Psychology

lable at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 739e746

Contents lists avai

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Social comparison on Facebook: Motivation, affective consequences, self-esteem, and Facebook fatigue

Emily M. Cramer a, *, Hayeon Song b, *, Adam M. Drent c

a Department of Communication, North Central College, Naperville, IL, United States b College of Business, Global Business Track, Gachon University, Sungnam-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, South Korea c Clinical Research Coordinator, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 6 August 2015 Received in revised form 19 July 2016 Accepted 22 July 2016 Available online 4 August 2016

Keywords: Social comparison Facebook Self-esteem Hyperpersonal model Social media

* Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.M. Cr

(H. Song), [email protected] (A.M. Drent).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.049 0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

A growing body of research examines social comparison on Facebook, a social media environment where users can present optimized versions of themselves. To grasp the complexity of social comparison on Facebook, the researchers followed Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995) functional approach, focusing on motives (i.e., self-enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation, and self-destruction) rather than fixed targets (i.e., downward, upward, and unilateral comparison) of social comparison. Social compar- ison motivations were explored in relation to self-esteem and affective consequences of comparison. A college-student sample (N ¼ 267) reported engaging in social comparison frequently on Facebook and low-self-esteem (LSE) individuals were more likely than those with higher self-esteem (HSE) to compare themselves to others on Facebook for self-evaluation, self-enhancement, self-improvement, and self- destruction motives. Moreover, LSEs perceived increased levels of social comparison on Facebook, although the relationship between self-esteem and actual social comparison behavior proved non- significant. Significant moderating effects of self-esteem were observed in the relationship between motivation and affect. A self-improvement motive produced greater positive affect among HSEs compared to LSEs, while self-enhancement motives engendered positive affect more prominently among LSEs compared to HSEs. The paper also begins to distill a popular phenomenon, Facebook fatigue, in social comparison empirical work.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

According to the Pew Research Center, Facebook continues to be the most prevalent social networking space for Americans, with 72% of online adults using the platform in 2015 (Duggan, 2015). As of March 31, 2016, Facebook reported 1.65 billion monthly active users and an average of 1.09 million daily active users (Facebook, 2016). On average, 989 million mobile users access Facebook daily from a mobile device, while 1.65 billion users check Facebook actively on a monthly basis. Every minute, 684,478 pieces of con- tentdincluding photos, status updates, and commentsdare shared on Facebook (Bennett, 2012). Of online younger adults, ages 18e29, 82% use Facebook (Duggan, 2015) and 50% of 18e24 year olds log onto Facebook when they wake up, with 28% checking Facebook

amer), [email protected]

before they get out of bed (Pring, 2012). Facebook provides both an interesting and unique venue to

study social comparison, the process of developing subjective as- sessments of one's opinion and ability by making comparisons to other persons (Festinger, 1954). As a computer-mediated commu- nication (CMC) environment, Facebook diverges from traditional face-to-face contexts examined in past social comparison research; the affordances of the social media site may thereby impact social comparison activity and consequences. Considering the breadth of self-relevant multimedia content that can be both displayed and accessed on Facebook, the site may afford abundant opportunities for social comparison (Haferkamp & Kramer, 2011; Vogel, Rose, Roberts, & Eckles, 2014).

Social comparison on Facebook may emerge from a tendency of individuals, particularly those highly capricious and neurotic, to present idealized versions of themselves (Seidman, 2013), leading several researchers to characterize communication on the social media platform as hyperpersonal (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011; Underwood, Kerlin, & Farrington-Flint, 2011; Wang, Moon, Kwon,

E.M. Cramer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 739e746740

Evans, & Stefanone, 2010). According to the hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996), textual and asynchronous features of CMC afford the user advantages over face-to-face interactions, thereby facili- tating rich interpersonal communication surpassing traditional face-to-face exchanges. The model argues CMC interaction be- comes more desirable because the sender can communicate social information in a controlled environment, thereby constructing an optimized presentation of self in the absence of physical interaction (Walther, 1996).

On Facebook, users can craft messages in the form of status updates or comments considered optimal for self-presentation. Facebook posts tend to be about positive events and good feel- ings rather than negative events and bad feelings (Denti et al., 2012). Although Facebook contains visual content such as photos or videos, content can be selectively presented to feature the self in the most favorable manner (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). Posts garnering unfavorable impressions can be edited or deleted. Un- flattering photos or videos can be untagged or the user can ask the Facebook member to remove the photo or video from the site. As a result, Facebook functions as a hyperpersonal social environment, a platform where everyone gets the opportunity to put his or her best proverbial foot forward.

Moreover, Facebook may make social comparison more effi- cient; users can access a world of optimized selves simply by log- ging on. Forty-five percent of Facebook users check the site multiple times a day (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015), with Smartphone users checking Facebook an average of 14 times a day (Subbaraman, 2013). Facebook also offers various tools to search, observe, and make comments about the profiles of others. An individual with a certain social comparison target (i.e., an in- dividual) in mind, for example, can conduct a simple search on Facebook rather than seeking out an offline interaction. In sum, Facebook not only creates an environment of optimized selves, but also offers opportunities to access other optimized selves at a faster rate.

