Facebook Use (Motives and Intensity) and Its Influence On Social Comparison and Affect As Mediated by Self-Esteem

FACEBOOK USE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SOCIAL COMPARISON AND AFFECT AS
MEDIATED BY SELF-ESTEEM
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Program for Liberal Arts
of the School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts
Saint Louis University
Baguio City
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
MS PSYCHOLOGY
By
ANGELICA NICHOLE MENDOZA, RPm
January 2017
Facebook Use and Social Comparison ii
Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Cordillera Administrative Region
FORM FOR THESIS/DISSERTATION REVIEW AND REPORT
1. Title: FACEBOOK USE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SOCIAL COMPARISON

AND AFFECT AS MEDIATED SELF-ESTEEM
OF THE WORK
2. Author: Angelica Nichole B. Mendoza
3. School: Saint Louis University
4. Are there provisions for:
Title Page: Yes Acknowledgement: Yes
Table of Contents: Yes List of Table and Figures: Yes
5. Is the title brief, accurate and comprehensive? Yes
6. Does the Table of Contents give an analytical view of the material covered by the study
together with the order of discussion? Yes
7. Is the Abstract of the Dissertation included? Yes
8. Is the Statement of the Problem clear? Yes
9. Does the problem justify the importance of the study? Yes
10. Have the terms been defined? Yes
11. Does the study contain a brief critical view of Related Literature or of previous
investigation? Yes
12. Is there a statement of the sources of data? Yes
13. What is the method of procedures used? Quantitative Method
14. Is there a close relationship between various parts of the dissertation? Yes
15. Does the final chapter include?
Conclusion: Yes Recommendation: Yes
16. Is the content new and fresh? Yes
Does it duplicate any material? No
17. Does it contribute something to education of other fields? Yes
18. Comments on: Typographical errors: None
Parenthetical documentation: None
References: None
19. Would you recommend the Thesis for approval? Yes
20. Other Comments: None
Submitted by:
GODOFREDO PRISCILLO NEBRIJA, PhD

Liberal Arts Graduate Program Coordinator
School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts
Saint Louis University, Baguio City
Date: January 14, 2017
Facebook Use and Social Comparison iii
English Editing Certification Form
This is to certify that I have edited this thesis/dissertation manuscript entitled
Facebook Use and its Influence on Social Comparison and Affect as

Mediated by Self-esteem
prepared by
Angelica Nichole B. Mendoza
and have found it thorough and acceptable with respect to grammar and composition.
_________________________________
signature over printed name
_________________________________
Affiliation/Contact Number
_________________________________
Date
Facebook Use and Social Comparison iv
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another
person nor material to which to a substantial extent has been accepted for award of any
other degree or diploma of a university or other institute of higher learning, except where
due acknowledgement is made in the text.
I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis/dissertation is the product
of my work, even though I may have received assistance from others on style, presentation
and language expression.
Angelica Nichole B. Mendoza, RPm January 14, 2017

_________________________________ __________________
Signature of Advisee over Printed Name Date
Ederlyn Marie Gatchalian, RPsy January 14, 2017

_________________________________ _________________
Signature of Advisor over Printed Name Date
Facebook Use and Social Comparison v
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation paper entitled “Facebook Use and its
Influence on Social Comparison and Affect as Mediated by Self-esteem” authored by
Angelica Nichole B. Mendoza, a candidate for the degree Master of Science in Psychology has
passed the originality check of Program used.
.
RINA H. DIARON, PhD

Director of Libraries
Date: January 14, 2017

Facebook Use and Social Comparison vi
ENDORSEMENT
The thesis/dissertation entitled FACEBOOK USE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON

SOCIAL COMPARISON AND AFFECT AS MEDIATED BY SELF-ESTEEM prepared and
submitted by ANGELICA NICHOLE MENDOZA for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
PSYCHOLOGY has been examined and is recommended for acceptance and approval for oral
examination.
This is to certify further that ANGELICA NICHOLE MENDOZA is ready for oral
examination.
EDERLYN MARIE GATCHALIAN

Adviser
This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation entitled FACEBOOK USE AND ITS
INFLUENCE ON SOCIAL COMPARISON AND AFFECT AS MEDIATED BY SELF-
ESTEEM prepared and submitted by ANGELICA NICHOLE MENDOZA for the degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY is recommended for oral examination.
JOJET LAMBERTO MONDARES, RPsy, RPm

Member
SALLY I. MAXIMO, RPsy, RGC MARY CATHERINE QUINTOS, RGC

Member Member
GODOFREDO PRISCILLO NEBRIJA, PhD FELINA P. ESPIQUE, PhD

Liberal Arts Graduate Program Coordinator Dean
School of Teacher Education School of Teacher Education
and Liberal Arts and Liberal Arts
Saint Louis University Saint Louis University
Facebook Use and Social Comparison vii
APPROVAL SHEET
Approved by the Committee on oral examination as PASSED on December 20, 2016.
JOJET LAMBERTO MONDARES, RPsy, RPm

Member
SALLY I. MAXIMO, RPsy, RGC MARY CATHERINE QUINTOS, RGC

Member Member
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER
OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY.
GODOFREDO PRISCILLO NEBRIJA, PhD

Liberal Arts Graduate Program Coordinator
School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts
This is to certify that ANGELICA NICHOLE MENDOZA has completed all academic
requirements and PASSED the Public Lecture on November 25, 2015 for the degree of Master
of Science in Psychology.
GODOFREDO PRISCILLO NEBRIJA, PhD FELINA P. ESPIQUE, PhD

Graduate Program Coordinator Dean
School of Teacher Education School of Teacher Education
and Liberal Arts and Liberal Arts
Saint Louis University Saint Louis University
Facebook Use and Social Comparison viii
DEDICATION
This thesis is inspired by someone who usually finds herself looking at the posts of other
people and feeling envious of them. Hence, this is dedicated to everyone who may find themselves
feeling down and lost from this world of information overload, thinking that one’s worth can be
measured by likes or comments. As they say, comparison is the thief of joy. This endeavour is also
dedicated to young individuals who believe that the digital world is their only escape from the
sorrows of the real world. Let this study serve as a reminder that life is more than just a “thumbs-
up”, a heart or any emoticon reaction on Facebook or any other social media platform. Life is a lot
more than what we see in the internet. Above all, I dedicate this thesis to my family and friends
who helped and inspired me to finish this study.
Facebook Use and Social Comparison ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the completion of this arduous journey, I thank all who in one way or another contributed
in the accomplishment of this study.
I am truly grateful for the patience and guidance of my thesis adviser, Ms. Ederlyn Marie
Gatchalian, and for the valuable insights and contribution of my thesis panel members, Mrs. Sally
I. Maximo, Mrs. Catherine Quintos and Mr. Jojet Mondares.
I am also thankful to my friends, especially England Castro and Myra Gahid who helped
me in completing my sample study; Saint Louis University, for granting me the permission to
conduct this study; and all students of Saint Louis University who made this study possible.
I am forever grateful to my family who has always been my source of strength. Thank you
to my mother who has always been understanding of my changing moods throughout my thesis
writing and for absorbing all my rants and complaints; to my father who always pushes me to never
ever settle for mediocrity; to my sisters who keep me sane at home while writing, and to my ever
supportive best friends – you guys are surely for keeps. Also, I would like to thank Khalil for being
understanding and patient with me and most importantly for giving me joy in times of distress.
Facebook Use and Social Comparison x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page …………………………………………………………………………. i
CHED Thesis/Dissertation Review and Report …………………………………... ii
Certificate of English Editing ….………………………………………………….. iii
Declaration of Originality…....……….…………………………………………… iv
Certification of Originality ………………………………………………………... v
Endorsement ………………………………………………………………………. vi
Approval Sheet ……………………………………………………………………. vii
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………… viii
Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………………… ix
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………. x
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………….. xii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………… xiii
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………. 1
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 2
Background of the Study …………………………………………………… 2
Statement of the Problem …………………………………………………… 16
Research Questions ………………………………………………………… 16
Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………….. 4
Research Paradigm ………………………………………………………… 15
Methodology………………………………………………………………………. 18
Results and Discussions ...………………………………………………………... 21
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………... 46
Recommendation ………………………………………………………………… 51
References ………………………………………………………………………... 54
Appendices ………………………………………………………………………. 62
Appendix A. Letter of Request …………..................................................... 62

Facebook Use and Social Comparison xi
Appendix B Letter of Consent to the participants. ………………………… 63

Appendix C Sample Questionnaire of Facebook Use Intensity…..………… 64
Appendix D Sample Questionnaire of Motives of Facebook Use …………. 65
Appendix E Sample Questionnaire of COM-F…………………………… 67
Appendix F Sample Questionnaire of Positive and Negative Affect 68
Schedule…………………………………………………………..…………
Appendix G Sample Questionnaire of Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale 69
……………………………………………………………………………….
Appendix H Reliability Analysis for the Motives of Facebook Use ………. 70
Appendix I Reliability Analysis for the Facebook Use Intensity Scale …… 71
Appendix J Reliability Analysis for COM-F ………………………………. 72
Appendix K Reliability Analysis for Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule ……………………………………………………………………. 73
Appendix L Reliability Analysis for Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale ……….. 74
Appendix M Breakdown of Respondents…………………………………... 75
Appendix N Factor Analysis of Motives of Facebook Use ………………... 77
Appendix O One-way ANOVA with Repeated Measures and Pairwise
Comparisons of Motives of Facebook Use…………………………………. 81
Appendix P Descriptive Analysis of Scores ……………………………….. 83
Appendix Q Stepwise Multiple Regression of Upward Social Comparison… 84
Appendix R Stepwise Multiple Regression of Non-directional Social
Comparison…………………………………………………………………. 85
Appendix S Stepwise Multiple Regression of Downward Social Comparison
………………………………………………………………… 86
Appendix T Stepwise Multiple Regression of Positive Affect …………….. 87
Appendix U Stepwise Multiple Regression of Negative Affect …………… 88
Appendix V Mediation Analyses of Self-esteem to Facebook Use and Social
Comparison..................................................................................................... 89
Appendix W Mediation Analysis of Self-esteem to Affect …………..……. 91
Facebook Use and Social Comparison xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Hypotheses of the theory of social comparison processes ……….……...

5
Figure 2. Research Paradigm ……………………………………………………... 15
Figure 3. Cluster of Means of Motives of Facebook Use ………………………… 26

Facebook Use and Social Comparison xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Factor Loadings for Principal Components Analysis with Varimax

Rotation of Motives of Facebook Use ……………………………………………. 21
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Facebook Use of SLU Facebook
Users………………………………………………………………………………. 25
Table 3 Summary of Intercorrelations for Scores on Facebook Use, Social

Comparison, Affect, and Self-esteem……………………………………………... 28
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Upward Social

Comparison from Facebook Use ………………………………………………….. 34
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Nondirectional

Social Comparison from Facebook Use ………………………………………….. 35
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Downward Social

Comparison from Facebook Use ………………………………………………….. 36
Table 7 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Positive Affect

from Facebook Use ……………………………………………………………... 37
Table 8 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Negative Affect

from Facebook Use………………………………………………………………... 38
Table 9 Total, Direct, Indirect Effects of Facebook Use and Upward Social
Comparison Mediation Model ……………………………………………………. 40
Table 10 Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Facebook Use and Nondirectional
Social Comparison Mediation Model……………………………………………. 41
Table 11 Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Facebook Use and Downward
Social Comparison Mediation Model……………………………………………... 42
Table 12 Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Facebook Use and Positive Affect
Mediation Model……………………………………………………....................... 43
Table 13 Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Facebook Use and Negative Affect
Mediation Model ………………………………………………………………….. 44
Facebook Use and Social Comparison 1
Abstract
A quasi-experimental study examined the influence of motives and intensity of Facebook

Use on Social Comparison and Affect among Filipino Facebook users as well as the mediating
effect of Self-esteem on this relationship. Data gathered from 329 students from Saint Louis
University indicated that among the motives of Facebook Use, Relationship Maintenance is the
most salient motive of Facebook Use. Intensity of Facebook Use is correlated with Upward,
Nondirectional, and Downward Social Comparisons and Positive and Negative Affect. Facebook
Use Intensity, Companionship and Social Investigation are significant predictors of Upward and
Nondirectional Social Comparison while Downward Social Comparison is positively predicted by
Facebook Use Intensity and negatively predicted by Relationship Maintenance. Positive Affect is
related to Facebook Use Intensity, Self-expression, and Reconnection while Negative Affect is
positively predicted by Facebook Use Intensity and Companionship, and negatively predicted by
Passing Time. Mediation analyses revealed that Self-esteem does not mediate the relationship
between the variables.
Keywords: Facebook, Motives, Intensity, Social Comparison, Affect, Self-esteem

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study

Daily interactions with different people afford individuals opportunities to learn about
other people’s lives – the state of their social lives, opinions and abilities. With the advent of social
networking sites (SNS), people are given more opportunities to share personal information about
themselves to other people. The use of social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram has become pervasive over the recent years. For many, the use of such social media
platforms has become part of their daily routine.
Facebook, with more than one billion members, is one of the largest networking sites in
the world, along with Instagram, Twitter and other social media platforms. Facebook currently has
1.038 billion daily active users worldwide (Smith, 2014). Social networking sites (SNS) offer a
range of services which vary from site to site. Boyd and Ellison (2007) defined social network
sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (a) construct a public or semi-public profile
within a bounded system; (b) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection;
and (c) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.
Facebook was first launched as “TheFacebook” in 2004 by Mark who created the website
for Harvard University students. The website was initially limited to university students to stay
connected with their classmates. The features included sending messages and invites, sharing
photos and some personal information, writing on each other’s walls and even ‘friending’ and
‘unfriending’ and blocking other users. In 2006, Facebook became open to anyone above 13 years
old with a valid e-mail address. Since then, other features were added to the website such as the
Newsfeed, the like button, cover photos and many more.
In the Philippines, there are 47 million Facebook users (Internetworldstats.com, 2015).

