Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/270550330
CITATIONS READS
7 17,593
2 authors, including:
Jeanna Mastrodicasa
University of Florida
8 PUBLICATIONS 167 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jeanna Mastrodicasa on 16 December 2015.
Abstract
There are numerous ways, positive and negative, in which social media impact college students.
Understanding sheer volume of time and the type of activities for which college students use social
networking sites is crucial for higher education administrators. Researchers have begun to empiri-
cally examine impacts on students’ well-being and have found some preliminary results that call for
more research. They find that social media are not the problem—the problem is the specific use and
purpose of social media activities that make the difference.
College administrators should start with the basic advice of Heiberger and Harper (2008), which is to “learn
to use the variety of electronic media available in positive ways: to stay connected to college social net-
works, promote relevant events, and help students feel safe and at home on campus” (p. 19). Beyond those
basics, recent research shows more insight into understanding how specific activities on social media sites
impact and predict student outcomes. Accordingly, Junco (2011b) recommended using research results to
help inform interventions to support student learning and engagement as well as interventions for students
who exhibit problem behaviors.
1
Jeanna Mastrodicasa is assistant vice president for student affairs at the University of Florida. E-mail: jmastro@ufl.edu Paul
Metellus is an undergraduate at the University of Florida and is a participant in NASPA’s Undergraduate Fellows program. E-mail:
pmetellus@ufl.edu.
Nevertheless, not all college students have the same ownership and proficiency with technology. A
digital divide exists in that there are differences among gender, race, and income with college student use
of technology. For example, female and White students owned cell phones at a rate more than twice as high
as that of men and African American students. Further, students in the $100,000–$149,000 per year income
bracket were more than three times as likely to own a cell phone than those from the median bracket. Race,
gender, and income also proved to have differing outcomes: Being female, African American, and/or from
the highest income brackets were positively predictive of the number of text messages sent and the amount
of time spent talking on a cell phone per week (Junco, Merson, & Salter, 2010). Accordingly, college ad-
ministrators need to remain sensitive to the fact that all college students do not have the same degree of
access to technology.
Figure 1. Percentage of students who somewhat frequently (75% of the time) or very frequently (100% of the time)
participate in these activities on Facebook (Junco, 2011a).
Checking up ...............................(37%)
Viewing photos ..........................(37%)
Commenting ..............................(34%)
Chatting on Facebook .............(23%)
Updating a status ......................(16%)
Posting photos............................(11%)
Playing games ...............................(9%)
Tagging photos .............................(8%)
Private messages .........................(8%)
Sharing links .................................(6%)
Alerting to events .......................(4%)
Posting videos ..............................(3%)
Viewing videos .............................(3%)
Tagging videos ..............................(2%)
Twitter is more commonly used in the classroom because it is a microblogging and social networking
platform that allows users to post 140-character updates to provide for more discussion (Junco, Elavsky,
& Heiberger, 2012). The youngest age demographic (18–29 years) is most represented on Twitter at 29%
of their user base (Pring, 2012). Bingham and Conner (2010) offered support for microsharing, such as in
the use of Twitter in 140 character bursts, as a way to support a healthy culture. By following others who
offer value and controlling the list by eliminating those who do not, a user can participate in the modern
version of “water cooler chat,” which “offers clues to those around us, leading us to know, trust, and help
one another” (p. 84).
There is a vast volume of users for these primary social media sites of Facebook and Twitter, and
nearly a quarter of the time Internet users spend online (22.5%) is in social networking. As of September
2012, Facebook had 950 million active users and more than 2 billion registered users, compared to Twitter’s
more than 500 million registered users, but only 140 million active users. Other popular social media sites
that are available include LinkedIn, which provides for career networking, and Instagram, which connects
users who post photos (Pring, 2012). However, this article will only discuss Facebook and Twitter use due
to their overwhelmingly popular usage among college students.