Given users’ tendency to present themselves in favorable ways on Facebook, Chou and Edge (2012) found frequent Facebook users believed others were happier and had better lives compared their own and agreed to a lesser extent that life was fair. Similarly, Mehdizadeh (2010) reported Facebook activity to be significantly and negatively correlated with self-esteem. More recent work pointing to positive associations among Facebook use, social com- parison frequency, and negative affect after comparison (Feinstein et al., 2013; Lee, 2014; Locatelli, Kluwe, & Bryant, 2012) has led researchers to take a closer look at social comparison practices on the social networking site.

The current manuscript aims to delve further into the complex nature of social comparison on Facebook by addressing four ob- jectives. First, we attempt to explain inconsistent findings in social comparison literature by following Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995) functional approach. We believe a possible reason for con- flicting results is that a number of previous studies assume a straightforward match-up between social comparison motives and respective targets (i.e., self-evaluation motivation for similar com- parison targets, self-improvement for upward targets, and self- enhancement for downward targets) and thus overlook the multiplex motives characterizing social comparison behavior. Thus, we use Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995) functional approach, focusing on motives (i.e., self-enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation, and self-destruction) of social comparison, rather than the targets of social comparison (i.e., downward, upward, and similar). To date, researchers have yet to examine the relationship among motivation, esteem, and affect variables in the context of social comparison on social media.

Second, we believe that social comparison motive and behaviors

can elicit differential psychological consequences depending on individual differences. Thus, we examine the moderating effects of self-esteem to determine if systematic differences between in- dividuals with low and high self-esteem can impact how one feels after comparing oneself to another on Facebook.

Third, we attempt to illuminate a ‘big picture’ of social com- parison by investigating multiple social comparison motives collectively rather than separately. That is, instead of focusing on one motivation type, we test the effect of four social motivation types (i.e. self-enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation, and self-destruction) concurrently to examine each comparison motivation in the context of the other three. Our final objective is to begin to distill a popular phenomenon, a term we refer to as Facebook fatigue, in empirical social comparison work. We want to understand whether or not the interaction of an individual's social comparison motivation, self esteem, and affect leads to a desire to reduce Facebook use. Each of the objectives will be developed in the following sections.

1.1. Social comparison motives, self-esteem, and affect

1.1.1. Social comparison motives According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954),

humans evaluate abilities and opinions by comparison to others when ‘objective, non-social’ means of comparison are not available. The central tenets of the theory hold that we compare ourselves with those who are similar in ability or opinion for the purposes of self-evaluation (similar comparison). Individuals also maintain a ‘unidirectional drive upward,’ a desire to boost ability, and may seek to improve the self by comparing to superior others (upward comparison; Festinger, 1954, Wood, 1989). Self-enhancement prompts us to compare ourselves to those we perceive as less fortunate in order to feel better about ourselves (downward com- parison; Wills, 1981).

Despite what appears to be a straightforward match-up be- tween motives (self-evaluation, self-improvement, self-enhance- ment) and respective targets (similar, upward, downward), extant research reveals a complex relationship between motivation for and targets of social comparison. Wood (1989) argued each self- comparison motive is not confined to one specific target. For example, individuals motivated by self-improvement may compare to superior others (upward comparison) to learn what to do, but also to inferior others to figure out what not to do (downward comparison). Taylor and Lobel (1989) demonstrated an individual predilection to engage in downward comparison to enhance self- esteem but also to affiliate with upward contacts to enhance motivation and hope; in both directions (upward and downward comparison), the motivation is self-enhancement.

Due to the complicated nature of social comparison, Helgeson and Mickelson (1995) argue, the tendency of past social compari- son research to study only one motivation type in a single study presents problems. Contending that people engage in social com- parison behavior for a variety of reasons, they suggest studying social comparison based on a range of motives (e.g., self- enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation) rather than tar- gets of social comparison (i.e., downward, upward, and similar). In other words, motivations can reveal more about social comparison behaviors than respective targets. Helgeson and Mickelson (1995) thereby elected to use functional analysis, offering a motivational basis of attitudes (Katz, 1960), to better understand the complexity of social comparison.

1.1.2. Social comparison and affect Social comparison research also attempts to examine emotions

elicited after comparison. For example, Wheeler and Miyake (1992)

E.M. Cramer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 739e746 741

found positive affect to increase after downward comparisons, while negative affect arose from upward comparisons. The re- searchers were puzzled by a general tendency for individuals to engage in upward comparison rather than downward comparison despite the negative affect ensuing from upward comparison. They conjectured upward comparisons may produce negative affect but simultaneously trigger perceptions of personal control and hope- fulness. Collins (2000) suggested individuals compare themselves upwardly in order to find similarity with superior targets. Concluding “they are among the better ones” (2000, p. 170) leads individuals to experience increased positive affect. Correspond- ingly, Lockwood and Kunda (1997) found comparison with super- stars (upward comparison) inspired a desire to enhance the self, but only when the superstar's success was viewed to be attainable.