Social media and smartphone have penetrated the Philippines that the country was once called the
“Selfie Capital of the World”. According to TIME’s analysis, Makati City and Pasig city of Manila,
Philippines had 258 selfie-takers per 100,000 people (Stone, 2014). Also, according to We Are
Social's Digital Report as of January 2015, the Philippines leads in average "Time Spent on the
Internet" through laptop and desktop, and one of the highest via mobile worldwide (Revesencio,
2015). Clearly, social networking is the most popular online activity in the Philippines and this is
expected to rise as people accessing internet from their tablets and smartphones continue to
increase.
Social media has become an important part of peoples’ lives in transforming the way they
communicate as well as the kind and amount of information they can share and access. Thus,
people are permitted to view details about other peoples’ lives even if they do not actively search
for these types of information. Exposure to the social activities published online by other people
may draw users to compare their social lives with that of their peers and other people in general
since people have the natural tendency to compare themselves to others. Every individual has a
desire to validate the correctness of his opinions and also the extent of his abilities. This validation
is made easier by external criteria. However, when one cannot test them against objective reality,
an individual’s drive for self-evaluation will cause him to use the only available criterion: social
reality or the opinions and abilities of other people. The individual, then, tests himself against, or
more specifically compares himself with other people.
Because of the varied information posted about others on Facebook, people should be quite
enthused to compare themselves to others. Posts on a target person’s profile influence how that
person is perceived by other people. As such, Walther et.al (2008) found that a Facebook user’s
credibility and physical attractiveness is impacted by the physical attractiveness of the user’s
friends. Moreover, task and social attractiveness of the user is enhanced with Facebook wall posts
with gratifying contents. Their results show that simply having physically attractive friends within
one’s profile can elevate people’s perception of the user’s physical attractiveness. In this case,
social networking sites such as Facebook render themselves as new tools for social comparison to
take place. However, it is important to note that people differ in their tendencies to engage in social
comparison and in the psychological outcomes that result from it. For example, an individual
scrolling through her Facebook Newsfeed comes across her friends’ pictures of tasty foods they
ate, adventures they went to, and new clothes they bought and may start to wonder about her own
social life and compare it to others. She may start asking herself if her social life is as exciting as
others or if she is as happy as others are with their lives and may feel bad afterwards. One may
also compare herself to someone else based on the number of likes and comments one receives on
her photos and status updates. Such an outcome may depend on several factors such as the self-
esteem of the person. Studies show that adolescents tend to rely heavily upon self-image and the
perception of others towards them. Social networking sites deem to be an environment conducive
to the enhancement of self-esteem.
In a research by Lee (2014), it was revealed that social comparison frequency is

significantly explained by an individual’s self-uncertainty which means that a person who is less
certain about herself more frequently compares with others on Facebook. Consequently, Lee found
a negative relationship between Self-esteem and Social Comparison frequency on Facebook while
Steers, Wickham and Acitelli (2014) found that the relationship between the amount of time spent
on Facebook and depressive symptoms was uniquely mediated by upward, non-directional, and
downward Facebook social comparisons. The researchers contended that social comparison is the
underlying mechanism linking Facebook and depressive symptoms. Thus, the more time people
spend on Facebook, the more likely they are to feel depressed.
Since its inception, Facebook has generated several researches regarding its use. Some
researchers have focused on the relationship between Facebook use and personality traits, self-
esteem, motivations as well as gratifications from using such. However, little knowledge is known
about social comparison in social networking sites and its outcomes in the Philippine setting
considering that Philippines has numerous active Facebook users.
Thus, it is in this light that this research aims to explore how Facebook may be a breeding
ground for social comparison in the Philippine setting. Specifically, this study intends to determine
how Filipino Facebook users’ motives and intensity of use influence their tendency to make social
comparisons on Facebook and the psychological outcomes that result from it. Aside from the
novelty that social networking brings in terms of social comparison, it is also interesting to discover
the relationship between self-esteem and social comparison. The study also focuses on the
mediating effect of self-esteem on Facebook Use and Social Comparison. Upward comparison
may motivate an individual to improve and strive; while downward comparisons, according to
Pomery (as cited by Zuo, 2014), are inspired by one’s aspiration to advance self-esteem, and that
downward shifts are driven by a desire to guard self-esteem that is threatened. Hence, the present
study aims to delve into the effect of Facebook motives and intensity on the affect of Facebook
users.
Vogel, Rose, Okdie, Eckles and Franz (2014) conducted two studies regarding Facebook,
self-esteem, social comparison and mood. In the first study, they found that people who used
Facebook more often had lower trait self-esteem and were more likely to report making upward
and downward social comparisons. Also, researchers found that upward, but not downward, social
comparison explained the association between Facebook use and trait self-esteem. Meanwhile, the
second study revealed that people who viewed a target profile with upward social (such as a high
activity social network) or upward personal (such as positive photos and statuses) content had
lower reported self-esteem and more negative self-evaluations. Their results indicate that exposure
to profiles with upward comparison content such as user profiles that appeared to be physically
attractive, fit, and had high social networking activity, was related with poorer state self-esteem
and negative evaluations of themselves.
The study’s practical implication is an attempt to provide an empirical understanding of

social comparisons made in an online environment in the Filipino population, particularly the
youth. Among the Filipinos, the largest Facebook users are currently from the age group of 18 –
24 years old with a total of 12 million users, followed by the users in the age of 25 - 34 (Labrague,
2014). This study hopes to bring about awareness to Facebook users of the many behavioral
determinants and consequences that come with Facebook use. The results of the study may also
contribute to the field of Psychology particularly in understanding the online behavior of Filipinos,
and also in the field of Guidance and Counseling and Research as these areas deal with concerns
involving the online activities of the youth.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Social Comparison
Human beings desire to understand the world – to know what kind of social environment
they have and to understand what kind of people they are dealing with. Aside from the need of
human beings to have accurate views about their social world, humans desire to have a defined
view of themselves. One way to do this is by understanding their place in the social environment.
That is, by comparing themselves to others. Social comparison provides information that can be
used to evaluate the self – one’s abilities, attitudes, skills, and values. Other people then serve as a
yardstick against which to compare one’s own characteristics.
Leon Festinger was the first to use the term “social comparison” and the first to propose a
systematic theory, but the general concept has been in circulation since social philosophers and
social scientists had long been present (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). Festinger (1954) provided nine
hypotheses and itemized it with eight corollaries and eight deviations as presented in Figure 1
below.
Figure 1. Hypotheses of the theory of social comparison processes. From “Social Comparison: Motives,
Standards, and Mechanisms” by Corcoran, K., Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. 2015, Research Gate
The first hypothesis relates that people have the innate desire to validate the correctness of
his abilities and the extent of his abilities. An individual’s thoughts regarding the situation he is in
and the evaluation of his abilities both have influence on his behavior. Festinger pointed out that
the holding of incorrect opinions and/or inaccurate appraisals of one’s abilities can be punishing
or even fatal in many situations. He further stated:
The behavioral implication of the existence of such a drive is that we would

expect to observe behaviour on the part of persons which enables them to ascertain
whether or not their opinions are correct and also behavior which enables them
accurately to evaluate their abilities. It is consequently necessary to answer the
question as to how persons go about evaluating their opinions and their abilities.
(Festinger, 1954, p.118)
Similarly, the second hypothesis states how a person compares his opinions and abilities
in the absence of an objective criterion by evaluating it through the abilities and opinions of others.
The unavailability of an objective criterion motivates a person to compare himself to others.
However, when both objective and social means of comparison are unavailable, subjective
evaluations of abilities and opinions come into play but are usually unstable. Festinger described
that a person’s “level of aspiration” changes noticeably as the performance fluctuates which was
shown via an experiment. In the experiment, the person was made to perform a series of tasks.
After each trial, the person is told of his score and he was asked what score he expects to get for
the next task. The expected score is the person’s “level of aspiration”. If he scores better than the
previous one, the set aspiration is no longer good and the level of aspiration goes up; but if he
scores lower than the previous trial, his level of aspiration goes down. However, when an objective
reality exists, the person will not compare his abilities and opinions against other people.
Meanwhile, the 3rd, 4th and 8th hypotheses state with whom people will compare. The more
divergent another person’s abilities and opinions are with the person, then the less likely the
tendency to make a comparison will be. If such comparison object is the only one available, then
a subjective accurate evaluation may not be possible. Someone who is close to one’s own ability
and opinion is chosen for comparison. Also, in the case of abilities, a person will have a
unidirectional drive upward. That is, a person will more likely choose someone who is slightly
better to compare himself with because of the value placed on becoming better which is more
desirable.
The 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th hypotheses summarize the influence of social comparisons to a
person’s behavior. First, social comparison may motivate a person to change his behavior in the
direction of uniformity to become closer to the comparison group. On the other hand, this change
still depends on factors such as the significance of the comparison group and the consequences
that come with it.
Festinger’s theory of social comparison process is mainly an adjunct to his theory of

cognitive dissonance. Clearly, people do not simply make use of other people for social
comparisons for the sake of comparison but to have a better view of the self. For example
Sedikides, Sworonski and Dunbar (2006) related that when humans judge others on self-relevant
dimension, they selectively process information that are central to the self and draw a large number
of (usually extreme) inferences about others.
Furthermore, there are two types of Social Comparison – the Upward and Downward
comparison. Upward social comparison is when we compare ourselves with those who we believe
are better than us while downward social comparison is when we compare ourselves to others who
are worse off than ourselves (Cherry, 2016). These two types of social comparison reveal that
people differ in their tendencies to engage in social comparison. This is contrary to Festinger’s
claim that there is a unidirectional drive upward to make comparisons. Social comparison
orientation (SCO) is a trait that reflects these individual differences (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999).
Thus, Gibbons and Buunk constructed a scale to evaluate whether people vary in the amounts of
comparisons they make. They found that some people are indeed more likely to compare with
others. Gibbons and Buunk reported that individuals high in SCO have a chronic sensitivity to and
awareness of others, and experience more uncertainty and instability regarding their self-concepts
(as cited by Vogel, Rose, Okdie, Eckles & Franz, 2015).
The question now is “Why do people engage in social comparisons?” Aside from the
existence of a person’s need to validate his opinions and abilities – or simply self-evaluation,
people engage in social comparisons for other purposes such as self-enhancement and self-
improvement. At times, people do not always receive accurate feedback about themselves, rather,
they try to construct and maintain a positive image of themselves. Thus, people may also make
comparisons for this reason. According to Wills as cited by Corcoran, Crusius & Mussweiler
(2015) downward comparisons - comparison with others one outperforms - can serve this goal.
Moreover, Wills, as cited by Wood (1989), discovered that people who have had unfortunate
experience frequently compared themselves with someone who is lesser in plane against them.
This way, downward social comparisons boost self-esteem.
Self-improvement motives also operate in the comparison process. To gain information

and hints on how to advance, people seek comparisons particularly with upward standards - others
who are better than themselves. (Corcoran, Crusius & Mussweiler, 2015). Yet, other researches
may disagree that upward social comparisons can be inspirational. Wood (1989) believed that
“upward comparisons may be particularly painful when the superior others are close or similar on
surrounding dimensions.” In the work of Cash, Cash and Butters as mentioned by Wood (1989),
women who saw pictures of physically attractive women rated their own physical attractiveness
as relatively low, except when they thought that the attractive others were professional models.
The author believed that the subjects of the study found the professional models as completely
divergent to themselves; however, when the comparison target is similar to them, i.e. their peers,
such upward comparison may lower self-esteem. In relation to this, logical reasoning holds that
individuals will be influenced by others only when they can map themselves onto another person,
drawing parallels between their own experience and that of the other (Tesser, Felson & Suls, 2000).
Facebook Use: Motives and Intensity
One factor that may influence the tendency of a user to make social comparisons on
Facebook is his motivations when logging on to the site. In general, motivation refers to the
dynamic force within the individual that pushes him towards a goal. Interestingly, Facebook is
packed with several features such as the creation of a profile which contains some personal
background information, a profile picture and a display of the user’s friends list. Facebook also
allows users to share their photos, tag their friends, see other user’s photos and comment on these
photos. Users may also share their thoughts through status updates, create groups, events and play
games on the site. These features allow Facebook users to maximize the site for a variety of
purposes.
The Uses and Gratification (U&G) perspective is the most used approach in studying
social media. Uses and gratifications theory attempts to explain the uses and functions of the
media for individuals, groups, and society in general (Uses and Gratifications Approach, n.d.).
U&G studies tend to share a common frame of analysis that focuses on motives, social and
psychological antecedents, and cognitive, attitudinal, or behavioral outcomes (Papacharissi,
2008). According to this framework, motives are general dispositions that influence people’s
actions towards an achievement of a want, need, or behavior.
Social and psychological antecedents are variables that affect making media-related
decisions, attitudes and behaviors such as the amount and selection of media content, motivation
for its use and possible outcomes of media experience. Notably, there are several needs and
gratification for people which are categorized into five categories: a) cognitive needs, b) affective
needs, c) personal integrative needs, d) social integrative needs, and e) tension free needs
(Communication Theory, n.d.). Therefore, to understand why people use Facebook, U&G analysis
will begin first by examining the motives of a person by using such site and identifying variables
such as demographic variables and socio-psychological characteristics that will influence
Facebook-related behaviors of the users. Then, it is followed by the effects or outcomes of using
Facebook. Flaherty, Pearce, & Rabbin (1988) found that entertainment, passing time, and
information-seeking - needs met by traditional media are also met by computers, which is why
people use them. Several researches have utilized this approach to study why people use Facebook.
For example, Tanta, Mihovilović, and Sablić, (2014) used U&G framework to determine why
adolescents use Facebook and they found that adolescents use Facebook mainly to socialize and
communicate with their friends, as well as to obtain information about social events; the use of
Facebook primarily gratifies adolescents’ need for integration, social interaction, information and
understanding of their social environment. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) developed the
Interpersonal Communication Motives (ICM) scale and identified six motives for Interpersonal
Communication which were escape, relaxation, control, inclusion, pleasure, and affection.
Similarly, Sheldon (2008) developed a scale to gauge the motives of students in using Facebook
and its relationship with unwillingness to communicate. She constructed the Facebook Motives
scale and found six motives, namely: Relationship Maintenance, Passing time, Virtual community,
Entertainment, Companionship and Coolness.
According to Sheldon (2008), Relationship maintenance refers to interacting with members