Well-Being
Henry’s exploratory study of more than 1000 college students examined the impact of technology and
specific aspects of psychosocial wellness, looking for correlations among the variables. She found tech-
nological activities that contributed to more positive measures of psychosocial well-being and sense of
community were social in nature (e.g., networking on a social media site, chatting with others online, or
talking on a cell phone. Similarly, when motivations for using social media or other technology were so-
cial in nature, such as making friends and meeting new people, there were positive scores (Henry, 2010,
2012).
Yet when students used technology or social media for purposes that were solitary in nature, such
as surfing the Internet, watching videos, or playing video or computer games alone, those activities led to
lower scores on the measures of psychosocial well-being and sense of community (Henry, 2010, 2012).
Henry also found that students with less social motivations for using technology or social media, such as
procrastinating or learning more about interests, contributed to less positive scores on measures of psycho-
social well-being and sense of community.
Henry (2012) found that when students were using technology to seek support for personal issues or
problems, those students reported higher scores on measures of loneliness, depression, shyness, and social
anxiety and lower scores on perceived social skill, social self-confidence, and social self-efficacy (p. 22).
She also found that when students were procrastinating or wasting time using technology or social media,
they showed higher measures of loneliness, depression, shyness, and social anxiety; in addition to lower
scores on perceived social skill, social self-confidence, and social self-efficacy. Her conclusion was that
students who experience psychological stressors are using technology and social media to cope and find
sources of support, as well as to procrastinate or to pass time (p. 22).
The work of Gonzales and Hancock (2011) showed that selective self-presentation using social media
sites like Facebook can have a positive influence on self-esteem, especially when the individual selectively
self-presents by editing information about the self.
Social Capital
Individuals receive benefits from their social relationships and interactions such as emotional support, ex-
posure to diverse ideas, and access to new information. Those benefits are called social capital. College
students have been shown to gain social capital from Facebook use (Ellison et al., 2007, 2011). Social capi-
tal is related to indices of psychological well-being, such as self-esteem and satisfaction with life (Bargh &
McKenna, 2004; Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). Greater social capital increases commitment to a community
and sets one up to draw on resources from other members of the networks to which he or she belongs. These
resources can take the form of useful information, personal relationships, or the capacity to organize groups
(Paxton, 1999).
Ellison et al. (2007) found that Facebook appeared to play an important role in the process by which
students formed and maintained social capital. For example, they showed that Facebook intensity predicted
increased levels of maintained social capital, such as how participants relied on high school acquaintances
to do small favors, used Facebook to keep in touch with old friends, and maintained or intensified relation-
ships that were initiated through another connection such as residence hall proximity or a shared class. Ad-
ditionally, Ellison et al. (2011) later found that engaging in social information-seeking behaviors on Face-
book (to learn more about a person with whom the user already has a connection) was related to increased
social capital, while using Facebook to maintain relationships and meet strangers was not. Overall, the use
of social media provides an opportunity to build and maintain social capital.
Identity Development
Just as previous generations of college students established identities as part of their student development
(e.g., Chickering & Reisser 1993; Erickson, 1963), today’s college students also develop their identity on-
line through their profile and postings. Gonzales and Hancock (2011) described social networking sites as a
means to provide multiple opportunities for selective self-presentation through photos, personal details, and
witty comments. They stated that “social-networking sites exemplify how modern technology sometimes
forces us to reconsider previously understood psychological processes” (p. 82). Social networking sites
provide a method to showcase one’s ideal identity in a virtual manner by updating status, posting to walls,
sharing photos, and making comments on each other’s pages (boyd & Ellison, 2007; Hum et al., 2011;
Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2012; Kramer & Winter, 2008; Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009). Further,
those identities are honed as students choose to indicate membership of certain subgroups, such as race,
gender, sexual orientation, and subcultures (e.g., music, movies), in constructing their online identity (Hum
et al., 2011; Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2012; Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009).