In all, research on the emotions arising from social comparison in any direction remains inconclusive (Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2002). Exposure to someone who is inferior can lead to either positive or negative evaluations because such exposure suggests that one's status is relatively advantaged but could decline. Relat- edly, exposure to someone who is superior can lead to either pos- itive or negative evaluations because such exposure communicates one's status is relatively disadvantaged but could improve.

1.1.3. Social comparison, affect, and self-esteem Considerable social comparison research examines self-esteem

as a factor influencing post-comparison affect. Some studies (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992) observe individuals with high self- esteem (HSEs) to be more inclined to seek self-enhancement through downward comparisons compared to those with low self-esteem (LSEs). A dominant body of literature, however, dem- onstrates the opposite pattern. Wills (1981) suggested LSEs engage in more downward comparisons for the purposes of self- enhancement: comparing oneself to a worse-off other can help an individual feel better. Wills’ downward comparison theory re- ceives support from the seminal work of Aspinwall and Taylor (1993), who examined self-esteem as a variable moderating the relationship between a social comparison target and affect following comparison. LSEs in whom a negative mood had been induced tended to engage in downward comparison to enhance subjective well-being; following a downward comparison, LSEs reported an increase in positive mood as well as more favorable self-evaluations and expectations for success. The caveat to the findings was that the relationship was observed only when a negative mood had been induced; for LSEs in whom a positive mood had been induced, exposure to downward comparison was not uplifting.

More recent social comparison research on body image (Jones & Buckingham, 2005) also reveals self-esteem to operate as a moderating variable for social comparison effects. When making comparisons to an unattractive female, LSEs reported higher body esteem than when comparing to an attractive female, favoring downward comparisons. Conversely, HSEs reported lower body esteem when making comparisons to an unattractive female compared to an attractive female, favoring upward comparisons. Results confirm Mussweiler's selective accessibility model (2003), demonstrating that LSEs feel better about themselves by comparing themselves to a dissimilar standard (contrast effect). HSEs exhibi- ted a tendency to feel better after comparison to a similar standard (assimilation affect). The findings compel further empirical inquiry into the role of self-esteem as a moderating variable in social comparison.

We postulate the target of social comparison depends on an individual's level of self-esteem. Given the hyperpersonal nature of Facebook as well as users' tendency to believe others are happier and possess better lives (Chou & Edge, 2012), upward comparison

may occur more frequently than downward comparison. Vogel et al. (2014) found frequent users of Facebook engaged in upward comparison to a greater extent than downward comparison.

The nature of social comparison motivation, however, may differ across Facebook users. Although results are mixed, social compar- ison literature generally contends that LSEs engage in downward comparison to feel better about themselves by comparing to worse- off others (self-enhancement), while HSEs compare themselves with better-off others to improve the self (self-improvement; see Wills, 1981; Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993; Jones & Buckingham, 2005). Thus, we hypothesize LSEs will visit Facebook with a self- enhancement motivation, while HSEs will log on to the social media site with a self-improvement motivation. Moreover, we hy- pothesize that social comparison motives will not produce a uni- form affect among individuals. Instead, in accordance with the selective accessibility model (Mussweiler, 2003), a self- improvement motive will produce greater positive affect among HSEs compared to LSEs, while self-enhancement will engender positive affect more prominently among LSEs compared to HSEs.

H1: On Facebook, LSEs will be more likely to engage in social comparison for the motive of (a) self-enhancement, while HSEs will be more inclined to engage in social comparison for the purpose of (b) self-improvement.

H2: On Facebook, a self-improvement motive for social com- parison will produce greater positive affect among HSEs compared to LSEs, while a self-enhancement motive will engender positive affect more prominently among LSEs compared to HSEs.

Along with self-enhancement and self-improvement, the cur- rent study probes into the relationship among self-esteem and two additional social comparison motivations. Social comparison liter- ature lacks clear and consistent findings describing the impact of self-esteem on the motive of self-evaluation, considered a similar or lateral comparison. Festinger (1954) posits the desire to evaluate the self is innately human; therefore, in the absences of objective, non-social criteria for evaluation, “people evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparison respectively with the opinions and abilities of others” (p. 118). Presumably, comparing oneself to a similar other to assess how one ‘measures up’ would be a tendency of both HSEs and LSEs.

Beyond self-evaluation, Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995) study is exceptional in its examination of a social comparison motivation for self-destruction. Defined as a motive to confirm the expectation that things will get worse, a self-destruction motive was found only among LSEs. Self-destruction can be perceived as a desire to fulfill a negative prophecy about the self through social comparison. Regarding self-evaluation and self-destruction motives for com- parison, the following question emerges:

RQ1: How does self-esteem influence other social comparison motivations (i.e., self-evaluation and self-destruction) on Facebook?

1.2. Facebook fatigue

Social comparison, affect, and self-esteem may work in concert to diminish intentions to use Facebook, a notion known in popular culture as Facebook fatigue. A Pew study found 61% of Facebook users had voluntarily taken a break from the social media sited9% attributed the break to gossip, negativity, conflict, and drama (Rainie, Smith, & Duggan, 2013). Popular news media outlets such as CNN (Kelly, 2013), the Financial Times (Cookson, 2013), and Forbes (Bercovici, 2013) use the term “Facebook fatigue” in articles reporting the study. Beyond the Pew study, Facebook fatigue has received little empirical attentiondaccordingly, this study at- tempts to examine the concept as a potential psychosocial outcome of social comparison on Facebook among college students.

