudes toward Facebook use. manuscript.

We used one question from the original scale about number of Facebook friends (1=10 or fewer,

2=11-100, 3=101-200, 4=201-300, 5=301-400, 6=401-500), a second question about frequency

of use from time spent in the past week to two questions: 1) number of minutes logged in on the

previous day (1=10 minutes or fewer, 2=11-30 minutes, 3=31-60 minutes, 4=1-2 hours, 5=2-3

hours, 6=more than 3 hours), and 2) number of times logged in in the past week (1=0, 2=1-5,

3=6-10, 4=11-15, 5=16-20, 6=more than 20).. These collectively captured frequency of

Facebook use and were cast as indicators of a latent Facebook usage variable.

In addition, following Ellison et al. (2007), we also captured intensity with six attitudinal

items. These questions asked participants how much they agreed with statements about the

importance of Facebook to their lives (e.g., “Facebook is part of my everyday activity,” “I’m

proud to tell others I’m on Facebook”). Cronbach’s alpha for the six attitudinal items was 0.87,

and for the nine items including both frequency of use and attitudinal items alpha was 0.84. Commented [MSW4]: I don’t think this adds much
information.

Mattering. The Mattering Scale (Elliot et al., 2004) assesses three components of

mattering: awareness (eight items), importance (ten items), and reliance (six items). Example

items include “People do not ignore me,” “My successes are a source of pride to the people in

my life”, “When people need help, they come to me.” Elliott et al. (2004) reported acceptable Commented [MSW5]: The order of the examples now
parallels the order of the mention of the scales (awareness,
importance, reliance)
internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas: 0.79 - 0.87), low correlations with unrelated constructs

such as self-consciousness and self-monitoring were found (rs: = 0.19 - 0.40), and stronger

correlations with related well-being constructs such as perceived social support and self-esteem

(rs = 0.49 - 0.80). In this sample, Cronbach’s alphas were acceptable (awareness: 0.79,

importance: 0.82, reliance: 0.80).

Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) has a long

history of use and has shown evidence of quite adequate test-retest (> 0.8) and internal

consistency reliability (>0.78). Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was quite high (0.92). Some

researchers suggest the RSES may have a positive self-esteem (SE) factor (five items) and a

negative SE factor (five items), or that the negative SE factor is a methods artifact due to the

particular wording choices (Corwyn, 2000). We include both positive and negative SE factors in

our analysis below. Both five-item subscales obtained satisfactory reliability estimates in our

sample (0.90 for positive SE and 0.87 for negative SE).

3.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and correlational analyses were conducted using R (R Core Team,

2016) and structural equation models were analyzed using the lavaan package in R (Rosseel,

2012). A few data were missing for the mattering and self-esteem measures (n = 7), reducing the

sample size for structural equation modeling from 391 to 384. The relatively large sample size

afforded an opportunity to use a latent variable approach. Measurement models which treated

individual items as ordered categorical indicators were utilized, and therefore structural

parameter estimates were interpreted as corrected for attenuation due to measurement error.

Standard errors and fit statistics were estimated with diagonally-weighted least squares (DWLS;

Rosseel, 2012), as recommended for ordered categorical items. Structural parameter estimates
for the relationship between Facebook intensity and mattering/self esteem are reported and

although measurement model estimates are not reported, they are available from the authors

upon request.

4. Results

4.1. Model fit

All latent variable measurement models (Facebook intensity, awareness, importance,

reliance mattering, positive and negative RSE constructs) were represented by statistically

significant loadings from observed indicators.

4.2. Hypotheses comparison

H1: There is a positive correlation between college students’ Facebook intensity of use

and level of mattering.