Another relevant aspect to today’s students and the role of social media is the concept of the electronic
tether, which has been a factor in the college student-parent relationship (Hofer, 2008). College students
frequently communicate with their parents on a regular basis. Hofer and Moore (2010) found students com-
municated 13 times per week with parents, and Junco and Mastrodicasa (2007) found that the median num-
ber of times was 1.5 per day. At the same time, college students should be developmentally attempting to
become self-regulating, autonomous individuals (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). The role of the cell phone,
electronic communication, and social media in the relationships of college students and their parents is still
being studied, but Hofer (2008) argued that those devices, acting as an electronic tether, hinders the devel-
opment of autonomy of college students. Hofer and Moore’s (2010) book The iConnected Parent discussed
the topic and offered advice to parents of college students on letting go.
breakup, as well as more negative feelings, sexual desire, and longing for the ex-partner, and lower personal
growth. Additionally, she found that those who remained Facebook friends with the ex-partner reported
fewer negative feelings, less sexual desire, and less longing for the former partner, but lower personal
growth (Marshall, 2012).
Social media sites have also provided new opportunities for students to harass others via technology.
Research has shown that about a quarter of college students report being cyber-bullied at some point in
their lives, and about 30% of those students said they were bullied for the first time in college (Held, 2011).
According to researchers, many of these cyber bullies hide behind anonymity online, adopting different
personas for their bullying than for other online activities (Held, 2011). College administrators have applied
student codes of conduct to harassing behavior on social media sites.
Student Engagement
Several researchers have analyzed uses of Facebook and Twitter using the Astin’s construct of engagement,
and they have found that there are both positive and negative outcomes from using these social media tools
(Junco, 2011a; Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2010; Heiberger & Harper, 2008). Junco (2011a) found a mixed
set of predictors: Students use Facebook in ways that are both positively and negatively related to their en-
gagement, study habits, and on-campus involvement, depending on the specific activity. Other researchers
have found a positive relationship between Facebook and engagement (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; HERI,
2007).
Other research pointed to positive relationships between social networking site usage and college
student engagement (Heiberger & Harper, 2008; Junco, 2011b). Additionally, Valenzuela, Park, and Kee
(2009) found that civic participation, life satisfaction, and social trust were related to the intensity of col-
lege students’ Facebook use. Finally, LaRiviere, Snider, Stromberg, and O’Meara (2012) evaluated the role
of social media in campus protests, and they found that while social media acts as an accelerant for student
protests and makes weak ties stronger, social media “may further disconnect students from understanding
the change they seek and the best strategies to pursue” (p. 15).
• Take the time to learn the basics of Twitter. There is much opportunity for professional and academic
interaction in this tool that allows you to keep your personal life separate.
• Enhance student engagement through the use of a common hashtag on Twitter, encouraging partici-
pants to participate virtually. Many modern major events have a unique Twitter hashtag as part of the
added dimension of a “backchannel,” representing individuals of a networked audience who are con-
nected in real time who are learning with each other, and anyone can join (Bingham & Conner, 2010).
Knowing that most college students own and use a smartphone regularly, adding a Twitter component
to major events such as graduation adds an additional dimension of participation, focus, innovation,
contributions, connections, and evaluation (Bingham & Conner, 2010).
• Understand the usage of social media and other forms of technology at your campus. There may be
survey statistics, but more importantly, you can simply ask students to show you what they use and
how.
• Consider how your resources are offered to those who might seek them out first on the Internet. Do
you have enough information for students available? Is it easy to find? Further, is your website mobile
friendly? Further, would there be value in providing Internet-based services for those who wish to
connect but cannot visit or call? Those barriers may stop assisting a student who might be seeking
help or information but cannot find it easily.
• Educate your students about their privacy, safety, and general best practices about using social media.
The information is constantly changing, and this is something that affects not only your students, but
also your faculty and staff.