E.M. Cramer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 739e746742

RQ2: Do social comparison motivations influence Facebook fa- tigue? If so, how do the effects differ depending on the level of self- esteem?

2. Methods

2.1. Measures

2.1.1. Social comparison activity The 11-item Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Mea-

sure (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) was adapted to gauge social com- parison activity on Facebook (a ¼ 0.80). While the measure was designed to assess social comparison as a relatively stable trait across situations and moments in time, the researchers conjectured social comparison activity online would correlate highly with social comparison orientation. Accordingly, the adapted measure included the following prompt: “Please think about your experi- ences while using Facebook. Do you compare yourself to others on Facebook? Please indicate your level of agreement with the state- ments below. When I am on Facebook …” Participants then re- ported levels of agreement with 11 items comprising the original scale. Each item used a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree), with higher scores indicating increased social comparison activities on Facebook.

2.1.2. Social comparison perception The researchers were interested in obtaining participants’ per-

ceptions of the extent to which social comparison occurs on Face- book in addition to their actual social comparison activity on the social media site. Accordingly, a scale was developed to measure social comparison perception on Facebook. Demonstrating good internal consistency (a ¼ 0.78), the scale consisted of three items: “I feel I get to compare myself to others more often while I am on Facebook,” “I feel Facebook motivates people to compare them- selves to others,” and “I feel Facebook makes it easier to compare oneself to other people.” Scale items were measured with a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Higher scores indicated perceptions of greater social comparison practices on Facebook.

2.1.3. Motives for social comparison To ascertain why participants engage in social comparison, the

three long-standing and well-tested social comparison motivation types, self-improvement, self-enhancement, and self-evaluation, were examined. Self-destruction, a motivation type emerging from the work of Helgeson and Mickelson (1995), also was tested. Given the current study's emphasis on self-esteem, the self- destruction motivation was added to the three traditional motive types. Motivations were measured using a scale developed by Helgeson and Mickelson (1995). Each scale item was measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ extremely unlikely, 5 ¼ extremely likely), with higher scores indicating greater motivation for social comparison. The scale indicated good internal consistency for self- improvement (a ¼ 0.88), self-enhancement (a ¼ 0.91), self- destruction (a ¼ 0.92), and self-evaluation (a ¼ 0.85).

2.1.4. Facebook fatigue A three-item measure developed by the researchers examined

the extent to which individuals avoid or feel less motivated to use Facebook due to perceptions of increased social comparison on the social media site. Scale items included: “I feel less motivated to use Facebook because I compare myself to others while I am on this site,” “I feel less motivated to use Facebook to avoid comparing myself to others,” and “Sometimes I have negative feelings about the accomplishments others post on Facebook.” The measured

showed good internal consistency (a ¼ 0.77) and used a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Higher scores indicated greater Facebook fatigue due to social comparison.

2.1.5. Self-esteem The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1989) gauged

participants’ perception of their own self-worth and satisfaction. The scale consists of 10 items, including “I feel that I have a number of good qualities” and “I take a positive attitude toward myself.” Items are measured using a 4-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly agree, 4 ¼ strongly disagree). The scale demonstrated good internal con- sistency (a ¼ 0.89), with higher scores indicating higher levels of dispositional self-esteem.

2.1.6. Positive affect The researchers were interested in the affective responses

associated with Facebook comparison. Accordingly, a list of affec- tive responses adapted from Zuckerman et al. (1964) as well as Buunk, Ybema, Gibbons, and Ipenburg (2001) was included in the study. The list included 18 emotions associated with a positive affect (e.g. grateful, reassured, pleasant). Participants were asked to “check all the responses that describe how you feel after comparing yourself to other on Facebook.” The sum of the affect checks became the positive affect composite variable.

2.2. Procedures and sample

An electronic survey was distributed via e-mail to students in undergraduate communication courses at a large public university in the Midwest. A total of 267 (N ¼ 267) individuals completed the survey, with females comprising 67% of the sample. Ages of par- ticipants ranged from 18 to 51 (M ¼ 23.63, SD ¼ 6.06). Participants reported the following ethnicities: White/Caucasian (78.1%), Afri- can American (8.3%), Latino (4.5%), Asian (3.4%), and American In- dian/Alaska Native and other (5.7%). A majority of the sample (61.7%) reported daily Facebook use, averaging 2.92 h a day (SD ¼ 3.41). Participants checked the social media site about ten times a day (M ¼ 10.23, SD ¼ 11.89). When asked how often they posted content (photos and text) to Facebook, 32.5% reported sometimes, followed by rarely (29.6%) and often (17.9%). Partici- pants reported reading postings (photos and text) often (30.3%), very often (20.8%), sometimes (19.4%), and extremely frequently (15.0%).