Although the test of overall fit for the model testing H1 was statistically significant, Χ2

(921) = 1984.47; p < 0.001, other measures of model fit were acceptable: CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98,

RMSEA = 0.055 [90% CI: 0.052-0.058], SRMR = 0.068, WRMR = 1.31. The results showed

that Facebook intensity was significantly associated with all three measures of mattering,

importance (B = 0.18 SE = 0.06, β = 0.16, Z = 3.05; p = 0.002), awareness (B = 0.11 SE = 0.04,

β = 0.18, Z = 3.07; p = 0.002), and reliance (B = 0.13 SE = 0.06, β = 0.13, Z = 2.36; p = 0.02;

Table 2). Those who use Facebook more and feel more strongly identified with it also tend to

report feeling as though they matter more strongly to others across all three dimensions of

mattering than those who use it less frequently.

We also note that no gender differences were found for importance or awareness, but

women reported statistically higher reliance scores than did men (B = 0.32 SE = 0.10, β = 0.18,

Z = 3.28; p = 0.001). Although we did not specifically hypothesize gender differences in self-
esteem, we note that women reported significantly lower self-esteem on the positive RSE items

(B = -0.28 SE = 0.13, β = -0.12, Z = -2.15; p = 0.03), and a slightly smaller magnitude of

difference for the negative RSE items, but which was not statistically significant (B = -0.22 SE =

0.12, β = -0.10, Z = -1.84; p = 0.06).

Table 2. Latent Variable Regression Results for Mattering and Self-Esteem Constructs Commented [MSW6]: If you are leaving out the table listing
the type and number of FB activities, then this should be
Table 2. This should be moved into the results section.
B SE Z p Beta
Ok, I see you are including it below.
Commented [LWSC7R6]:
Mattering

Reliance

Facebook Intensity 0.13 0.10 2.26 0.018 0.13

Gender 0.32 0.10 3.28 0.001 0.18

Age -0.03 0.01 -2.34 0.02 -0.13

Importance

Facebook Intensity 0.18 0.06 3.05 0.002 0.18

Gender 0.15 0.11 1.35 0.18 0.08

Age -0.01 0.01 -0.51 0.61 -0.03

Awareness

Facebook Intensity 0.11 0.04 3.07 0.002 0.18

Gender -0.00 0.06 -0.004 0.997 -0.00

Age 0.004 0.008 -0.46 0.64 -0.03

Rosenberg Self-Esteem

Scale

Positive Items
 Facebook Intensity 0.08 0.08 1.03 0.30 0.06

Gender -0.28 0.13 -2.15 0.03 -0.12

Age -0.01 0.02 -0.45 0.65 -0.03

Negative Items

Facebook Intensity -0.08 0.07 -1.12 0.26 -0.06

Gender -0.22 0.12 -1.84 0.07 -0.10

Age 0.00 0.02 0.004 0.997 0.00

The structural equation model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Structural Model of Facebook Intensity, Self-Esteem, and Mattering
Note: Positive Self-Esteem: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale positive items (n = 5); Negative Self-

Esteem: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale negative items (n = 5). Squares are observed variables,

circles are latent variables. Darkness of arrows indicates strength of coefficient. * p<0.05.

**p<0.01.

H2: Reporting recent communicative or active acts would be positively associated with

mattering and self-esteem compared to students who did not report such activities.

For each of the twelve Facebook activities (see Table 3), a majority of students reported Commented [MSW8]: This should now be labeled table 3 if
it is to go after hypothesis 1

having done them in the past month (M = 85.4% SD = 9.6%, range = 66% - 95%; Table 3). To

assess the relationship between reported communicative activities on Facebook and

mattering/self-esteem, we specified a different structural equation model than for Hypothesis 1.

In this model, we replaced the latent variable Facebook intensity with twelve specific Facebook

activities. In this way, we could determine the association between students’ reporting of an

activity and the average latent mean for mattering and self-esteem. We also included age and

gender as predictors in this model as before.