of an individual’s existing offline social network. Passing time includes using of Facebook to
occupy time. This use may be part of a habit or an excuse to procrastinate. Virtual community
refers to communication with people met through the internet (Song, La Rose, Eastin, & Lin,
2004). Entertainment motives refer to planned usage of Facebook for the purposes of pleasure
seeking. Companionship, on the other hand emphasizes the use of Facebook to avoid loneliness
while Coolness relates to being cool and having fun.
On a different note, Joinson (2008) in his study identified seven unique uses and
gratifications of Facebook use, namely: social connection, shared identities, content, social
investigation, social network surfing and status updating.
Social connection motive is the combination of social surveillance and social capital
functions. It covers the concepts of reconnecting with lost contacts such as finding out what old
friends are up to now and maintaining contact with existing friends or friends that one does not get
to see often. The second motive, which is shared identities, refers to joining of groups, organization
of events and meeting of like-minded people. Thus, the motive ‘shared identities’ functions. The
third and fourth factors pertain to the content gratification of Facebook. The third factor covers the
social use of photographs such as posting and viewing photos while the fourth factor refers to
application within Facebook such as, playing games, quizzes and discovering new apps. The fifth
factor, social investigation, leans on expanding social networks and finding out more about people
who were known offline. The sixth factor, social network surfing serves the social surveillance
function too in a different way. It dwells on one’s capability to traverse one’s network and discover
one person through another friend’s list of friends. The last motive refers to status updates – posting
status updates and updates on newsfeed such as changes of relationship status, addition of friends
and other recent activities.
Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) also stated that Facebook use has three dimensions:
information dimension, friendship dimension, and connection dimension. The information
dimension includes academic reasons, posting pictures, learning about new events and posting
social gatherings. Friendship dimension is related to keeping in touch with old and new friends,
while the connection dimension refers to dating, feeling connected and making new friends.
Park and Lee’s study (2014) indicated entertainment, relationship maintenance, self-expression,
and impression management as associated with Facebook usage.
Further investigation of motives of Facebook use found relationship with certain

characteristics. For example, comparison of the motives of men and women indicated that women
are more likely motivated to visit Facebook to preserve existing relationships, be entertained and
to pass the time while men are motivated to meet new people or develop new relationships
(Stafford, Stafford, & Schkade, 2008). Similarly, Makashvili, Ujmajuridze, Amirejibi,
Kotetishvili, & Barbakadze (2013) found that among university students, females use Facebook to
contact existing friends and upload pictures while men use it for creation of new relationships and
passing time. Consequently, female and younger individuals visited Facebook to maintain existing
relationships (Sheldon, 2008).
In the Philippines, the Uses and Gratification framework was applied to understand the
taxonomy of internet use in the country as evidenced in the work of Hechanova and Ortega-Go
(2014). The authors found that internet use can be classified to seven components which are the
basic internet use, entertainment, expression and interaction, e-commerce, school-related, and
technological deviance. Gastardo-Conaco and Labor (2016) identified information-seeking, filial
and social relations, and political activities as reasons for using the internet. GMA News online
(2014) reported results from Wave7, a survey conducted by UM, a division of IPG Mediabrands,
that Pinoys (Filipinos) lead the world in the amount of time spent socializing online. The Wave7
survey also stated that Filipinos spend 53 hours socializing in a week - 11 hours more than the
global average of 42 hours.
On another light, the mission of Facebook is to give people the power to share and make
the world more open and connected; to help people stay connected with friends and family, to
discover what is going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them
(Facebook.com); however, usage patterns on Facebook vary from one person to another depending
on the features of the site that they utilize. The reasons why Filipinos thrive in social networking
sites can be understood by first looking at their motivations for using them. The same survey
mentioned earlier revealed a breakdown of the needs being satisfied by social media such as: a) to
stay in touch with friends, 74%; b) meet new people, 70%; c) have fun, 65%; d) share new
experiences, 63%; and e) keep company, 62%.
Moreover, Facebook use is also characterized by the intensity of its use. Facebook intensity
does not only include the frequency and duration of Facebook use but also the user’s involvement
– the emotional connectedness to the site and its integration to the user’s daily activities.
Interestingly, Ellison, Steinfeld and Lampe (2007) created the Facebook Intensity scale in their
research to obtain a better measure of Facebook usage. The development of the scale was based
on the assumption that intensity of Facebook use is linked to the creation and maintenance of social
ties. The results of the study did prove that positive relationship exists between certain kinds of
Facebook use and the maintenance and creation of social capital. Raacke and Bonds-Raacke
(2008) found that students spent an average of 1.10 hours on other’s accounts and 1.46 hours on
their own account per day.
On an investigation conducted by Rae and Lonborg (2015), they found that quantity of
Facebook use was connected with higher levels of psychological well-being like general positive
affect, life satisfaction and emotional ties, among users that logged on Facebook for friendship
purposes but was negatively related with psychological well-being among users that used
Facebook for connection purposes (e.g., making new friends). Also, Midgley (2013) reveals that
individuals with low self-esteem and who are motivated to log onto Facebook to get information
with others predicted making more comparisons on Facebook. Motives of passing time and
relationship maintenance predicted the number of hours students spend on Facebook. Also,
motives of entertainment, passing time and relationship maintenance were all significant predictors
of whether users would miss Facebook if it were to disappear (Sheldon, 2008). Contrastingly,
Capulong (2016) contends that among the Facebook activities, college freshmen’s engagement in
Facebook activities were related to time spent on Facebook. As such, checking to see what
someone is up to had the highest relationship with Facebook time, followed by viewing photos,
sending private messages, creating or replying to attend to events, commenting or liking, posting
photos, viewing videos, tagging photos, and posting status updates.
Social Comparisons on Facebook
Traditionally, social comparisons take place in offline face-to-face situations. However,

with the advent of technology, people come to know about other people’s lives through the use of
social networking sites. These sites allow people to broadcast and share their social lives to other
people. Due to its popularity and increased usability with its many features, social networking sites
such as Facebook renders itself as a viable avenue for social comparison.
As previously stated, motivations and emotional connectedness to Facebook influences the

people’s behaviors regarding Facebook use. Joinson (2008) examined motives and uses of
Facebook among Italian Facebook and associated these to user demographics, site visit patterns
and privacy settings. Interestingly, he found that content gratification (items related to content
within Facebook, for instance, applications and quizzes) predicted the amount of time spent on the
site; but social investigation, social network surfing and status updating predicted frequency of
visits. Joinson believed that it would seem that the content of the site would motivate people to
stay longer online while surveillance functions would motivate people to repeatedly visit the site.
Since creating and maintaining social ties is one of the uses cited by Facebook users, it
would appear that people are quite interested to learn about others. Hence, they would engage in
social surveillance behaviors such as browsing and checking up on old friends and acquaintances
and forming and maintaining connections with these people. These instances provide users
opportunities to make social comparisons.
Self-esteem
Self-esteem refers to the degree to which the self is perceived positively or negatively. It
is one’s overall attitude towards the self. Personal experiences, social comparisons and group
comparisons are sources of good or bad attitudes toward the self. Franken (2002) enumerated
three origins of self-esteem. The first origin is self-evaluation which typically takes place when
individuals experience success or failure. Usually, it is expected that people who succeed
experience pride while people who fail experience shame. Pride, along with acceptance of
imperfections is a key aspect of high self-esteem. Conversely, low self-esteem is characterized by
shame from feeling incompetent and lacking of skills and abilities important to others.
The second origin is the successes in valued domains. These domains or areas of
knowledge are deemed valuable to the person whom one can take pride of. They attached more
significance to successes in these valued domains and likewise failing at these domains produces
greater shame. In relation to these domains, Heather and Polivy indicated three components of
self-esteem as outlined by Heatherton & Wyland (2003) which are the performance self-esteem,
social self-esteem, and physical self-esteem. These components can be broken down into smaller
subcomponents. Performance self-esteem refers to one’s sense of general competence and
includes intellectual abilities, school performance, self-regulatory capacities, self-confidence,
efficacy, and agency (Heatherton & Vohs, 2000). Social self-esteem refers to how people think
they are perceived by others. The concept of the “looking-glass self is reflected in this component.
As cited by Mecca, Smelser & Vasconcellos (1989), in Cooley's view, self-esteem may be more
strongly associated with the perceived appraisals of others than with actual appraisals. Lastly,
physical self-esteem refers to how people view their physical bodies, and includes such things as
athletic skills, physical attractiveness, body image, as well as physical stigmas and feelings about
race and ethnicity (Heatherton & Vohs, 2000).
Finally, the third origin of self-esteem is societal values which include what people value
in their lives. As such, this may reflect societal values, parental values and peer values. Because
self-esteem is a relevant construct in the field of Psychology, several measures were created to
capture the definition of self-esteem. In line with this are the different meanings associated with
self-esteem such as global self-esteem, feelings of self-worth and self-evaluations. Global self-
esteem refers to the general value that a person places on him- or herself and should be
distinguished from appraisals of specific traits or abilities (such as academic self-concept) (Suls &
Krizan, 2005). To integrate the three meanings of self-esteem, Brown, Dutton & Cook (2001)
conducted three investigations to test their hypotheses that: (a) self- esteem influences self-
evaluations; and (b) that self-evaluations influence feelings of self-worth. That is, high self-esteem
people are more adept than low self-esteem people at building and preserving high feelings of self-
worth, and that they do so, in part, by claiming to possess socially desirable traits and/or by denying
that they possess socially undesirable traits. The results of their study supported their hypothesis
and found that high self- esteem people use their self-evaluations to promote and restore high
feelings of self-worth.
Facebook and Self-esteem
Several literature on Facebook use has mentioned the link between Facebook and self-
esteem. Some researchers found a relationship between self-esteem and Facebook usage. For
example, people who have lower self-esteem more frequently updated about their current romantic
partner (Marshall, Lefringhausen, & Ferenczi, 2015); cared more about what others had posted
about them on Facebook and were more likely to remove certain posts to ensure their profile
remains a reflection of the image they wanted to portray (Maldonado, 2015). Facebook provides
users to create a profile that is according to their liking. This affords people the opportunity to
present themselves in a favorable light. It is believed that Facebook can help people regain or
maintain their self-worth.
Additionally, Toma and Hancock (2013) affirm that self-affirmation underlies Facebook
use. In their first study, participants were asked to prepare and deliver a short speech about abortion
and would receive a feedback by the evaluator, which they would then rate its fairness and
usefulness. A group of participants were asked to view their own Facebook profiles prior to the
task while the other group were asked to view a stranger’s profile. All the participants were given
generic negative feedback. The results of the first study showed participants who examined their
own Facebook profiles were more accepting of the feedback than participants who examined a
stranger’s profile. This shows that Facebook profiles are self-affirming in the sense of satisfying
users’ need for self-worth and self-integrity. Meanwhile, in their second study, participants were
also tasked to prepare a speech similar to the first study but were randomly assigned to receive
negative and neutral feedbacks. They were given the chance to choose in one of five activities the
experimenters prepared (browsing their own Facebook which is self-affirming; and non-self-
affirming activities: watching YouTube videos, listening to online music, reading online news, and
playing online videogames) and rank them in the order of their preference. The results revealed
that participants who received negative feedbacks preferred Facebook profile browsing.
Relatively, Toma and Hancock’s (2013) second study showed that Facebook users gravitate
toward their online profiles after receiving a blow to the ego, in an unconscious effort to repair
their perceptions of self-worth. Because Facebook is full of mostly favorable information about
other people, seeing these types of information may also evoke a threat to the ego. Threats to the
psychological self, such as feeling left out by others or feeling unattractive, may also arouse
distress and motivate efforts to cope with the threat. Efforts to cope with the threat may depend on
the person’s self-esteem.
Self-affirmation theory posits that people have a fundamental motivation to maintain self-
integrity, a perception of themselves as good, virtuous, and able to predict and control important
outcomes (Baumeister and Vohs, 2007). The study of Jaremka, Bunyan, Collins, and Sherman
(2011) disclosed that individuals with low self-esteem distanced from their partner when presented
with a self-threat but such effect was alleviated when they were given the opportunity to self-
affirm. Similarly, Park and Maner (2009) found across six studies that people respond to self-threat
depending on their state self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth. Their results state:
Whereas High Self-Esteem appearance-contingent people responded to

appearance threats by desiring contact with close others, Low Self-Esteem
appearance-contingent people wanted to avoid social contact. For HSE people,
close others are likely to be perceived as positive sources of support and

affirmation; thus, seeking contact with close others may be a way of attaining a
compensatory boost to the self. LSE people, in contrast, are especially vigilant to
the possibility of rejection and negative social evaluation, and they were less
inclined to respond to self-threat by seeking social contact. Instead, they preferred
to engage in activities that would serve to improve their appearance. Boosting one’s
attractiveness may reflect a less interpersonally risky route to restoring self-esteem,
because it does not require extensive interaction with others and thus minimizes the
possibility of rejection or negative social evaluation. (Park and Maner, 2009, p.213)
Apparently, Facebook profiles reveal a lot about the person. S. Shyam Sundar, a professor
of communications and co-director of the Media Effects Research Laboratory at Penn State
University stated that "The types of actions users take and the kinds of information they are adding
to their Facebook walls and profiles are a reflection of their identities." (Swayne, 2013).
Self-esteem and Social comparison
As mentioned earlier, when people experience failure, they compare themselves with
someone who is inferior or less advantaged to boost their self-esteem. On the other hand, people
use upward social comparison to improve themselves. To establish this relationship, an
experimental study by Wood, Giordano-Beech, Taylor, Michela and Gaus (1994), revealed that a)
Participants with low self-esteem sought the most social comparisons after receiving feedback
about their success; b) high self-esteem individuals pursued the most comparisons after receiving
feedback about their failure; and c) Individuals with low self-esteem who succeeded sought the
most comparisons, but only when the comparisons were favorable.
Although everyone encounters failures and feelings of uncertainty, people differ in the way
they recover after a failure. People with high self-esteem bounce back easily compared to people
with low self-esteem.
It appears that, following a failure, people with high self-esteem lower their
expectations, at least momentarily. Specifically, instead of comparing themselves
to high performers – those who have achieved difficult goals – they compare
themselves to low performers – people whom they have already passed on the road
to success. As a result, they feel much better about themselves. Instead of seeing
themselves in the bottom of the high group, they see themselves in the top of the
low group (Franken, 2002, p.376).
Affect
Making social comparisons may incur several consequences. Frequent social comparisons
may have negative implications for personal well-being such as experience of envy, guilt,
defensiveness; as well as for interpersonal and intergroup relations like in-group bias (White,
Langer, Yariv & Welch, 2006). Offline and online interactions differ greatly in that online
interaction does not necessarily result to offline social interaction but online social comparisons
may also affect several outcomes.
A study by Del Rosario, Pacho and Raboy (2015) stated that Facebook is a breeding ground
for envy. The results of their study revealed that students experienced benign envy (a climbing
inspiration to enhance one’s position) over the areas of love, family, and relationship, talents and
abilities, success in studies, money and material possession, travel and leisure, appearance and
social interaction. They also tested the relationship between Facebook envy and social
comparisons. Apparently, their results disclosed that there exists a significant relationship between
Facebook envy towards Travel and Leisure, and Downward Social comparison as well as the
relationship between Facebook and Social interaction and upward comparison. Similarly, Verduyn
et.al (2015) posited that passive Facebook use (e.g. scrolling through news feeds, viewing posts)
undermined affective well-being because it enhances envy. Blomfield, Neira, and Barber, (2013)
found that investment in SNSs was found to predict lower self-esteem and higher depressed mood
among adolescents. Aside from feelings of envy, depression is also one of the common cited
consequences of Facebook use.
Facebook depression can occur when we play the social comparison game
by looking at the online photos, likes, status updates, activities, and achievements
of our friends. We compare our kids, jobs, vacations, activities, and number of
friends. We compare the number and nature of comments (are they positive or
negative?) that other people make in response to our postings. For people who are
lonely and driven to social media because their lives are marked by less offline
interaction with others, playing and losing this comparison game results in even
deeper loneliness. (Mueller, 2014) cpyu.org
Considering the concepts above, it is thus recommended that the study on social
comparisons in the context of Facebook use be extended to the Filipino population particularly
among the youth to constitute a significant theoretical contribution. Figure 2 on the next page
presents the research paradigm of the study illustrating the relationship of variables to one another.
Independent Variables Dependent Variables
Facebook Use Intensity