3. Results

First, a relationship between self-esteem and social comparison practices (i.e. activity and motivations) on Facebook was investi- gated (see Table 1 for complete correlation matrix). No significant relationship between self-esteem and social comparison activity on Facebook was detected, r (249) ¼ 0.05, ns, indicating self-esteem level was not related with the extent to which individuals engaged in social comparison on Facebook. Interestingly, in- dividuals with low self-esteem were more likely to perceive increased social comparison on Facebook (r ¼ �0.13; p ¼ 0.023) even though differences in actual social comparison activity were not evident. Self-esteem also did not associate with patterns of Facebook usage, including posting, r (271) ¼ �0.05, ns, and reading messages, r (271) ¼ �0.02, ns, as well as general activity, r (270) ¼ �0.07, ns.

To test H1 and RQ1, the relationship between social comparison motivation and self-esteem was tested: all social comparison mo- tives were significantly and negatively correlated with self-esteem. LSEs, compared to HSEs, tended to be more motivated to engage in social comparison for the purposes of self-improvement, r

E.M. Cramer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 739e746 743

(249) ¼ �0.16, p ¼ 0.01, self-enhancement, r (249) ¼ �0.25, p ¼ 0.000, and self-destruction, r (248) ¼ �0.46; p ¼ 0.000. Self- evaluation was also significantly and negatively correlated with self-esteem, r (249) ¼ �0.22; p ¼ 0.001. Thus, H1 was partially supported.

H2 was tested with hierarchical regression analyses. No signif- icant relationship was detected between self-esteem and positive affect following Facebook social comparison (b ¼ 0.06; p ¼ 0.35), suggesting social comparison activity was not connected to feeling good among HSEs and LSEs (see Table 2). Controlling for self- esteem, findings from Model 2 suggest most social comparison motives relate to positive affect. Both self-enhancement (b ¼ 0.25; p ¼ 0.002) and self-improvement motives (b ¼ 0.23; p ¼ 0.007) showed a fairly strong positive association with positive affect, while self-destruction demonstrated a significant negative affilia- tion (b ¼ �0.18; p ¼ 0.007) with positive affect. Self-evaluation was not significantly related with positive affect (b ¼ 0.13; ns). Further analysis was conducted to test the moderating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between affect and social comparison motiva- tion. Results indicated a positive moderating effect of self-esteem between self-improvement motivation and positive affect (b ¼ 0.94; p ¼ 0.049). Conversely, a negative moderating effect of self-esteem between self-enhancement and positive affect was detected (b ¼ �1.12; p ¼ 0.023). Thus, H2 was supported.

Using hierarchical linear regression, RQ2 examined the rela- tionship between social comparison motives and Facebook fatigue due to social comparison; the influence of self-esteem on the relationship also was explored (see Table 2). First, results indicated individuals with social comparison motives of self-improvement (b ¼ 0.22; p ¼ 0.006), enhancement (b ¼ 0.15; p ¼ 0.05), and destruction (b ¼ 0.21; p ¼ 0.002) felt more Facebook fatigue as a result of social comparison. Secondly, low self-esteem significantly and positively associated with Facebook fatigue. Compared to HSEs, LSEs were more likely to avoid or feel less motivated to use Face- book due to perceptions of social comparison on the social media site (b ¼ �0.42; p ¼ 0.000). While LSEs were generally more likely to experience Facebook fatigue, some social comparison motiva- tions particularly affected HSEs. That is, we found a significant, positive moderating effect of self-esteem between self- enhancement motive and Facebook fatigue (b ¼ 0.92; p ¼ 0.044) and between self-destruction motive and Facebook fatigue (b ¼ 0.94; p ¼ 0.009).

4. Discussion

4.1. Social comparison and Facebook use

The current findings offer several contributions to the literature on social comparison and Facebook use, with particular emphasis on how self-esteem relates to comparison practices on the social media site. First, we found self-esteem associates with perceptions of social comparison as well as motivations to engage in social comparison on Facebook. Comparing oneself to others is a common practice in Facebook; most (69%) study participants agreed they engage in social comparison on Facebook. While no significant correlation was observed between self-esteem and social compar- ison activity on Facebook, LSEs were more likely to perceive increased social comparison on Facebook. That is, LSEs, compared to their HSE counterparts, did not necessarily use Facebook or compare themselves to others on Facebook to a greater extent. However, they were more likely to think social comparison occurs frequently on the social media site.

Additionally, LSEs were consistently more motivated than HSEs to compare themselves to others for the purposes of self- evaluation, self-enhancement, self-improvement, and self-

destruction. This finding is quite important, as it suggests online social comparison motivations may differ from offline motivations. While Helgeson and Mickelson (1995)’s initial study found low self- esteem to be significantly correlated with only one comparison motive, self-destruction, our results suggest the use of social media magnifies all social comparison motives for LSEs. Results support our rationale that Facebook may promote social comparison by creating an environment of optimized selves and by offering op- portunities to access other optimized selves efficiently. LSEs may be especially sensitive to the hyperpersonal nature of Facebook.

Second, the study represents a primary step in examining mo- tives and affect in relationship to social comparison on Facebook. We found that while LSEs possessed greater motives for social comparison across all motivation types, they were more likely to experience Facebook fatigue due to social comparison. Thus, we conjecture LSEs to be more vulnerable to negative consequences of social comparison on Facebook.