Although we found that importance and reliance mattering scales were distinct from self-

esteem constructs, awareness mattering was not distinct from importance in our sample. Average

variance extracted for each was less than 0.50, but their shared variance was 0.81 (Fornell &

Larcker, 1981). This observation, together with the high intercorrelation of these two latent

variables in the model for Hypothesis 1 (r > 0.90), suggested that importance and awareness

were not distinct constructs. Moreover, positive and negative self-esteem factors were highly

intercorrelated (r2 = 0.69), with average variance extracted equaling 0.78 and 0.70, respectively.

For these reasonsGiven this analysis, only reliance and importance (and not awareness) were
included for the mattering constructs, and self-esteem was construed as a single, ten-item, latent

variable. Commented [LWSC9]: Your comment about the

discriminant validity analysis disappeared while I was editing,
but this is my attempt to address it… If this doesn’t work
please edit.

Table 3. Facebook Activities in the Last Month Commented [MSW10]: Because if we know what % Yes is,
we can directly infer what % No is, I’ve deleted the No rows
for space.

N %
Accepted a friend request Yes 340 87.0
No 51 13.0
Had friend request accepted Yes 258 66.0
No 133 34.0
Sent a friend request Yes 259 66.2
No 132 33.8
Received a friend request Yes 359 91.8
No 32 8.2
Liked a friend's content Yes 373 95.4
No 18 4.6
Had content liked Yes 356 91.0
No 35 9.0
Sent a private message Yes 343 87.7
No 48 12.3
Received a private message Yes 352 90.0
No 39 10.0
Commented on a friend's content Yes 349 89.3
No 42 10.7
Received a comment Yes 361 92.3
No 30 7.7
Received a wall post Yes 330 84.4
No 61 15.6
Been tagged in a photo Yes 325 83.1
No 66 16.9

As with the prior two models, the test of significance for the overall model was

significant, Χ2(618) = 1119.64; p < 0.001, fit indices were acceptable: CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98,

RMSEA = 0.046 [90% CI: 0.042-0.050], SRMR = 0.071, WRMR = 1.20. Specific parameter

estimates for gender and age showed they had the same effects on reliance as in the model for
H1: women reported greater average reliance (more tend to think that they feel more are relied

upon than men), and the relationship between age and reliance was negative. Four activity
indicators were significantly associated with mattering: students who reported they had a friend
request accepted, B = 0.36 SE = 0.18, β = 0.22, Z = 1.95; p = 0.05, or been tagged in a photo, B
Commented [MSW11]: Note that there was no comment
about this in the section for H1. It seems confusing like this. I
think age/gender effects need to be mentioned there as well.
Commented [LWSC12R11]: Ok, I tried to weave the
gender bit throughout. I put a bit about gender and mattering
up in the theoretical framework section, and added the finding
to H1. I also mentioned it again in the findings.

= 0.54 SE = 0.15, β = 0.26, Z = 3.55; p < 0.001, had significantly higher importance responses

on average than students who did not report any of those events. Additionally, those who

reported being tagged in a photo had higher average reliance scores than those were not, B =

0.32 SE = 0.13, β = 0.16, Z = 2.35; p = 0.02. Being tagged in a photo was also significantly

related to self-esteem, B = 0.34 SE = 0.17, β = 0.13, Z = 2.03; p = 0.04. However, the activity

sent a friend request was negatively associated with importance; students who had sent a friend

request in the past month felt significantly less important to others than those who had not, B = -

0.37 SE = 0.18, β = -0.23, Z = -2.12; p = 0.03. The structural model for H2 is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Structural Model of Facebook Activities, Mattering and Self-esteem. Self-Esteem:

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, all ten items. Squares are observed variables, circles are latent

variables. * p≤0.05. **p<0.01.