Social
Comparison
-Upward
Motives of Facebook -Nondirectional
Use
-Downward
-Expanding Social
Networks
-Social investigation
-Passing time
-Self-expression Affect
-Relationship -Positive
maintenance
-Negative
-Companionship
-Reconnection
Self-esteem
Mediator Variable
Figure 2. Research Paradigm

The proposed research paradigm is based on the conceptual relationships between the
concepts which have been analyzed in several mentioned research works. This study focused on
the use of Facebook particularly the motives in using Facebook and the intensity of its use. The
study also examined the relationship between motives of Facebook Use and Social comparisons
in the context of Facebook. The effect of self-esteem on the relationship between Facebook Use
and Social comparison, on the one hand was also tested, and between Facebook Use and Affect on
the other. In this study, the respondents are students enrolled at Saint Louis University, Baguio
City, Philippines. Their age ranges from 18 to 24 years old and who have active Facebook
accounts.
Statement of the problem and Hypotheses:
The object of this study was to determine the Social Comparison behaviors – the direction
of comparisons made and feelings or the affect of Facebook users as mediated by their self-esteem.
Specifically, the study aimed to answer the following questions:
1. What is the nature of Facebook use (intensity and motives) of SLU Facebook Users?
Hypothesis 1: Consistent with the researchers and literature on motives of Facebook

use of Sheldon (2008), Joinson (2008) and Bonds-Raacke (2008), it is hypothesized that
among the motives of Facebook Use, SLU Facebook users would be greatly motivated to
use Facebook to maintain relationships and pass the time. Social Investigation, Self-
expression, Expanding social networks, Reconnection, and Companionship are also
expected to be motives of Facebook Use. In line with the work of Capulong (2016), higher
Facebook time was associated with higher engagement of college freshmen in Facebook
activities. Among the activities, checking to see what someone is up to have a moderate
relationship with time spent on Facebook, as well as viewing photos, sending private
messages, creating events or replying to attend to events, and sending private messages.
Thus, Facebook Use intensity is also expected to be high for SLU Facebook users.
2. What is the relationship of Facebook Use (intensity and motives) with a) Social
Comparison and b) Affect?
Hypothesis 2a: Facebook Use (intensity and motives) is predicted to have a positive
relationship with the three directions of Social Comparison (Upward, Nondirectional, and
Downward Social Comparison).
Hypothesis 2b: Affect, both positive and negative, are expected to be have a
positive relationship with Facebook Use Intensity. As previously mentioned, the use of
Facebook can have positive and negative consequences on the emotional outcomes of its
users. Specifically, it is hypothesized that Relationship Maintenance and Passing Time
will be positively correlated with Positive Affect while Social Investigation will be
positively correlated with Negative Affect.
3. What dimensions of Facebook Use (motives and intensity) would best predict a) Social
Comparison and b) Affect?
Hypothesis 3a: It is predicted that intensity of Facebook use would predict Social
Comparison and Affect. Correspondingly, the Social Investigation motive is expected to
be linked to Upward, Nondirectional, and Downward Social Comparisons. As mentioned
earlier, Zuo (2014) found that the amount of time spent on Facebook is correlated to greater
amounts of social comparisons made while Midgely (2013) found that being motivated to
log on to Facebook to get information about others predicted more comparisons on
Facebook.
Hypothesis 3a: Social Investigation is anticipated to predict Negative Affect;

whereas motives Passing time and Relationship Maintenance are anticipated to be related
to Positive affect.
4. How does self-esteem mediate the relationship between Facebook Use (motives and
intensity) and a) Social Comparison and b) Affect?
Hypothesis 4a: Self-esteem is predicted to mediate the relationship between

Facebook Use (intensity and motives) and Social Comparison.
Hypothesis 4b: Self-esteem is predicted to mediate the relationship between

Facebook Use (intensity and motives) and Affect. Based on aforementioned literature, it is
expected that the level of Self-esteem impacts the relationship of Facebook Use and Social
Comparison, as well as with Affect. Specifically, self-esteem influences the direction of
Social comparison to be made as well as the kind of affect a person would feel while using
Facebook.
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research method and procedures used in the study. Specifically,
this chapter gives a discussion of the research design, the population, sampling, instruments and
procedures for data collection and analysis. Criteria for establishing trustworthiness and ethical
considerations were also discussed.
Research Design
This study followed a quasi-experimental research design wherein pre-selection and

randomization of the participants were not conducted. The variables Motives of Facebook Use,
Facebook Use Intensity, Self-esteem, Social Comparison and Affect were measured using
questionnaires designed to gather data.
Participants
The participants for this study were 329 students enrolled at Saint Louis University (SLU),
Baguio City, Philippines. Fourteen respondents were not included in the data analysis due to
numerous incomplete responses in the questionnaires. The final data included responses from 214
females and 115 male SLU students who are Facebook users. The ages of the participants ranged
from 18 to 24 years old (M= 19.55, SD = 1.80). The ages of the participants were distributed as
follows: 18 years old = 42.55%, 19 years old = 17.93%, 20 years old = 13.68%, 21 years old =
6.08%, 22 years old = 10.34%, 23 years old = 6.38%, and 24 years old = 3.04%. Additionally,
53.80% of the participants were from the School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts, 24.32%
from the School of Engineering and Architecture, 6.69% from School of Medicine, 11.25% from
School of Accountancy and Business Management, 1.22 and 0.91% from School of Nursing and
School of Natural Science respectively. Purposive random sampling was employed to gather SLU
students who are Facebook users and are between 18 to 24 years old.
Tools
The survey packet consisted of six questionnaires that measured the variables in the study.
The questionnaires used were the Facebook Use intensity scale, Motives of Facebook Use,
Rosenberg Self-esteem scale, Positive and Negative Affect Scale, and Comparison Orientation
Measure-Facebook.
Facebook Use Intensity. To gauge a person’s Facebook use intensity, the Facebook Use
Intensity scale developed by Ellison, Steinfeld, and Lampe (2007) was used to measure Facebook
usage beyond simple measures of frequency and duration, incorporating emotional connectedness
to the site and its integration to the person’s daily activities. The scale was modified to fit the
purpose of the study. As such, the eight-item scale was reduced to six items. The two items deleted
measure the number of total friends on Facebook and the duration of Facebook activity (in
minutes) per day. Responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree. After
modification, the Facebook Use Intensity scale is reported to have a Cronbach alpha = .820.
Sample items include “I would be sorry if Facebook shut down” and “Facebook is part of my
everyday activity.” (See Appendix C). The Facebook Use Intensity score is computed by getting
the means of all the items in the scale.
Motives of Facebook Use. To measure the motives of Filipino young adults, an instrument
was constructed. Many of which were based from the scales developed by Sheldon (2008) and
Joinson (2008). The measure was modified to suit the needs of the Filipinos being met by social
media use as reported by the Wave7 survey (GMA News online, 2014). Eight items were adapted
from Motives for Facebook use scale by Sheldon (2008), while the other 12 were adapted from
Joinson’s (2008) Motives and Uses of Facebook scale. The instrument measured seven motives of
Facebook: Expanding social networks (3 items, Cronbach alpha = .739), Social investigation (3
items, Cronbach alpha = .758), Passing Time (3 items, Cronbach alpha = .738), Self-expression (2
items, Cronbach alpha = .803), Relationship Maintenance (2 items, Cronbach alpha = .793),
Companionship (2 items, Cronbach alpha = .529), and Reconnection (2 items, Cronbach alpha =
.608). The scale yielded an overall Cronbach alpha = .817. Items are answered using a 4-point
Likert scale ranging from (1) Not at all to (4) To a great extent (See Appendix D).
Social Comparison. The social comparison behaviors of the participants were measured
using the Comparison Orientation Measure-Facebook (COM-F) made by Steers, Wickham and
Acitelli (2014). The scale was adapted from the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation
Measure (INCOM) to measure social comparisons in an online setting. The scale consisted of six
items (Cronbach alpha = .834) which were pooled and modified from the INCOM. The items
measured nondirectional, downward, and upward social comparisons on Facebook and contained
a common stem of “Today when I was on Facebook…” Sample items for upward social
comparison are “I felt less confident about what I have achieved compared to other people,” and
“… I concluded I am not as popular as other people.” Nondirectional items included: “…I paid a
lot of attention to how I do things compared to how others do things,” and “… if I wanted to find
out how well I have done something, I compared what I have done with how well others have
done.” Finally, downward social comparison items included: “…I paid attention to how I do things
versus how others do things and felt my way was better,” and “… I believed that I had
accomplished more than other people had.” Responses ranged from 1 (I strongly disagree) to 4 (I
strongly agree). The scale required the participants to indicate how they felt or acted while they
were browsing their peer’s Facebook profiles.
Affect. The feelings of the participants while viewing their peers’ Facebook profile was
measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988), for which participants indicated the degree to which they felt each feeling or emotion “right
now, that is, while using Facebook” from 1 (Very slightly or not at all) to 4 (Extremely). Ten
items tapped positive affect (e.g. interested, excited). Envy was added in the scale, thus 11 items
tapped negative affect (e.g. distressed, upset); the two sets of items were used to create separate
positive and negative affect scores (Cronbach’s alpha for positive affect = .878, negative = .840.
Positive affect score is computed by adding the responses on items 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17,
and 19 (See Appendix F). Positive affect score can range from 10 to 40, with higher scores
indicating higher levels of positive affect. On the other hand, the Negative affect score is obtained
by summing the scores on items 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20. ‘The scores can range from
10 – 40, with lower scores representing lower levels of negative affect.
Self-esteem. The self-evaluations of the participants’ global self-worth were assessed using
the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1989). The items measured the participants’ general
feelings about themselves using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (4)
strongly agree. Sample items are: ‘‘I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with
others’’; and ‘‘I feel that I have a number of good qualities.’’ Investigation of the internal
consistency of the scale revealed a Cronbach alpha = .374.
Procedures
In compliance to SLU regulations, a letter was sent to the Research and Development
Office for the permission to distribute questionnaires to SLU students with active Facebook
accounts. The researcher explained the purpose of the study and assured the participants the
confidentiality of the information they imparted. The participants completed the survey in 10 to
20 minutes. Data were collected from August 24 to September 24, 2016. After the collection of
data, demographic characteristics of the sample were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The
constructed measure for Motives of Facebook Use was subjected to Factor Analysis to confirm the
motives that were identified by previous researchers. Using SPSS, the variables were subjected to
descriptive statistics. One-way ANOVA with Pairwise comparisons was employed to motives of
Facebook Use to determine if differences existed between each motive of Facebook Use. Pearson
Correlations was also employed to determine the relationship between the predictor variables and
the dependent variables. Hierarchical Multiple Regression and Mediation analyses using a
Preacher and Hayes (2008) macro were also conducted to answer the problems identified in the
study.
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the results of the study, the analyses and interpretations made, which
enabled the researcher to draw significant conclusions pertaining to the results of the study.
Nature of Facebook Use
The first problem explored the nature of Facebook Use among SLU Facebook users – their
motives and intensity of use. The first hypothesis predicted SLU students to have high intensity of
Facebook use and to be greatly motivated to use Facebook in order to maintain relationships and
to pass the time.
In order to determine the nature of Facebook use of SLU Facebook users, the motivations
or reasons of SLU students in using Facebook were examined through Factor analysis. The
factorability of the Motives of Facebook Use scale was initially examined. The scale was subjected
to Principal components analysis (PCA) to determine the factors underlying Motives of Facebook
Use scale and to confirm and check for differences in the motives of Facebook use identified by
previous researches. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .780 and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity
reached statistical significance. Initial Principal Components Analysis revealed the presence of six
components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 25.181%, 10.044%, 9.623%, 7.016%,
6.431%, and 5.489% of the variance respectively. Analysis of the Component matrix found that
three items have high loadings on several components. The items “To play games and other
applications within Facebook,” “Checking on funny videos and other posts,” and “It makes me
cool among my peers” were eliminated for further analysis. Investigation of the screeplot also
showed that seven factors can be extracted. For the final stage, a principal components factor
analysis of the remaining 17 items, using Varimax rotation, was performed. Seven factors were
extracted on the remaining 17 items of the scale.
Table 1 below shows the seven factors extracted from the rotation. The seven-factor
solution explained a total of 74.196% of the variance, with Expanding social networks motive
26.286%, Social Investigation motive 10.720%, Passing Time motive 10.641%, Self-expression
motive 8.038%, Relationship Maintenance motive 6.800%, Companionship motive 6.127%, and
Reconnection motive 5.583% respectively.
Table 1. Factor loadings for principal components analysis with Varimax rotation of motives of
Facebook use
Motives
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To find people who .823 .053 .130 .044 .074 .245 -.010
share similar
interests with me
Organizing/Joining .796 .050 -.017 .183 -.043 -.132 .107