Moreover, we found self-improvement, self-enhancement, self- evaluation, and self-destruction motives produce different affective responses depending on the level of self-esteem. Notably, the motivation triggering positive affect among HSEs differs from the motivation triggering positive affect for LSEs. As self-esteem in- creases, the effect of a self-improvement motivation on positive affect also increases, suggesting that comparing the self to others for the purpose of self-improvement engenders greater positive affect among HSEs compared to LSEs. The opposite pattern was observed for self-enhancement: as self-esteem decreases, the effect of a self-enhancement motivation on positive affect also increases. In other words, self-enhancement associates with a positive affect more prominently among LSEs compared to HSEs. The results support findings by Aspinwall and Taylor (1993), Wills (1981), and Wood, Giordano-Beech, Taylor, Michela, and Gaus (1994) suggest- ing that LSEs engage in the downward comparison for the purposes of self-enhancement and such comparison produces a positive affect.

Third, the study also acknowledges the presence of social comparison motivated by self-destruction. Self-destruction related to a deteriorated positive affect especially for LSEs. Additionally and not surprisingly, the self-destruction motive was associated with more Facebook fatigue. Curiously, however, those motivated to make social comparisons to improve or enhance the self also felt a decreased motivation to use Facebook. We wonder if self- improvement and self-enhancement, while initially generating positive affect, may eventually take a toll on the desire to use Facebook for social comparison. In an environment of optimized selves, the opportunities for self-enhancement and self- improvement know no bounds. One may become frustrated by ongoing attempts to keep up appearances and stay positive in a world where people are presenting the most favorable versions of themselvesdthere's always something more than can be done.

Fourth, we believe it is noteworthy that LSEs perceived increased levels of social comparison on Facebook. We proffer two explana- tions for this observation. First, we conjecture LSEs may be more sensitive and vulnerable to the hyperpersonal affordances of Facebook, compared to HSEs. That is, because they regularly encounter a reduced sense of self-worth, LSEs may be more conscious of the optimized portrayals of other Facebook members. Second, LSEs may use Facebook to compensate for reduced social interaction offline. According to the social compensation hypoth- esis (Valkenburg, Schouten, & Peter, 2005), individuals who are lonely or unpopular use social media platforms to compensate inadequate social networks. Because low self-esteem is associated with introversion and less popularity offline (Zywica & Danowski, 2008), we propose that LSEs use Facebook to learn more about peers and thereby engage in social comparison to a greater extent

Table 1 Zero-order correlations, means and standard deviations for study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. SC activity 1 2. Self-improve. 0.56** 1 3. Self-enhance. 0.54** 0.64** 1 4. Self-destruct. 0.19** 0.40** 0.46** 1 5. Self-eval. 0.52** 0.69** 0.67** 0.44** 1 6. Self-esteem �0.05 �0.16* �0.25** �0.46** �0.22** 1 7. Positive affect 0.42** 0.40** 0.37** 0.04 0.36** 0.06 1 8. SC perception 0.48** 0.32** 0.35** 0.12 0.34** �0.13* 0.23** 1 9. FB fatigue 0.31** 0.40** 0.40** 0.45** 0.33** �0.41** 0.06 0.41** 1 10. FB posting 0.25** 0.15* 0.23** 0.12 0.16** �0.05 0.26** 0.19** 0.08 1 11. FB reading 0.25** 0.23** 0.23** 0.05 0.22** �0.02 0.28** 0.25** 0.12 0.55** 1 12. FB use 0.15* 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.13* �0.08 0.16** 0.14* 0.15* 0.07 0.42** 1 M 3.28 2.84 2.70 1.91 2.80 3.09 4.74 3.71 2.66 2.95 3.95 3.70 SD 0.59 1.01 1.01 0.83 1.01 0.53 4.75 0.86 0.92 1.20 1.40 0.94

Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0 .01 ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed); SC ¼ social comparison; FB ¼ Facebook.

E.M. Cramer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 739e746744

online than offline. Lastly, the study is the first to test a concept popularized by the

media, Facebook fatigue, in empirical research. Results indicate LSEs feel fatigue from Facebook use more keenly. Diminished in- tentions to use Facebook also were linked to social comparison motives of self-improvement, enhancement, and destruction, sug- gesting that multiple motivations lead to Facebook fatigue. Moving forward, scholarly research should continue to define and scale the construct of Facebook fatigue in order to grasp its connection to social comparison and negative affect.

4.2. Theoretical contributions

The current study reveals the complex nature of social com- parison practices on Facebook and suggests systematic differences between LSEs and HSEs when comparing to others online. The study offers three important theoretical contributions to social comparison theory. First, our study is one of the first to investigate multiple social comparison motives collectively rather than sepa- rately. Previous work primarily has focused on targets of social comparison (i.e., upward, downward, lateral) and mostly tested a sole motivation type rather than several (Helgeson & Mickelson, 1995). Conversely, our study is unique in its examination of the influence of four social motivation types (i.e. self-enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation, and self-destruction) simulta- neously. A ‘big picture’ of social comparison emerges by (a) testing each comparison motivation in the context of the other three and

Table 2 Regression analysis: Positive affect and Facebook fatigue.