4.5. Discussion

4.1 Intensity of Facebook Use and Mattering

Nadkani and Hoffman (2012) proposed that Facebook use is motivated by two needs: to

present oneself socially, and to belong to a social group. In their view, Facebook use facilitates

relationship development by providing a structure for self-presentation and acknowledgement,

and feeling a sense of community enhances one’s self-esteem. Our results indicated that how

often undergraduate students interact with Facebook, and how strongly they identify with

Facebook in daily life, is significantly associated with a sense of mattering - both the feeling that

one is important, and that one is relied upon by others. Namely, students who use Facebook more

and identify with it more positively also tend to report that they matter more—they are paid more

attention to, considered more important and more relied upon by others. Consistent with other

literature (Marshall et al., 2001; Raque-Bodan et al., 2001), we found that both gender and age

were related to mattering, but only with reliance. Women reported significantly more relied upon

by others than men, whereas older students reported feeling less relied upon than younger

students. The relationship between Facebook usage and identification appears distinct from self-

esteem, which supports similar findings (Elliot et al., 2004).

4.2 Communicative Activities and Mattering

In addition, our findings also support and extend previous research findings about the

importance of examining the type of activities in which users engage on Facebook. There is

general consensus in the literature that communicative activities are more likely to support well-

being outcomes; therefore, we focused only on communicative acts in this study. We found that

certain Facebook activities, in which the user was on the receiving end of the communicative act,
positively correlated with mattering (i.e., had a friend request accepted, were tagged in a photo),

while an activity in which the user initiated the communicative act (sending a friend request) was

negatively associated with importance.

We suggest that onea distinction between the two types of communicative activities lies

in feeling acknowledged by another person. For example, when we send out a friend request to

someone, it implies that we think that person is attractive in some way and we acknowledge

them. Conversely, when we receive a friend request, we learn that someone wants to be friends

with us, and we conclude we are attractive to them in some way. Michikyan, Dennis, and

Subrahmanyam (2015) recently showed that young adults strategically self-present on Facebook

to explore and develop their identities. We speculate that feelings of mattering differentially

reinforce those efforts. These findings and hypotheses suggest a need for researchers to more

carefully consider the individual activity types, and related property variables (e.g., sense of

control or uncertainty) when exploring well-being outcomes related to Facebook use.

5.6. Strengths and limitations

There are several strengths of our approach that give us confidence in these findings.

First, our sample size is relatively large; as a consequence, we were able to use a latent variable

modeling approach to estimate the relationships between Facebook Intensity and Mattering. This

entailed estimating measurement models for three Mattering constructs, Self-esteem, and

Facebook Intensity. The value of estimating measurement models for constructs is that it allows

structural parameter estimates (regression coefficients) to be corrected for attenuation due to

measurement error within individual items. This is also somewhat unique in the undergraduate

Facebook usage literature, as structural or path modeling analyses have been limited to observed

variable or only partially latent variable modeling analysis (Verduyn et al., 2015; Wright et al.,
2013; Oh, et al., 2014). Second, our findings about several Facebook activity reports are

consistent with large-scale studies of use, suggesting consistency across adult and young adult

samples (Hampton et al., 2012).

In cross-sectional designs, there are always limitations in trying to understand dynamic

relationships between constructs. More specifically, it may be that Facebook usage, or intensity

of usage more generally, is dynamically related to well-being. That is, changes in well-being

may cause a student to use Facebook differently, or vice versa.

6.7. Conclusion

Our findings contribute to the growing literature on Facebook use and well-being

outcomes by focusing on mattering, a well-being construct that to date has not be thoroughly

explored in SNS literature, but yet has a relationship to depression, self-esteem, and identity

development. While a significant portion of the literature contends that Facebook use is

associated with negative well-being outcomes, our findings suggest that certain Facebook uses

may contribute to mattering, a positive well-being outcome. We found a strong positive

correlation between intensity of Facebook use and levels of mattering. Namely, those who use

Facebook more also tend to think that they matter more to specific others (feel paid more

attention to, considered more important, and more relied upon by others). A causal relationship

was speculated but not confirmed with the current research design.