groups and events
To meet new people .708 .170 .109 -.017 .096 .291 .160
Browsing other .103 .853 .147 .119 .072 .074 .117

people’s profile
Stalking other -.015 .850 .192 .016 .064 .008 -.005
people
Reading comments .229 .610 .126 .286 -.015 .145 .054
on my friend’s posts
To pass time when .078 .189 .864 .100 -.049 -.017 .065
bored
It is one of the .076 .243 .799 .079 .089 .150 -.013
routine things I do
when online
It is fun .072 .049 .532 .211 .209 .521 .066
To upload my .033 .143 .112 .856 .136 .036 .111
photos
To update my status .145 .150 .116 .853 .135 .084 .045
To communicate .003 .055 .009 .059 .908 .026 .083
with my friends and
family
To stay in touch .085 .056 .078 .202 .859 -.003 .124
with friends and
family
To feel less lonely .021 .044 .227 .123 -.033 .804 -.042
To develop a .342 .138 -.129 -.067 .000 .715 .124
romantic
relationship
To get through to .073 .133 .019 -.032 .041 -.055 .880
someone who is
hard to reach
To reconnect with .146 -.015 .054 .238 .200 .159 .752
people I lost contact
with
Note. Motive 1 = Expanding social networks, Motive 2 = Social Investigation, Motive 3 = Passing Time,
Motive 4 = Self-expression, Motive 5 = Relationship Maintenance, Motive 6 = Companionship
Motive 7 = Reconnection
Factor 1
The first factor represents the aim of finding new people through shared interests or
identities, thus, labelled as Expanding social networks. “To find people who share similar interests
with me” and “Organizing/Joining groups and events” were adapted from the “Shared identities
motive” of Joinson (2008) while “To meet new people” was based from “Virtual community
motive” by Sheldon (2008). These three items loaded on Factor 1. Meeting new people was one
of the needs of the Filipinos met by social media as captured by the previously mentioned Wave7
survey. The expanding social networks motive depicts the aim of SLU Facebook users to meet
new people online whom they share similar characteristics with. Facebook can be used to expand
their networks by meeting people whom users share similar interests with such as in the case of
groups or events. This motive is in part similar to Joinson’s Shared identities motive, but is
somewhat different with Sheldon’s (2008) Virtual community motive. The Virtual community
motive identified by Sheldon (2008) consisted of the items “Develop a romantic relationship,”
“Find more interesting people than in real life,” “Find companionship,” “Meet new friends,” and
“To feel less lonely”. Two of these items were also included in the scale but loaded on a different
factor. However, in this context Expanding social networks is focused on relating to new people
online whom Filipino Facebook users have similar identities, interests, or characteristics. Other
researchers have demonstrated Expanding social networks as a motive of Facebook use. For
instance, Froget, Baghestan, and Asfaranjan (2013) assessed motives of Facebook use linked to
Facebook usage, and identified the aim of meeting new people as “meeting and communicating
with people that users didn’t know in real life”.
Factor 2
The second factor represents the Social Investigation motive. Social investigation motive
was one of the identified motives of Facebook use of Joinson (2008) which is referred to viewing
new people and finding out more about people who were met offline. In this case, Social
investigation consisted of browsing other people’s profile, stalking other people, and reading
comments on friends’ posts, which emphasizes on obtaining information about other people.
Factor 3
The third factor represents the Passing Time motive. Passing Time as a motive of Facebook
use is related to occupying time when bored, being part of thing done routinely and related to
having fun. Similar to Sheldon’s (2008), passing time in this context reflects the habitual use of
Facebook to occupy time when bored or simply as part of one’s activity once online. “To have
fun” somehow resembles the entertainment motive mentioned by other researches such that the
entertainment motive is related to the planned use of Facebook to seek pleasure (Ryan, Chester,
Reece, & Xenos, 2014). In this case, having fun may be associated with engagement in passive
social use of Facebook such as scrolling various posts shared on the Newsfeed.
Factor 4
The fourth factor represents the Self-expression motive. “To upload my photos” and “To
update my status” yielded the Self-expression motive. Both items were derived from Joinson’s
(2008) social use of photographs. In contrast, other researchers have captured the concept of self-
expression, such as the work of Hollenbaugh and Ferris (2014); however, they have used
exhibitionism instead, as a motive to refer to the desire to use Facebook to get attention.
Exhibitionism, in their research, was condensed with the coolness motive of Sheldon. Moreover,
Hollenbaugh and Ferris (2014) have found that using Facebook for exhibitionism yielded
significant amounts of self-disclosure among the users. On the other hand, Hunt, Atkin, &
Krishnan (2012) have recognized self-expression as a motive of Facebook use because users
express themselves through their online personalities. It was also cited as a motive of content
generation in social media, particularly in blogging. For example, in the study of Matikainen
(2015), self-expression emerged as one of the themes for the sample’s motivation to write blogs
where attention and popularity came about as one aspect of self-expression. In the same way, self-
expression as a motive of SLU Facebook users is related to presenting one’s opinions, thoughts,
or creative work, through status updates and photo uploads either to get attention. These are similar
to the nature of exhibitionism, or to just express one’s self, thus using Facebook for one’s own
sake. Hence, Facebook users can get attention and a feeling of coolness through the things they
post on their Facebook profiles.
Factor 5
The fifth factor captures the Relationship Maintenance motive. Relationship Maintenance
is related to the use of Facebook to maintain already existing relationships. As such, items “To
communicate with my friends and family” and “To stay in touch with my friends and family”
loaded in the said factor, which is similar to Sheldon’s (2008) meaning of relationship
maintenance.
Factor 6
Meanwhile, the sixth factor represents the Companionship motive. Companionship was
also based on the motive of Sheldon (2008); however, in this context, ‘To develop a romantic
relationship’ appeared to be a part of the companionship motive which signifies that SLU
Facebook users use Facebook not only to curtail loneliness but to gain company through the
development of romantic relationships. This result sheds light on the way Filipino Facebook users
use Facebook for companionship purposes. In Sheldon’s (2008) study, establishment of a romantic
relationship is part of the Virtual Community network referring to initiating communication with
people met online. Apparently, Filipino Facebook users’ pursuit of romantic relationship is adjunct
to seeking companionship and not for developing a virtual community. Participants from the study
of Fox, Warber, & Makstaller (2013) mentioned “Facebook as their primary tool for interaction
early in the experimenting stage of romantic relationship development.” With the breadth of
information that can be both displayed and accessed on Facebook, it is possible to learn a lot about
another person without direct interaction with that person. As such, Facebook use for
companionship motives among Filipinos is depicted in developing romantic relationships and
reducing loneliness.
Factor 7
Lastly, the seventh factor represents the Reconnection motive. Reconnection emerged as a
separate motive from Sheldon’s (2008) Relationship maintenance and Joinson’s (2008) Social
Connection motive. Both of these identified motives are related to maintaining contact and
reconnecting with existing friends. However, in this context, there is a separation between
maintenance of existing relationships and reconnecting. Reconnection has a clear focus on
reaching out to someone one had known previously but lost contact with.
Overall, SLU students are motivated to use Facebook for seven reasons, namely: to expand
their networks, pass the time and have fun, check or stalk on someone, maintain relationships,
express themselves through photos or status updates, to feel less lonely and develop romantic
relationships, and reconnect with people they have lost contact with. The degree to which Filipinos
use Facebook for these reasons is examined by analyzing the differences of the means between the
motives. Table 2 below presents the means and standard deviations of motives of Facebook use
and intensity. The means of motives of Facebook Use ranged from 1.89 to 3.39 indicating that
SLU students hold these motives from very little to a great extent.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for Facebook use of SLU Facebook users
Facebook Use M SD Qualitative Meaning

(Motives and Intensity)
1. Expanding social networks 2.00 .73 Very little
2. Social Investigation 2.24 .79 Very little
3. Passing Time 3.04 .69 Somewhat
4. Self-expression 2.38 .83 Very little
5. Relationship Maintenance 3.39 .64 To a great extent
6. Companionship 1.89 .73 Very little
7. Reconnection 2.82 .75 Somewhat
8. Facebook Use Intensity 2.54 .61 Agree
Note: Qualitative meanings are based on the following four-point scale: 3.25 – 3.99 (To a great
extent/Strongly Agree), 2.50 – 3.24 (Somewhat/Agree), 1.75 – 2.49 (Very little/Disagree), 1.00 –
1.74 (Not at all/Strongly Disagree)
The mean of Facebook Use Intensity indicated that SLU students have agreed to being
intensely involved in Facebook. This is contrary to the first hypothesis that SLU Facebook users
are predicted to have strong emotional involvement with Facebook use.
To determine the differences in the extent SLU students use Facebook for the identified
motives, a One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with Repeated Measures was performed. The
ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined significant differences in the mean

scores of the motives of SLU Facebook users, F(5.574, 1828.131) = 244.261, p< .01. Post hoc
tests using Bonferroni correction revealed that Relationship Maintenance has the highest mean,
followed by Passing Time, Reconnection, Self-expression and Social Investigation then
Expanding social networks and Companionship. The clustering of the motives is presented in
Figure 3 below.
Comparison of the means revealed that the differences between Self-expression (M = 2.38,
SD = .83) and Social Investigation (M = 2.24, SD = .79); and between Expanding social networks
(M = 2.00, SD = .73) and Companionship (M = 1.89, SD = .73) are not significant. The figure
below presents the cluster of means of motives of Facebook use.
Relationship Maintenance
Passing Time
Reconnection
Self-expression
Social Investigation
Expanding Social Networks

Companionship
Figure 3. Cluster of Means of Motives of Facebook Use

The result of the ANOVA shows that SLU Facebook users have active engagement in
maintaining current relationship rather than seeking new connections. Among the motives of
Facebook Use, SLU students are motivated to a great degree to use Facebook in order to
communicate and stay in touch with their friends and family. Similar to previous researches,
Filipinos use Facebook for Relationship Maintenance purposes. This confirms the convenience
and ease of Facebook in keeping people connected. For college students, the use of Facebook
makes it easier for them to stay in touch with their families and friends. For many, Facebook is
used to be updated and to participate in discussions about school events, academic requirements,
meetings and social gatherings which are common among college students.
Moreover, the abundance of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) also paved way for the
heavy reliance of OFWs on Facebook to communicate with their families in the country. Ariate,
Cruz, Dimaculangan, & Tibayan (2015) found the use of Facebook among Lyceum of the
Philippines University-Laguna (LPU-L) students helpful, for it allows them to keep in touch with
their parents abroad and maintain their relationships even when they are far away from each other.
This result supports the hypothesis presented earlier that SLU students are motivated to use
Facebook to maintain relationships.
Passing time also emerged to be a motivator for SLU students to use Facebook. As such,
SLU students use Facebook to pass the time when they are bored. To them, it is a means to have
fun, and it is considered as part of the routine activities they do when they are online. Passing time
for SLU students may involve passive scrolling of their Newsfeed while they are bored, such as
customary checking of notifications. Additionally, it is considered as a form of entertainment or
information acquisition such as when reading articles, status updates or viewing funny posts like
memes and photo edits. Previous researches have noted passing time and relationship maintenance
as predictive of the number of hours students spent on Facebook Use (Sheldon, 2008). Other
researchers have explored the relationship of motives of Facebook usage to intensity of Facebook
Use and found high associations between the two. For instance, motives of entertainment,
relationship maintenance, self-expression and communication were found to have positive
relationships with Facebook Use Intensity (Park and Lee, 2014). Such outcome may explain why
Filipinos thrive in Facebook.
Aside from maintaining relationships and passing time, SLU students are also to some
extent motivated to use Facebook to reconnect with people they have lost contact with. This is
reflective of the bridging of social capital among Filipinos through Facebook such as in the use of
Facebook to search for old friends, schoolmates from elementary and high school, or possibly
former lovers or partners.
Self-expression, Social Investigation, and Expanding social networks appeared to have

little relevance in SLU students’ motivation to use Facebook. Lastly, SLU students are not at all
driven to use Facebook to seek companionship. These results may suggest differences in the
personal characteristics of Filipino Facebook users. Also, since the respondents for this study were
college students, their primary aim in using Facebook is to nurture the relationships that they
already have rather than creating new connections or acquiring information about other people.
Social investigation, Expanding social networks and Companionship were not revealed as
individually pronounced motivators of SLU Facebook users. This could be in part because the
respondents are more invested in maintaining already established relationships than obtaining
information about other people, expanding social networks and looking for companions. Although
it is commonly assumed that Filipinos display a degree of ‘gossip culture’ and are friendly by
nature, it may appear that seeking information about other people and developing new
relationships are still greatly conducted through offline communication. Other researchers have
cited that Facebook use is more associated with bridging and maintaining of social ties rather than
forming or creating new social ties.
Relationship between Facebook Use and Social Comparison
Pearson correlations were conducted to determine the relationship between Facebook Use
and Social Comparison and Affect. Self-esteem was also correlated with Facebook Use to
determine the viability of conducting mediation analyses. Using Evans’ guide (1996) in
interpreting the values of correlation coefficients, results showed that the relationships between
the variables ranged from very weak to weak. Relationships between the variables are presented
in Table 3 on the next page.
Table 3. Summary of intercorrelations for scores on Facebook Use, Social Comparison, Affect, and Self-esteem
Social comparison Affect Self-esteem

Facebook Use
Upward Nondirectional Downward Positive Negative
Expanding social .133** .191** .198** .268** .227** .012 NS

networks Very low/weak Very low/weak Very low/weak Low/weak Low/weak
Social investigation .225** .264** .221** .262** .168** .201**

Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak Very low/weak Low/weak
Passing time .148** .169** .168** .282** .070 NS .184**

Very low/weak Very low/weak Very low/weak Low/weak Very low/weak
Self-expression .056 NS .188** .178** .305** .074 NS .067 NS

Very low/weak Very low/weak Low/weak
Relationship .249**
.002 NS .066 NS .002 NS .104 NS .103 NS
Maintenance Low/weak
Companionship .229** .220** .209** .215** .256** .114*

Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak Very low/weak
Reconnection -.014 NS .057 NS .075 NS .277** .095 NS .056 NS
Facebook Use .265** .303** .317** .329** .224** .215**