Positive affect

Predictors b

Step 1: Self-esteem 0.059 Step 2: Motivation Self-improvement 0.23 Self-enhancement 0.25 Self-destruction �0.18 Self-evaluation 0.13

Step3: Moderation Esteem*Improvement 0.94 Esteem*Enhancement �1.12 Esteem*Destruction 0.64 Esteem*Evaluation 0.16

R2 0.26 DR2 0.24

Note. b ¼ standardized beta from regression equation.

(b) investigating the true effect of each motivation by controlling for the other motivations.

Second, in contrast to previous work using experiments to test social comparison hypotheses, the current investigation contrib- utes to the literature by surveying participants about real-life social comparison practices. Study participants reported on actual social comparison behaviors and motives on Facebook rather than engaging in social comparison in a manipulated environment. As a result, the external validity of the findings is enhanced through increased levels of ecological isomorphism, or the degree to which the study reflects an external reality (Treadwell, 2014).

Finally, the study is one of only a limited number examining social comparison on Facebook using established social comparison measures and drawing from a rich history of social comparison research. A growing body of research examines the psychosocial impact of Facebook use (Feinstein et al., 2013; Haferkamp & Kramer, 2011; Vogel et al., 2014), but few studies identify social comparison to be a significant contributing factor. Nor do studies examine whether hyperpersonal affordances of Facebook motivate social comparison or produce different affective responses to social comparison. There is so much work to be done on this topic and our research represents a solid first step.

4.3. Limitations and future directions

As the current study is one of few investigating social compar- ison motives on Facebook, the current findings should be further

Facebook fatigue

p b p

0.353 �0.42 0.000

0.007 0.22 0.006 0.002 0.15 0.050 0.013 0.21 0.002 0.135 �0.08 0.335

0.049 �0.62 0.161 0.023 0.92 0.044 0.101 0.94 0.009 0.735 �0.43 0.310

0.37 0.34

E.M. Cramer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 739e746 745

extended and replicated. For example, our study focuses on social comparison in the social media context, which can be largely different from offline social comparison. We believe future study should test multiple social comparison motives in offline settings to further understanding the relationship between social comparison practices and self-esteem. Our conjectures regarding self-esteem and increased perceptions of optimized portrayals on Facebook also must be tested to determine if LSEs truly are more aware of the hyperpersonal affordance of the social media site.

Another limitation resides in whether the current in- vestigation's methodologies succeed in reconciling mixed findings in past social comparison literature. Although our study attempts to overcome several limitations residing in the previous studies, we are unsure about the differential effect of including multiple mo- tives, using a survey method, and examining social comparison in new context on our results compared to past research. We suppose replicating and expanding the current study in different settings with different methods (e.g., investigating offline social comparison motives with an experiment) may provide deeper understanding of social comparison theory.

Future research also should examine Facebook social compari- son practices associated with gender, culture, and age. In the United States, women (77%) tend to use Facebook more than men (66%) (Duggan, 2015). The Swedish Facebook study (Denti et al., 2012) found women to experience a relationship between time spent on Facebook and feelings of reduced happiness and contentment. The relationship was not evident for men. Among adolescents in Australia, Facebook use leads to a greater sense of self-concept for males, while females using Facebook reported more depression and lower self-esteem (Neira, Corey & Barber, 2014).

Across cultures, social comparison practices on Facebook may reflect trends observed offline. A Canadian study examining the relationship between cultural background and social comparison practices indicated Asian Canadians to seek more social compari- son, particularly upward social comparisons for self-improvement motives (White & Lehman, 2005). Guimond et al. (2007) reported greater between-gender social comparison in Western cultures, leading to more self-stereotyping, compared to Eastern cultures. More research needs to be conducted on the impact of culture on Facebook social comparison practices, especially in light of the increasing use of Facebook among Asian cultures (Jana, 2013) as well as ethnic minorities in the U.S. (Duggan, 2015).

Finally, our sample consisted of college-age students and therefore cannot be generalized to all Facebook users. For example, since 2010, social media use has nearly tripled among adults age 65 and older (Perrin, 2015). Further investigation across age groups would further uncover individual differences in social comparison practices.

5. Conclusion

A popular outlet for communication and connection, Facebook is a valuable site for research into social behavior, particularly social comparison and psychological factors associated with interacting with others in a world of optimized selves. The current study rep- resents a first step in examining motives and affect in relationship to social comparison on Facebook. The study also offers further insight into the important role of self-esteem in social comparison, with self-enhancement (for LSEs) and self-improvement (for HSEs) operating as salient factors influencing positive feelings after social comparison on Facebook. Finally, the study arrives at some tenta- tive conclusions about why individuals might avoid Facebook due to perceptions of social comparison on the social media platform.

References

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1993). Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 708e722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.64.5.708.

Bennett, S. (2012). Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube e What happens on the Internet every 60 seconds? [INFOGRAPHIC]. AllTwitter. Retrieved from http://www. mediabistro.com/alltwitter/data-never-sleeps_b24551.