Second, our findings support the general consensus in the literature that the activities in

which one engages on Facebook are important to consider. Especially activities in which

students are acknowledged (e.g., accepting a friend request, being tagged in someone’s photos)

rather than reaching out to others (e.g. sending a friend request) are linked to increased perceived

mattering. Future researchers may want to further articulate specific activities within the
categories of communicative and non-communicative uses, and more deeply investigate why and

how certain activities contribute to mattering, so that activities may be leveraged to support

college students’ well-being more precisely.

References

Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., et al. (2012). A

61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489,

295-298.

Bosch, T. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the

University of Cape Town. South African Journal for Communication Theory and

Research, 35, 185-200.

Bray, S. R., & Born, H. A. (2004). Transition to university and vigorous physical activity:

implications for health and psychological well-being. J Am Coll Health, 2004(52), 181–

188.

Buote, V. M., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Adams, G., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., Polivy, J., et al.

(2007). The importance of friends: Friendship and adjustment among 1- year university

students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 665–689.

Burke, M., Kraut, R.E. The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on

communication type and tie strength: Facebook and well-being. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 2016(21), 265–81. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12162

Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. CHI

'10 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

2010, ACM: New York, NY.

Corwyn, R.F. (2000). The factor structure of global self-esteem among adolescents and adults.

Journal of Research in Personality, 2000(34), 357–79. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2291

Cotton, S.R., & Bowman, S. (2005). Using symbolic interactionism to delineate the process

through which Internet usage may impact well-being among college students. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia,

PA 2005.

Dixon, S., & Robinson, K.S. (2008). Depression and college stress among university

undergraduates: Do mattering and self-esteem make a difference? Journal of College

Student Development, 2008(49), 412-424.

Duggan, M., Ellison, N., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. Social media update 2014. Pew

Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project: Washington, D.C 2015. Retrieved

from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/

Eger, L. (2015). Is Facebook a similar learning tool for university students as LMS? Procedia

- Social and Behavioral Sciences 203(2015), 233-238.

Elliott, G., Kao, S., & Grant, A-M. Mattering: Empirical validation of a social-psychological

concept. Self and Identity, 2004(3), 339–54. doi:10.1080/13576500444000119

Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

France, M.K., & Finney, S.J. (2009). What matters in the measurement of mattering?: A

construct validity study. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,

2009(42), 104–120. doi:10.1177/0748175609336863

Hampton, K.N., Goulet, L.S., Marlow, C., & Rainie, L. (2012). Why most Facebook users get

more than they give: The effect of Facebook “power users” on everybody else. Pew

Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project: Washington, D.C. 2012. Retrieved

from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Facebook-users.aspx

Henry, S.K. (2012). On social connection in university life. About Campus 2012(16), 18-24.

doi:10.1002/abc.20083

Hooper, L.M., & Huffman, L.E. Associations among depressive symptoms, well-being, patient

involvement, provider cultural competency, and treatment nonadherence: an exploratory

study among university student-patients. Couns Psychol Q. 2014;27:241–263.

Junco, R. (2012).Too much face and not enough books: the relationship between multiple indices

of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 2012(28)，

187-198. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026

Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the well-

being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking

2011(14), 183-189. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0061

Keyes, C.L.M., Eisenberg, D., Perry, G.S., Dube, S.R., Kroenke, K., & Dhingra, S.S. The

relationship of level of positive mental health with current mental disorders in predicting

suicidal behavior and academic impairment in college students. J Am Coll Health.

2012(60), 126–133.

Kim, J., & Lee, J.-E. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of

Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. CyberPsychology,

 Behavior & Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0374.

Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in

Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2010.03.024.

Lonnqvist, J. & Deters, F. (2016). Facebook friends, subjective well-being, social support, and

personality. Computers in Human Behaviors, 55(2016), 113-120.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: does

happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.

Liu, C.Y., & Yu, C.P. (2013). Can Facebook use induce well-being? Cyberpsychology, Behavior,

and Social Networking, 2013(16), 674-678.