Intensity Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak Low/weak
The results show that Facebook Use Intensity, Expanding social networks, Social
Investigation, Passing Time, and Companionship are related to the three directions of Social
Comparisons. Self-expression is related only to Nondirectional and Downward Social
Comparisons while Relationship Maintenance and Reconnection were not related to any of the
directions of Social Comparisons.
Pearson correlations illustrate that Social Investigation, Companionship and Facebook Use
Intensity shared a positively low/weak relationship with Upward, Nondirectional, and Downward
Social Comparison. Meanwhile, Expanding social networks and Passing time have positively very
low/weak correlations with Upward, Nondirectional, and Downward Social Comparison. Self-
expression did not correlate with Upward Social Comparison but has positively very low/weak
relationship with Nondirectional and Downward Social Comparison while Relationship
Maintenance and Reconnection was found to be not associated with any of the directions of Social
Comparisons.
The positive association of Facebook Use Intensity with Social Comparison indicate that
as SLU students integrate Facebook more in their lives, the more likely they will make Social
Comparisons. This does not, however, tell exactly which type of Social Comparison SLU students
made. Lee’s work (2014) pointed that a person’s intensity of Facebook Use is positively related to
his social comparison frequency. Thus, the more a person is involved in Facebook, the more he is
likely to make social comparisons. Steers, Wickham and Acitelli (2014), as mentioned earlier,
found that individuals who spent more time on Facebook made more Upward and Nondirectional
Social Comparison but fewer Downward Social Comparisons. In contrast, this study found that
Facebook Use Intensity is related to the three directions of Social Comparison. This implies that
as individuals become more involved with Facebook use, it would follow that they are more likely
to be exposed to a lot of information about people, thus paving way for individuals to make Social
Comparisons.
Similarly, Social Investigation and Companionship were positively associated with the
three directions of Social Comparison which signifies that the more SLU students are motivated
to use Facebook to stalk other people and to find company, the more likely they will compare
themselves to other people on Facebook. Social Investigation and Companionship illustrate a goal-
directed activity of getting information about other people. Stalking, reading comments, and
browsing of Facebook profiles demonstrate a deliberate intention of the user to obtain relevant
information about the target person. This relevant information may be those dimensions from
which users can draw social comparison, thus illustrating the associations between Social
Investigation and Social Comparison. However, because of the correlational nature of the analysis,
it is not clear whether it is Social Investigation motives that influence a person to make social
comparison or if making social comparison leads a person to have Social Investigation motives
when accessing Facebook. If it is the former, then a deeper understanding of this motive should be
made to understand what factors relate to the respondents being motivated to investigate on other
people on Facebook. If the latter applies, it then implies that it is the goal of making Social
Comparison that causes the person to plan his Facebook activity oriented at obtaining information
about other people.
On the other hand, the development of a romantic relationship and the aim of reducing
loneliness are related to making Social Comparison. As a person uses Facebook for this reason,
the more likely that he or she will make Social Comparisons. Although aforementioned academic
literature has not cited the relationship of Companionship to Social Comparison, a possible
explanation for this relationship could be that individuals who feel lonely may make social
comparisons to determine his or her standing in the social reality. That is to see if other people are
doing better or worse than him or her in order to, perhaps, feel less lonely. It can also be inferred
that individuals whose desire is to establish a romantic relationship are influenced to make social
comparisons in order to know the state of other people’s romantic relationships.
The positive relationship of Expanding social networks and Passing Time with Social
Comparison reveals that higher degree of Facebook use for purposes of Expanding social networks
and passing time relates with higher Social comparisons made on Facebook. Because the
relationship is very weak, this warrants cautious explanation for the relationship between the
motives and Social comparison. Initiating communication with someone met online can be related
to making social comparisons as the user weighs the similarities he or she shares with the target
person. Meanwhile, individuals who occupy their time more with Facebook make more Social
Comparisons on Facebook. This can be due to the passive use of Facebook such as scrolling of
Newsfeed which allows users to find information about other people to which they can make Social
comparisons with. However, it can be that users who make social comparisons are more likely to
occupy their time with Facebook.
Self-expression, on the other hand, is only related with Nondirectional and Downward
Social Comparisons and not Upward Social Comparison which is quite interesting. Previous
researches have cited Self-expression as a vital predictor of Facebook use. For instance, Park and
Lee (2014) noted the significant role of Self-expression on Facebook use such that Facebook
allows users to present themselves favorably, thus relying on its use for impression management.
Since Self-expression connotes self-presentation, it can be gleaned that the more SLU students are
motivated to express themselves through status updates and pictures, the more that self-expression
is associated with making Nondirectional and Downward Social comparisons on Facebook. The
action of posting a photo gives individuals a chance to present themselves in a good light. Having
presented oneself in a good light somehow gives an individual an enhanced view of oneself; thus,
it may contribute to making Downward Social Comparison as opposed to Upward Social
Comparisons. This also implies that individuals who make Downward and Nondirectional Social
Comparisons on Facebook also use Facebook to upload a photo or post a status update.
Lastly, maintaining relationships and reconnecting with old friends or family were not
associated with Social Comparisons. Examination of these motives reveals that these motives are
primarily communicative in nature. Relationships with existing contacts are maintained mainly by
communicating and staying in touch and not by comparing. Likewise, getting through old friends
or people one had lost contact with is reconnected through communicating. Although other types
of motive share a similar communicative function, relationship maintenance and reconnection are
not related to Social Comparisons on Facebook among SLU students.
Hypothesis 2a predicted that Facebook Use Intensity will be correlated with Social
Comparison and Affect, while Social Investigation motive is anticipated to be related to Social
Comparison (Nondirectional, Upward, and Downward). The results of this study give partial
support to hypothesis 2a. Apparently, not all motives of Facebook Use are associated with the
three directions of Social Comparison. These give insights on the characteristics of the youth,
particularly college students who were the major respondents of the study. As discussed earlier,
Relationship Maintenance was the most salient motive of the youth in using Facebook, followed
by Passing Time, Reconnection, and the least salient were Self-expression, Social Investigation,
Expanding social networks and Companionship. Two of the salient motives of SLU students were
not associated with any of the types of Social Comparison, thereby indicating that the youth mainly
use Facebook as a communication tool. They communicate mainly to maintain relationships and
reconnect or re-establish lost or weak ties with people they previously had connections with; and
not necessarily to make social comparisons on Facebook.
Relationship between Facebook Use and Affect

Pearson correlation coefficients between dimensions of Facebook Use and Affect ranged
from very weak to weak. Facebook Use Intensity was found to have positive low relationship with
Positive and Negative Affect, confirming that Facebook use can both be related to positive and
negative emotional consequences. All of the motives of Facebook Use have significant positively
low relationship with Positive Affect. These results imply that the more the users are motivated to
use Facebook for the identified motives, the higher the positive feelings they experience in using
Facebook. These also support the hypothesis that Relationship Maintenance and Passing Time will
be positively related to Positive Affect. Motives that facilitate social engagement were found to be
associated with psychological well-being (Rae & Lonborg, 2015). In this case, Relationship
Maintenance and Reconnection were aimed at enhancing existing relationships, friendship
purposes and not at obtaining new connections. Self-expression also did not correlate with
Negative Affect, which demonstrates that Facebook as a self-presentation and venting tool is much
related to positive feelings rather than negative feelings. Posting photos may be related to enhanced
self-image or that posting status gives the user an opportunity to vent out his or her feelings and to
share his or her opinions.
Furthermore, it can be interpreted that users who feel good, or those who have positive
moods, will most likely express themselves more on Facebook. As such, it is mostly positive
information that is displayed on Facebook, such as achievements, photogenic pictures, amazing
trips, and even best outfits. Carvajal’s (2014) inquiry disclosed that ‘projecting a puffed-up self’
and ‘flaunting of material possessions or luxurious experiences’ were some of the social
transformations facilitated by Facebook among the Filipino millennial generation. These social
transformations have impact on the alteration of the behavior patterns, cultural values and norms
of the youth today.
Positive relationship between Passing Time and Positive affect shows that SLU students
felt more positive feelings as they access Facebook in order to alleviate boredom or to have fun.
This indicates that SLU students, or the youth in particular, utilize Facebook as a constructive
distraction or possibly an escape from academic stress. For example, Tompoulidis (2015) disclosed
that escape, relaxation, and social support were inversely related to academic stress.
Expanding social networks and Companionship, however, are correlated with both Positive
and Negative Affect. These relationships illustrate that obtaining new connection and seeking
company may be related to positive feelings but can also be related to negative feelings possibly
due to the possibility that initiation of communication online may not always necessarily lead to
development of offline relationships. The feelings that users may feel may also depend on who the
Facebook users meet online. Also, individuals who utilize Facebook for companionship purpose
may be successful at doing so, thus they experience more Positive Affect. Through Facebook, they
may be able to reduce loneliness and possibly develop romantic relationships. On one hand, its
relationship with Negative Affect may indicate that either individuals who use Facebook for
companionship purposes experiences more negative affect because they cannot find an appropriate
company, or Facebook use does not necessarily gratify their interpersonal needs . Yet, it can be
further inferred that individuals who are at the moment feeling negative, or who are lonely, use
Facebook to find company to alleviate this negative affect.
Similarly, Social Investigation motive may be related either to Positive and Negative Affect
depending on who the users stalk on Facebook and what types of information they have acquired
from their targets.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that intensity of Facebook use will have a positive relationship
with both Positive and Negative Affect while Relationship Maintenance will be positively
correlated with Positive Affect and Social Investigation will be positively related to Negative
Affect. The results gave full support to the hypothesis. Facebook Use Intensity was found to be
correlated with both Positive and Negative Affect, Relationship Maintenance and Passing Time
were related to Positive Affect. However, in addition to these, Social Investigation did not only
correlate with Negative Affect, but also with Positive Affect.
Relationship between Facebook Use and Self-esteem
The relationship between the dimensions of Facebook Use and Self-esteem was also
examined for the purpose of mediation analyses. Pearson correlations from Table 3 showed that
Social Investigation, Passing Time, Companionship, and Facebook Use Intensity have positive
relationship with Self-esteem.
Facebook Use Intensity and Social Investigation both have positively weak relationship
with Self-esteem. Thus, the higher the scores of SLU Facebook users in Facebook Use Intensity
and Social Investigation, the higher their Self-esteem scores are. Results earlier have demonstrated
that Facebook Use Intensity is related to Positive and Negative Affect, which can be suggestive
that as SLU students’ intensity of Facebook Use increases, the more that they experience positive
or negative feelings from using Facebook. Previous literature has cited Facebook use as a self-
affirming tool which allows users to boost their self-esteem. As such, SLU students’ use of
Facebook may be related to their levels of Self-esteem. Some of their motives may be directed at
uplifting their self-esteem. Faraon and Kaipainen (2014) discovered, however, in their studies a
curvilinear relationship between Facebook Use Intensity and Self-esteem. That is, as individuals
with low or medium Facebook intensity start to generate social capital, their self-esteem starts to
uplift. Yet, when intensity of Facebook use increases, tendencies for social comparison also
increase, which could lead to rejections and consequently to a decline in self-esteem. On the
contrary, Toma and Hancock (2013) found that Facebook Use is associated with higher self-esteem
such that it allows its user to affirm themselves by what they share about themselves on Facebook.
Also, Passing Time and Companionship were found to have positively very weak
relationship with Self-esteem. These results suggest that individuals who access Facebook for
companionship and passing time purposes also have higher self-esteem scores. Meanwhile,
Expanding social networks, Self-expression, and Relationship Maintenance did not correlate with
Self-esteem.
It is possible that individuals who consume Facebook for Social Investigation, Passing
Time and Companionship motives have higher self-esteem as these motives provide opportunities
for individuals to feel good about themselves. For example, through acquisition of information and
stalking of one’s profile, a user may evaluate himself or herself based on this information and may
start making downward social comparison, thus leading to an increased level of self-esteem.
Alternatively, people with high self-esteem are more involved with Facebook and access Facebook
more for Social Investigation, Passing Time, and Companionship motives. . Individuals who have
better evaluations of themselves may be engaging in more social activities. In relation, Zywica and
Danowski (2008) found that individuals who had higher extraversion and self-esteem scores are
more popular both offline and on Facebook; thus, high self-esteem individuals are able to maintain
their self-image on Facebook as they achieve high social status through their Facebook activities
Again, because of the correlational nature of the analysis, causality cannot be drawn from the
relationship. Further investigation of the influence of self-esteem on the variables is presented on
the mediation analyses.
Predictors of Social Comparison and Affect
The third problem explored which dimensions of Facebook Use would best predict Social
Comparison (Upward, Nondirectional and Downward) and Affect (Positive and Negative). In
response to the third problem Hierarchical Multiple Regression was performed since the predictor
variable Facebook Use is comprised of two components – Facebook Use Intensity and Motives of
Facebook Use. Facebook Use Intensity was entered in the first block since it was found to be
correlated with Social Comparison and Affect, and then the motives of Facebook use were entered
in the second block.
Upward Social Comparison
The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at Stage one, Facebook Use Intensity
contributed significantly to the regression model, F(1,328) = 24.681, p< .01) and accounted for
7.00% of the variance in Upward Social Comparison. Introducing the motives of Facebook use in
the second stage of analysis explained an additional 5.00% of variance in Upward Social
Comparison and this change in R² was significant, F(8,328) = 5.484 p < .01. The model is
summarized on Table 4 on the next page.
When all the dimensions of Facebook Use were entered in the analysis, a total of 12.1% of
the variability observed in Upward Social Comparison were explained by Facebook Use Intensity
and motives of Facebook use.
Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting Upward Social Comparison from
Facebook Use
Predictor Upward Social Comparison

∆R2 β
Step 1 .070**
Facebook Use Intensity .265**
Step 2 .050**
Expanding social .003 NS
networks
Social Investigation .163**
Passing Time -.070 NS
Self-expression -.047 NS
Relationship Maintenance -.054 NS
Companionship .163**
Reconnection -.056 NS
Total R2 .121*
The results of the regression analysis revealed that the significant predictors of Upward
Social Comparison were Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation, and Companionship.
Apparently, these motives as well as the intensity of Facebook use allow individuals to be receptive
to more information regarding other people. The extensiveness of self-relevant information that
can be displayed and accessed in Facebook coupled by the user’s involvement in Facebook predict
Upward Social Comparisons made on Facebook. Considering that a user is motivated to use
Facebook to obtain information about other people gives him or her opportunities to make social
comparison, especially upward social comparison if the target profile consists of upward contents
such as photos of beautiful places the target person visited, foods that he or she has eaten, or clothes
that he or she has bought.
Meanwhile, Companionship as a predictor of Upward Social Comparison was not indicted

in previous literature. However, through deeper understanding of the motive, Companionship
entails reducing loneliness, which depicts that users may be feeling lonely. Hence, as they go to
Facebook for the aim of reducing loneliness, they may encounter posts that are favorable or upward
in nature. Since posts on Facebook are already mostly ‘glamorized’, it can be inferred that users
make Upward Social Comparison. Also, in their aim to develop romantic relationships, they may
engage in Upward Social Comparisons as they view people on Facebook who are in romantic
relationships. Through this, it implies that they gauge the possibilities of establishing romantic
relationships by making upward social comparisons to improve on themselves.
Nondirectional Social Comparison
Similarly, Hierarchical Multiple Regression yielded the model to be significant F(1,328) =