• Finally, Henry (2012) recommended that student development theories be revised to account for the
influence of technology and social media. In addition to other research opportunities related to social
media and technology use to help us better understand their impacts on college students, reconsider-
ing student development theory in light of today’s society could be a new approach to student affairs.
References
Bargh, J., & McKenna, K. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 573–590.
Bingham, T., & Conner, M. (2010). The new social learning: A guide to transforming organizations through social media.
San Francisco, CA: The American Society for Training and Development.
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Medi-
ated Communication, 13(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993) Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE
Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from www.educause.edu/ecar
Dahlstrom, E., deBoor T., Grunwald, P., & Vockley, M. (2011). The ECAR national study of undergraduate students and
information technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.
edu/ecar
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’
use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled
communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), 873–892.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-
esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1–2), 79–83.
Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? In R. Junco & D. M. Timm (Eds.), Using emerging
technologies to enhance student engagement. New Directions for Student Services, no. 124 (pp. 19–35). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Held, E. (2011, December 9). 27 percent of college students say they have been cyber-bullied. USA Today.
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
359(1449), 1435–1446.
Henry, S. K. (2010). Extending our understanding of social belonging: College students’ use of technology, psychosocial
well-being, and sense of community in university life (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of San Diego, San
Diego, CA.
Henry, S. K. (2012, January/February). On social connection in university life. About Campus, 18–24.
Heussner, K. L. (2011, January 26). Facebook as foreplay? Survey says social media leads to sex faster. Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-foreplay-survey-social-media-leads-sex-faster/story?id=12767315
Higher Education Research Institute. (2007). College freshmen and online social networking sites. Retrieved from http://
www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/PDFs/pubs/
Hofer, B. K. (2008). The electronic tether: Parental regulation, self-regulation, and the role of technology in college transi-
tions. Journal of the First-year Experience & Students In Transition, 20(2), 9–24.
Hofer, B. K., & Moore, A. S. (2010). The iConnected Parent: Staying connected to your college kids (and beyond) while
letting them grow up. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster/Free Press.
Hum, N. J., Chamberlin, P. E., Hambright, B. L, Portwood, A. C., Schat, A. C., & Bevan, J. L. (2011). A picture is worth a
thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile photographs. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1828–1833.
Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among
university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275–280.
Junco, R. (2011a). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student
engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171.
Junco, R. (2011b). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and
academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 187–198.
Junco, R., & Cole-Avent, G. (2008). An introduction to technologies commonly used by college students. In R. Junco & D.
M. Timm (Eds.), Using Emerging Technologies to Enhance Student Engagement, 3–17. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 505–514.
Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2012). Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration,
engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2010). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132.
Junco, R., & Mastrodicasa, J. (2007). Connecting to the Net.Generation: What higher education professionals need to know
about today’s students. Washington, DC: NASPA.
Junco, R., & Mastrodicasa, J. (2012). The impact of technology on learning, development, and communication. In M. S.
Hunter, J. R. Keup, J. Kinzie, & H. Maietta, (Eds)¸ The senior year: Culminating experiences and transition. Columbia,
SC: The National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Junco, R., Merson, D., & Salter, D. W. (2010). The effect of gender, ethnicity, and income on college students’ use of com-
munication technologies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(6), 619–627.
Kramer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-
presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116.
LaRiviere, K., Snider, J., Stromberg, A., & O’Meara, K. (2012, July/August). Protest: Critical lessons of using digital media
for social change. About Campus, 10–17.
Marshall, T. C. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with post breakup recovery and
personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(10), 1–6.
Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of
Sociology, 105(1), 88–127.
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227–238.
Pring, C. (2012, September). 216 social media and Internet statistics. Retrieved from http://thesocialskinny.com/216-social-
media-and-internet-statistics-september-2012
Reddick, R. L. (2012). Sexual encounters: Gay male college students’ use of the Internet and social media (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Smith, S. D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Boulder,
CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ECARStudy
ofUndergraduateStuden/217333
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college
students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875–901.
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task
multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365–374.