Low, K.G. (2011). Flourishing, substance use, and engagement in students entering college: a

preliminary study. J Am Coll Health, 2011(59), 555–561.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. Facebook, social integration and informal

learning at university: ‘It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for

actually doing work.’ Learning, Media and Technology, 2009(34), 141-55.

Mak, L., & Marshall, S.K. Perceived mattering in young adults’ romantic relationships. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships 2004; 21: 469–486. doi:10.1177/0265407504044842

Marshall, S.K., Liu, Y., Wu, A., Berzonskey, M., & Adams, G.R. Perceived mattering to parents

and friends for university students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence 2010; 33:

367-75. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.09.003
Michikyan, M., Dennis, J., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2015). Can you guess who I am? Real, ideal,

and false self-presentation on Facebook among emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood,

3(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814532442

Mazman, S., & Usluel, Y. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers &

Education 2010; 55: 444-53.

Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., Egan, K. G., Cox, E., Young, H., Gannon, K. E., et al. (2011).

Feeling bad on Facebook: Depression disclosures by college students on a social

networking site. Depression and Anxiety, 28(6), 447–455. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.20805.

Nabi, R., Prestin, A., & So, J. Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network

site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology,

Behavior, and Social Networking, 2013; 16: 721-727.

Nadkarni, A., Hofmann, S.G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual

Differences 2012; 52:243-9. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007

Oh, H.J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction?

The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support,

sense of community, and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 30: 69–

78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.053

Ophus, J., Abbitt, J. Exploring the potential perceptions of social networking systems in

university courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 2009; 5:639-48.
Pernice, F. M., Biegel, D. E., Kim, J.-Y., & Conrad-Garrisi, D. (2017, June 8). The mediating

role of mattering to others in recovery and stigma. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal.

Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/prj0000269

Raque-Bogdan, T. L., Ericson, S. K., Jackson, J., Martin, H. M., & Bryan, N. A. (2011).

Attachment and mental and physical health: Self- compassion and mattering as mediators.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 272–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023041

R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [Software] https://www.R-project.org/.

Ridner, S. L., Newton, K. S., Staten, R. R., Crawford, T. N., & Hall, L. A. (2016). Predictors of

well-being among college students, 64(2), 116–124.

Roblyer, M.D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. Findings on Facebook in

higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of

social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education 2010; 13:134-40.

Rohall, D., Cotton, S., & Morgan, C.. Internet use and the self concept: Linking specific uses to

global self-esteem. Current Research in Social Psychology 2002; 8:1-18.

Rosenberg, M., McCullough, B.C. Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health. Research

in Community and Mental Health 1981; 2: 163-82.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and Commitment

Therapy. Measures Package 1965; 61.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of

Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/.

Schlossberg, N.K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New

Directions for Student Services 1989; 48: 5-15. (Schlossberg, 1989)

Schmitt, D.P., & Allik, J. Simultaneous Administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53

Nations: Exploring the Universal and Culture-Specific Features of Global Self-Esteem.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005; 89: 623–42. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.89.4.623

Statista. (2017). Facebook - statistics and facts. Retrieved on Oct 172017 from

https://www.statista.com/topics/751/facebook/

Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. Online and offline social networks:

Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology 2008; 29: 420-33.

Swenson, L. M., Nordstrom, A., & Hiester, M. (2008). The role of peer relationships in

adjustment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 551–567.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0038.

Tando, E.C., Ferrucci, P., Duff, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college

students: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 4: 139-46.

Verduyn, P., Lee, D.S., & Park, J., et al. Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-

being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General 2015; 144:480–8. doi:10.1037/xge0000057

Wise, K., Alhabash, S., & Park, H. (2010). Emotional responses during social information

seeking on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2010; 13:555-

62. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0365

Wright, K.B., Rosenberg, J., Egbert, N., Ploeger, N.A., Bernard, D.R., & King, S.

Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: A

model of Facebook and face-to-face support network influence. Journal of Health

Communication 2013; 18: 41–57. doi:10.1080/10810730.2012.688250