32.988, p <.01 representing Facebook Use Intensity as significant predictor of Nondirectional
Social Comparison in the first stage of analysis, accounting for 9.2% of the variance in
Nondirectional Social Comparison. In the second step, motives of Facebook Use were entered and
the model was found to be significant F(8, 328) = 6.465, p< .01. The second model accounted the
4.8% change in R². Together, the intensity and motives of Facebook use explained 13.9% of the
variance observed in Nondirectional Social Comparison. R² and Standardized Beta coefficient are
summarized on Table 5.
Table 5. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting Nondirectional Social Comparison

from Facebook Use
Predictor Nondirectional Social Comparison

∆R2 β
Step 1 .092**
Step 2 .048*
networks
Social Investigation .158**
Self-expression .077 NS
Relationship Maintenance -.035 NS
Companionship .124*
Reconnection -.020 NS
Total R2 .139**
Similar to Upward Social Comparison, Nondirectional Social Comparison is best predicted

by Facebook Use Intensity, and motives of Social Investigation and Companionship.
Nondirectional Social Comparison, by essence, is parallel to the purpose of making comparison
for self-evaluation. It does not necessarily require a person to have an exact upward or downward
comparison target. It is simply comparing oneself to assess one’s abilities or skills without having
the need to uplift or downplay one’s self-esteem. Therefore, as users access Facebook for these
reasons, the more Nondirectional Social Comparisons can be made.
Downward Social Comparison
Hierarchical Regression analysis on Downward Social Comparison also resulted to be

significant F(1, 328) = 36.459, p < .01 with Facebook Use Intensity as significant predictor of
Downward Social Comparison in the first stage. 10.00% of the variance observed in the Downward
Social Comparison scores of SLU Facebook users are accounted for by Facebook Use Intensity.
With the addition of the motives of Facebook Use, the model was found to be significant F(8, 328)
= 6.652, p < .01 and accounted for a 4.2% increase in R². A total of 14.3% of the variance in
Downward Social Comparison were explained by Facebook Use. R² and standardized Beta
coefficients are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting Downward Social comparison from
Facebook Use
Predictor Downward Social Comparison

∆R2 β
Step 1 .100**
Step 2 .042*
networks
Social Investigation .092 NS
Self-expression .085 NS
Relationship Maintenance -.122*
Companionship .100 NS
Reconnection .025 NS
Total R2 .143**
The results have demonstrated that Downward Social Comparison is best predicted by
Facebook Use Intensity and Relationship Maintenance. Consistently, Facebook Use Intensity
predicts the three directions of Social Comparison. Relationship Maintenance, on the other hand
influences Downward Social Comparison in a negative direction. This indicates that as the users
use Facebook more for maintaining relationship and communication purposes, the lesser
Downward Social Comparison is made. This gives insights to how SLU Facebook users’ motives
may predict the Social Comparisons they make on Facebook. Since Relationship maintenance
motive illustrates that Facebook users have already existing relationships, friendships or
connections, it implies that they know more about other people, thus interacting with these people
does not influence making Downward Social Comparisons on Facebook.
As noted earlier, Facebook allows its users to control the way they present themselves.
Now, the virtual nature of Facebook eliminates many of the subtle cues people use to form their
impressions on Facebook (Chou & Edge, 2014). So, when users access Facebook, they are exposed
to people’s best version of themselves and compare themselves to these idealized versions of other
people. Chou and Edge (2014) further explained that when individuals do not know the person
well, they tend to attribute the positive content they see on other people’s Facebook to other
people’s personality rather than situational factors. However, because the motive of relationship
maintenance involves already an established relationship they have with the people they interact
with on Facebook, they know these people well enough not to compare themselves to them.
Overall, these results in this research give partial support to the hypothesis 3a that Social
Investigation is linked to Upward, Nondirectional, and Downward Social Comparisons. Social
Investigation was only found to predict Upward and Nondirectional Social Comparisons.
Facebook Use Intensity came about as a significant predictor for all the types of Social
Comparison, which implies that the more involved users are with Facebook, the more they make
Upward, Nondirectional, and Downward Social Comparisons. On another light, companionship
predicted Upward and Nondirectional Social Comparison but not Downward Social Comparison.
This result is an interesting contribution to the body of knowledge regarding Facebook use and
social comparison behaviors of the Filipinos.
Positive Affect
Results from Hierarchical Multiple Regression indicated Facebook Use Intensity predicted
Positive Affect. Analysis was deemed significant F (1, 328) = 39.636, p < .01. 10.8% of the change
in scores on Positive Affect, which is associated with the changes in the scores of SLU Facebook
users on Facebook Use Intensity. In the second step of regression analysis, the model with
Facebook Use Intensity and Motives of Facebook Use as predictors were deemed significant F(8,
328) = 11.079 p < .01. This model accounted for a total of 21.7% of the variance observed in
Positive Affect. Table 7 summarizes the R square change and Beta coefficients of the predictors.
Table 7. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting Positive Affect from Facebook Use
Predictor Positive Affect

∆R2 β
Step 1 .108**
Step 2 .109**
Facebook Use Intensity .135*
networks
Passing Time .055 NS
Self-expression .125*
Relationship Maintenance .097 NS
Companionship .066 NS
Reconnection .155**
Total R2 .217**
The results of the regression analysis revealed that Facebook Use Intensity, Self-
expression, and Reconnection motives were the best predictors of Positive Affect. These suggest
that Facebook use allows individuals to experience positive affect when they use it to express
themselves and to reconnect with lost contacts or people they had previously known. When users
express themselves, for example by posting a photo or a status update, then other people react to
it positively, users may feel positively about it. Any comment about the user reflects what kind of
person the user is. Thereby, the comment affects a person’s self-esteem. In connection, individuals
who frequently update and look at their own profiles had enhanced self-esteem (Gonzales &
Hancock, 2011). Likewise, Chen, Mark and Ali (2016) claim that taking photos, specifically selfies
that conveyed happiness, with the intention to increase one’s happiness can increase positive
affect. Reconnection, on the other hand, allows users to get in touch with old contacts and
experience positive feelings. Previous literature has not mentioned the impact of reconnection
motives on positive affect of Facebook users. In fact, it is a popular notion that reconnecting on
Facebook, especially with former lovers is not a good idea especially for married users. As such,
Kalish (2015), the author of “Lost and Found Lovers” related in her book that social media such
as Facebook make way for cheating to take place. Although, in this context Facebook users who
were mostly college students experience positive feelings as they access Facebook to build up
weak social ties they previously had. Conceivably, in reconnecting with old friends, former
classmates, or lovers on Facebook, there may be a sense of joy and excitement to know about how
these people have been doing since the loss of contact has occurred. Such a reconnection leads
now to a load of catching up, which users may look forward to. Thus, reconnection may be
associated with experiences of Positive Affect.
Negative Affect
Hierarchical Regression analysis on Negative Affect is likewise significant F(1, 328) =

17.304, p < .01, indicating that on the first stage of analysis, Facebook Use Intensity is a significant
predictor of Negative Affect. Facebook Use Intensity accounted for 5% of the variance observed
in Negative Affect. In the second step of regression analysis, motives and intensity of Facebook
Use were entered and this model is deemed significant, F(8, 328) = 5.621, p < .01This model
accounted for 7.3% of the variability, as indexed by the adjusted R2 statistic found in Table 8
below.
Table 8. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting Negative Affect from Facebook
Use
Negative Affect
Predictors
∆R2 β
Step 1 .050**
Step 2 .073**
Facebook Use Intensity .173*
networks
Passing Time -.164*
Self-expression -.041NS
Relationship Maintenance .052 NS
Companionship .198**
Reconnection .023 NS
Total R2 .123**
Negative affect was found to be predicted by Facebook Use Intensity, Passing Time and
Companionship. This result is dissonant to the presented hypothesis that Social Investigation
would predict Negative Affect. Facebook Use Intensity significantly predicts Negative Affect.
Therefore, individuals’ intensity of use relates to experiences of more Negative Affect. As they
use Facebook more intensely, the more that they may be consuming different kinds of data in
Facebook.
Past researches have explored the relationship of Facebook use with mood. For example,
Kramer, Guillory, and Hancock (2014) found through massive experimental study that individuals’
emotional states can change depending on the posts they see on Facebook, which proves emotional
contagion can happen on Facebook. Even without direct interaction with people, users can
experience the same emotions conveyed by posts they read.
The current results suggest that the more SLU students use Facebook to find company, the
more that they experience negative affect. Reference to companionship as predictor of negative
affect is limited in the academic literature. Going back to the correlational analysis of Facebook
Use and Affect, it may indicate that SLU Facebook users experience negative feelings when their
aims of seeking companionship on Facebook do not translate into their offline lives.
Passing Time, on the other hand, predicted Negative Affect in an inverse manner. That is,
the more that SLU students access Facebook for purposes of passing time, the lesser Negative
Affect they experience. Again, this may be illustrative of the ‘enjoyable distraction’ function
Facebook has for SLU Facebook users.
Mediating Effect of Self-esteem
The last problem tackled the mediating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between
Facebook Use and Social Comparison on one hand and Facebook Use and Affect on the other
hand. The hypothesis that self-esteem would partially mediate the relationship between the
variables was tested using Process, a macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). The method
uses a bootstrapped multivariate procedure with 5000 bootstrapped sample and 95% confidence
intervals. Mediation effect is identified through direct testing of the significant effect of the
independent variable to the dependent variable through the mediator (indirect effect). The indirect
effect is considered significant if the confidence interval did not contain zero (Preacher and Hayes,
2008).
The total effects and direct effects are also presented to establish the pathways between the
variables. The total effects model illustrates the c pathway or the unmediated relationship of the
independent and dependent variables. The direct effects model shows the a pathway of the
independent variable to the mediator variable and the b pathway of the mediator variable to the
dependent variable. The Indirect effects model tests the mediation effect by multiplying the
coefficients of the a pathway and the b pathway.
Facebook Use and Upward Social Comparison as mediated by Self-esteem
Self-esteem was entered into the mediation model to test the hypothesis that it would
mediate the relationship between Facebook Use and Upward Social Comparison. Based on the
correlational analysis performed earlier, the dimensions of Facebook Use that correlated with self-
esteem were selected for mediation analysis. Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation, Passing
Time and Companionship were the dimensions associated with Self-esteem. These dimensions
together with Self-esteem were entered in the mediation analysis to test the significance of the
pathways. Table 9 summarizes the Total, Direct, and Indirect effects for Upward Social
Comparison.
Table 9. Total, direct, and indirect effects of Facebook Use and Upward Social Comparison
mediation model
Total
Direct effects Indirect effects
effects
Predictors
Boot Boot
c path a path b path c’ path Coefficients LL UL
Facebook Use
.3035** 1.0276 ** .0443** .2580** .0455 NS .0146 .0935
Intensity
Social
.2008** .7463** .0469** .1658** .0350 NS .0125 .0695
Investigation
Passing Time .1504** .7774** .0511** .1107* .0397 NS .0133 .0187
Companionship .2183** .4533* .0503** .1955** .0228 NS .0033 .0532
Analysis of the pathways revealed that Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation,
Passing Time, and Companionship are significant predictors of Self-esteem. Correspondingly,
Self-esteem had significant direct effects on Upward Social Comparison. The c’ pathways
Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation, Passing Time, and Companionship predicted
Upward Social Comparison. Total effects for all the predictors were deemed significant. However,
when the effects of Self-esteem were controlled in the analysis, Facebook Use Intensity, Social
Investigation, Passing Time and Companionship remained to have significant effects on Upward
Social Comparison. Examination of the indirect effects showed that self-esteem is not a significant
mediator of the relationship between Facebook Use and Upward Social Comparison as shown in
Table 9. Confidence intervals for the indirect effects coefficients contained zeroes which indicated
non-significant mediating effects.
The results demonstrate that SLU students’ self-esteem scores did not necessarily facilitate
their motives and intensity of using Facebook to be related to the Upward Social Comparisons they
made on Facebook. The Facebook usage of SLU students, regardless of their self-esteem scores,
would predict Upward Social Comparison activities on Facebook.
Facebook Use and Nondirectional Social Comparison as mediated by Self-esteem
The b’ pathways revealed that Self-esteem significantly predicts Nondirectional Social