Bercovici, J. (2013). Is Facebook home Facebook's answer to Facebook fatigue? Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/04/04/is- facebook-home-facebooks-answer-to-facebook-fatigue/.

Buunk, B. P., Ybema, J. F., Gibbons, F. X., & Ipenburg, M. (2001). The affective con- sequences of social comparison as related to professional burnout and social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 337e351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.41.

Chou, H. T. G., & Edge, N. (2012). “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: The impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others' lives. Cyberp- sychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 117e121. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1089/cyber.2011.0324.

Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the better ones: Upward assimilation in social com- parison. In J. Suls, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison (pp. 159e172). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Cookson, R. (2013). ‘Facebook fatigue’ stirs investor concern. FT.com. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8b7ab90e-bc91-11e2-b344-00144feab7de. html#axzz3Hl20wMed.

Denti, L., Barbopuolos, I., Nilsson, I., Holmberg, L., Thulin, M., Wendeblad, M., et al. (2012). Sweden's largest Facebook study. University of Gothenberg: Gothenberg Research Institute. Retrieved from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/ 28893/1/gupea_2077_28893_1.pdf.

Duggan, M. (2015). Mobile messaging and social media 2015. Retrieved from: http:// www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/mobile-messaging-and-social-media-2015/.

Duggan, M., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2015). Social media update 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ SocialMediaUpdate20144.pdf.

Facebook. (2016). Fb Newsroom: Company Info. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb. com/company-info/.

Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J. (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(3), 161e170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033111.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117e140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202.

Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129e142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.76.1.129.

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(1e2), 79e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411.

Guimond, S., Branscombe, N. R., Brunot, S., Buunk, A. P., Chatard, A., D�esert, M., et al. (2007). Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social compari- son processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1118. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1118.

Haferkamp, N., & Kr€amer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 309e314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0120.

Helgeson, V. S., & Mickelson, K. D. (1995). Motives for social comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1200e1209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 01461672952111008.

Jana. (2013). Facebook in Asia [blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.jana.com/blog/ facebook-in-asia/.

Jones, A. M., & Buckingham, J. T. (2005). Selfeesteem as a moderator of the effect of social comparison on women's body image. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy- chology, 24(8), 1164e1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.8.1164.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163e204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/266945.

Kelly, H. (2013). Survey: Most Americans take breaks from Facebook. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/tech/social-media/facebook-breaks- pew/.

Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites?: The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253e260. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009.

Locatelli, S. M., Kluwe, K., & Bryant, F. B. (2012). Facebook use and the tendency to ruminate among college students: Testing mediational hypotheses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 377e394. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ EC.46.4.d.

Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91e103.

Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Face- book. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), 357e364. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0257.

Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472e489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

E.M. Cramer et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 739e746746

0033-295X.110.3.472. Neira, B., Corey, J., & Barber, B. L. (2014). Social networking site use: Linked to ad-

olescents' social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood. Australian Journal of Psychology, 66(1), 56e64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12034.

Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage: 2010-2015. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science, and Tech. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/ social-networking-usage-2005-2015/.

Pring, C. (2012). 100 social media statistics for 2012. The Social Skinny. http:// thesocialskinny.com/100-social-media-statistics-for-2012/.

Rainie, L., Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013). Coming and going on Facebook. Pew research and Internet project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/ 02/05/coming-and-going-on-facebook/.

Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev ed.). Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differ- ences, 54(3), 402e407.

Subbaraman, N. (2013). Smartphone users check Facebook 14 times a day, study says. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ smartphone-users-check-facebook-14-times-day-study-says-f1C9125315.

Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159e163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00191.

Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96(4), 569e575. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.569.

Treadwell, D. (2014). Introducing communication research: Paths of inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Underwood, J. D., Kerlin, L., & Farrington-Flint, L. (2011). The lies we tell and what they say about us: Using behavioural characteristics to explain Facebook ac- tivity. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1621e1626. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2011.01.012.

Valkenburg, P. M., Schouten, A. P., & Peter, J. (2005). Adolescents' identity experi- ments on the Internet. New Media & Society, 7(3), 383e402. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1177/1461444805052282. Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social

media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206e222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000047.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interper- sonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3e43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001.

Wang, S. S., Moon, S. I., Kwon, K. H., Evans, C. A., & Stefanone, M. A. (2010). Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 226e234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.001.

Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 62(5), 760e773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.62.5.760.

White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2005). Culture and social comparison seeking: The role of self-motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 232e242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271326.

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison. Principles in Social Psychology Psycho- logical Bulletin, 90(2), 245e271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.245.

Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231e248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.106.2.231.

Wood, J. V., Giordano-Beech, M., Taylor, K. L., Michela, J. L., & Gaus, V. (1994). Strategies of social comparison among people with low self-esteem: Self-pro- tection and self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.713.

Zuckerman, M., Lubin, B., Vogel, L., & Valerius, E. (1964). Measurement of experi- mentally induced affects. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28(5), 418e425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0045367.

Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The faces of Facebookers: Investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses, predicting Facebook™ and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu- nication, 14(1), 1e34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x.