Comparison. With Self-esteem, the motives Social Investigation, Passing Time, and
Companionship, as well as Facebook Use Intensity, predict Nondirectional Social Comparison.
Total effects indicated that the unmediated relationship between Facebook Use and Nondirectional
Social Comparison is significant. Table 10 below presents the unstandardized coefficients of the
Total, Direct and Indirect pathways.
On the other hand, the indirect effects model yielded that self-esteem is not a significant
mediator of the relationship between Facebook Use and Nondirectional Social Comparison.
Controlling for the effects of Self-esteem in the relationship proved that regardless of SLU
students’ level of self-esteem, the use of Facebook is still significantly associated with
Nondirectional Social Comparison.
Table 10. Total, direct, and indirect effects of Facebook use and Nondirectional Social
Comparison mediation model
Total
effects Direct effects Indirect effects
Predictors
c path a path b path c’ path Coefficients Boot Boot
LL UL
Facebook Use
.3497** 1.0276 ** .0284* .3205** .0292 NS .0038 .0754
Intensity
Social
.2371** .7463** .0313* .2137** .0234 NS .0038 .0591
investigation
Passing Time .1729** .7774** .0366** .1445* .0284 NS .0060 .0680
Companionship .2116** .4533* .0373** .1947** .0169 NS .0017 .0449
Facebook Use and Downward Social Comparison as mediated by Self-esteem
Relationships between the dimensions of Facebook Use, Downward Social Comparison,

and Self-esteem were analyzed through mediation analysis. The summary of the pathway
coefficients are displayed in Table 11 on the next page. The b’ pathways for Facebook Use
Intensity and Social Investigation showed that the Self-esteem scores do not predict Downward
Social Comparison behaviors of SLU students. The c’ pathways, however, signified that Facebook
Use Intensity, Social Investigation, Passing Time, and Companionship have significant direct
effects on Downward Social Comparison.
Testing of the indirect effects of Facebook Use to Downward Social Comparison through
Self-esteem was found to be not significant. Therefore, Self-esteem is considered not a significant
mediator of the relationship between Facebook Use and Downward Social Comparison.
Table 11. Total, direct, and indirect effects of Facebook use and Downward Social Comparison
mediation model
Total
effects Direct effects Indirect effects
Predictors
c path a path b path c’ path Coefficients Boot Boot
LL UL
Facebook Use .0183
.3395** 1.0276 ** .3207** .0188 NS -.0036 .0614
Intensity NS
Social .0237
.1841** .7463** .1664** .0177 NS .0002 .0490
Investigation NS
Passing time .1590** .7774** .0267* .1382** .0208 NS .0014 .0550
Companionship .1864** .4533* .0277* .1738** .0126 NS .0007 .0590
Taken together, the analyses of the mediating effect of Self-esteem on Facebook Use and
the three directions of Social Comparison demonstrate that the level of self-esteem of SLU students
does not have impact on the relationship between their Facebook usage and Social Comparison
behaviors. For Upward and Nondirectional Social Comparisons, the Self-esteem scores was found
as significant predictor after controlling for the effects of all the dimensions of Facebook Use.
However, for Downward Social Comparison, the Self-esteem scores for Facebook Use Intensity
and Social Investigation did not yield to be significant. These results suggest that the Self-esteem
of SLU students, after controlling for Facebook Use Intensity and Social Investigation, do not
predict Downward Social Comparisons. Consequently, self-esteem is not a significant mediator.
Apparently, with or without the consideration of self-esteem, SLU students’ Facebook use
would still be related with Social Comparisons. The directions of comparisons they make on
Facebook depend on the motives they have on using Facebook. Although the dimensions of
Facebook Use – Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation, Passing Time, and Companionship
were related to Self-esteem, these associations did not yield self-esteem as a significant mediator.
Hypothesis 4a anticipated that Facebook Use would be related to the three directions of Social
Comparisons through Self-esteem. That is, SLU students’ Self-esteem assists in facilitating
Facebook Use a predictor of Social Comparison.
Previous researches have established links between Facebook Use and self-esteem, such as
in the study of Vogel, Rose, Roberts & Eckles (2014) where frequent Facebook use is associated
with lower trait self-esteem; and also in the work of Cramer, Song and Drent (2016) where
participants with low self-esteem compared to those with high self-esteem were found to be more
inclined to compare themselves with other people for self-evaluation, self-enhancement, and self-
destruction motives of Social Comparison. In addition, their study specified that greater positive
affect were elicited among participants with high self-esteem, compared to those with low self-
esteem who endorsed self-improvement motive, while self-enhancement motives prompted
positive feelings more significantly among participant with low self-esteem than those with high
self-esteem. However, the results of these mediation analyses proved otherwise. Perhaps, other
factors may mediate the relationship between the two. For example, Lee (2014) found that aside
from self-esteem, a Facebook user’s personal characteristics such as social comparison orientation,
self-uncertainty and self-consciousness impact the frequency of social comparisons made on
Facebook.
In addition, considering the nature of the sample for this study, participants were composed
of undergraduate and graduate students whose ages range from 18 to 24 years old. Their identities
or personality traits may have an impact on the way they are motivated to use Facebook and on
the way they behave online. For example Landers and Lounsbury (2006) found negative
relationships between Internet usage and the three personality traits - Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Extraversion indicating that there may be difference in the activities people
undertake depending on their personality traits. In this case, the personality traits and demographic
characteristics of the participants were not analyzed. In so much as SLU students primarily use
Facebook to maintain relationships, pass the time and reconnect, they may not be, after all
engaging in numerous Social comparison behaviors on Facebook.
Facebook Use and Positive Affect as Mediated by Self-esteem
Self-esteem was also tested as a mediator of the relationship between Facebook Use and
Positive Affect. In Table 12 below, the total and direct effects of Facebook Use to Positive Affect,
and indirect effect of Facebook Use to Positive Affect via Self-esteem are summarized. Direct
effects testing showed that Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation, Passing Time, and
Companionship predicted Self-esteem as evidenced in the a’ pathways coefficients. The b’
pathways coefficients indicated that Self-esteem does not predict Positive Affect after controlling
for the effects of Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation, and Passing Time. The indirect
effects of Facebook Use to Positive Affect were not significant. Therefore, Self-esteem does not
mediate the relationship between Facebook Use and Positive Affect.
Table 12. Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Facebook Use and Positive Affect Mediation
Model
Total
effects
Predictors
Boot Boot
Facebook Use
Intensity 3.1772** 1.0276 ** .1684 NS 3.0041** .1731 NS -.0162 .4608
Social
Investigation 1.9669** .7463** .2058 NS 1.8133** .1536 NS .0177 .3788
Passing Time 2.4131** .7774** .2056 NS 2.2532** .1598 NS .0149 .4065
Companionship 1.7310** .4533* .2576* 1.6142** .1167 NS .0123 .3146
These results point to several things. First, a user’s evaluations of himself or herself will
not necessarily be associated with the feelings he or she will experience while on Facebook.
Having high self-esteem will not implicate positive emotions while using Facebook, since as one
goes to Facebook, one is presented with a stream of various information – some can be relevant
while some may be not. Second, the relationship between Facebook Use and Self-esteem may
indicate that as SLU students increase their Facebook consumption for stalking, having fun, and
reconnecting, the more they are able to boost their self-esteem. Yet, when the contributions of
Facebook Use were taken out of consideration, SLU students’ self-esteem did not alone predict
Positive Affect. The information a user is exposed to, his or her activities on Facebook, and the
needs satisfied by Facebook may all possibly be related to Positive Affect. Again, the relationship
of Facebook Use and Positive Affect suggests numerous possibilities on what might be causing
positive feelings to Facebook users.
Facebook Use and Negative Affect as Mediated by Self-esteem
Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation, Passing Time and Companionship were
entered into the mediation model to determine the mediating effect of Self-esteem on the
relationship between these dimensions of Facebook Use and Negative Affect, These were the
dimensions that correlated with Self-esteem as shown from the Correlational analysis performed
(see Table 3). After the examination of Direct effects of Facebook Use on Negative Affect, it was
revealed that Facebook Use Intensity, Social Investigation, Passing Time and Companionship
predicted Self-esteem as well as Negative Affect. Table 13 shows the unstandardized regression
coefficients of the pathways. However, b’ pathway coefficients were all found to be not significant,
thus Self-esteem does not predict Negative Affect.
Table 13. Total, direct, and indirect effects of Facebook use and Negative Affect mediation
model
Total
effects
Predictors
Boot Boot
Facebook Use .0328
1.7949** 1.0276 ** 1.7611** .0337 NS -.1722 .2761
Intensity NS
Social .0578
1.0484** .7463** 1.0052** .0432 NS -.0961 .2310
Investigation NS
.0939 .4205
Passing Time .4934 NS .7774** .0730 NS -.0578 .2981
NS NS
.0640
Companionship 1.7103** .4533* 1.6813** .0290 NS -.0488 .1753
NS
Since, self-esteem is not a significant predictor of Negative Affect, mediation analyses will
no longer be necessary. Nevertheless, output from indirect effects testing showed that Self-esteem
did not mediate the relationship between Facebook Use and Negative Affect. Similar to the results
of Positive Affect, self-esteem does not facilitate SLU students’ use of Facebook to be associated
with Negative Affect.
Apparently, experience of positive and negative outcomes from Facebook use can be
influenced by a lot of factors. The mediation model only presents that through Self-esteem, SLU
students’ Facebook Use has effects on their Affect. As mentioned earlier, it is social comparison
that makes Facebook users feel depressed when using Facebook. Aside from social comparison,
Krasnova, Wenninger, Widjaja, and Bauxmann (2013) found envy to be a source of frustration on
Facebook where envy mediated the relationship between passive consumption of information on
Social Networking Sites and Life Satisfaction. Conceivably, it is more plausible to look into other
factors that mediate the relationship between Facebook Use and Affect.
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a summary of conclusions drawn from the results of the study, its
theoretical and practical implications, hence recommendations for future researchers, Facebook
users and counselors in understanding online behaviors of the youth.
Conclusions
The results of the study have presented interesting body of knowledge regarding Facebook
Use among the Filipino youth. The results regarding the nature of Facebook Use among SLU
students indicated that SLU students are emotionally attached and involved to Facebook but not
as highly intense as it was expected. However, since Facebook Use Intensity in this study only
measured the participants’ emotional connectedness to Facebook and its integration to their daily
lives, the results do not capture how much time SLU students spend on Facebook and how often
they use it. Measuring the duration of Facebook Use may give further insights on the results of
this study. It may be possible that they are not strongly involved to the site but they may actually
use it very often for various reasons. In line with various reasons of using Facebook, Maintaining
Relationships, Passing Time, and Reconnecting appeared to be the prevalent motives of Facebook
Use. To a great extent, SLU students use Facebook to keep in touch with their friends and family,
occupy their time and to reconnect with people they had lost contact with. These illustrate that
Facebook, indeed, meet most of the interpersonal needs of the respondents. Also, these confirm
just how Facebook makes it convenient for students to communicate to their friends and family
and to reconnect.
Facebook makes it easy for people to catch up, tell stories and interact without having to
meet face-to-face. It is also a useful tool for college students to share information online – to
discuss assignments, school events, and academic matters through group chats or conversations.
The Fear of Missing Out (FoMo) is also a common phenomenon surrounding the youth today
where individuals are possibly compelled to stay up to date with the latest news, updates on music,
fashion, and even gossips about peers or schoolmates. Aside from these, it is evident that Facebook
users are predominantly 18 to 24 years old which categorize them as millennials or Generation Y
and post-millennials or Generation Z. These age groups grew up to be digital natives which explain
why Facebook serves as a communication tool for the Filipino youth. More importantly, most of
the respondents from this study were below 20 years old who are considered as the post-
millennials. Data from Center of Generational Kinetics (2016) revealed that post-millennials view
social media as “the medium for them to connect to the world and for the world to connect to
them”. Apparently, their preference for social media is selective. Facebook still plays a part in their
social connectivity, but it was revealed that they favor Snapchat more for it allows them to send a
personalized photo or video to a number of people rather than broadcasting their lives widely and
publicly for everyone to see such as in the case of Facebook. Thus, for SLU Facebook users, social
media appears to be their avenue for nurturing and bridging social connections.
Drawing from the results of this study, adults, Guidance Counselors, parents and even the
Facebook users themselves are made aware that the use of Facebook can gratify the need of the
youth, especially their need for social belongingness. Also, Facebook usage to some extent, helps
alleviate the youth especially college students from the stress they experience from school. It can
also serve as an ‘enjoyable distraction’ for them.
The results which indicate a positively low relationship between the dimensions of
Facebook Use and directions of Social Comparison offer individuals a glimpse of how their
specific motives relate to making social comparisons online. The results demonstrate that as
intensity of Facebook use increases, Social Comparisons also increases. It may not be clear exactly
what type of Social Comparison they make on Facebook but it follows that the more one integrates
Facebook to his or her daily life, the more information is received and greater possibilities of
comparing oneself come about, thus making Facebook, indeed a breeding ground for comparisons.
However, other factors should be considered since there is a lack of causal effect established in
the study and the obtained correlation coefficients range from very weak to weak.
On the other hand, Expanding social networks, Social Investigation, Passing Time and
Companionship were associated with the three directions of Social Comparison, yet very low to
low relationships were found. The relationship between Facebook Use and Social Comparison can
be accounted for by other factors underlying Facebook use. As Facebook is utilized more for these
reasons, more Social comparisons are made while on Facebook. These motives are obviously
related to consumption of information on Facebook. As a user is motivated to meet new people
through joining groups or events, the more he or she would find information about other people.
This gives him or her the opportunity to evaluate himself or herself against other people, and that
is to draw similarities from which he or she can make social comparisons. Similarly, being
motivated to stalk someone or browse someone’s profile yields the same opportunity to compare
oneself based on the information obtained about other people. Passing Time is also associated with
Social Comparison such that, individuals who use Facebook to pass their time more– either
through passive scrolling of the Newsfeed, or checking of notification updates, make more
Upward, Nondirectional, or Downward Social Comparisons. The relationship of Companionship
motive to Social Comparison also illustrates that as individuals use Facebook more to feel less
lonely or to develop romantic relationships, the more that they make either Upward,
Nondirectional or Social Comparisons on Facebook. Hence, these show how the Filipino youth’s
motives in using Facebook give leeway for them to assess themselves. Moreover, it allows them
to determine their standing in the social world given that Facebook is very social in nature. The
presence of networks or list of friends makes it convenient for Facebook users to have social
comparison targets. Yet, it may not be clear who these targets exactly are.
The results showing a positively low relationship between dimensions of Facebook Use
and Positive and Negative Affect indicate that motives of Facebook use may influence a user’s
affect. This shows that as users utilize the Facebook more often for various reasons, the more they
are exposed to information; and using the site for different reasons can elicit outcomes and
emotions depending on their motives. This shows that Facebook can impact its users in different
ways. As discussed earlier, as a self-presentation tool, Facebook gives its users a boost in their
self-esteem from getting positive feedbacks in their profiles. Thus, Self-expression only correlated
with Positive Affect. Aside from this, the ‘social’ nature of Facebook paves way for its users to
feel belongingness by being able to communicate and stay in touch with their families and friends
as evidenced in the positive relationship of Relationship Maintenance with Positive Affect only.
Also, the entertainment function of the site also allows its users an avenue of escape and for mood
regulation as they occupy their time when they are bored. Passing Time is not related to Negative
Affect possibly because users’ activities on Facebook are directed at aiming pleasure and
entertainment.
Facebook Use Intensity, Expanding social networks, Social Investigation, and

Companionship were all related to both Positive and Negative Affect. Being related to both types
of Affect may indicate that as users’ intensity of Facebook use increases, the more they experience
either negative or positive feelings depending on what they see or what they do on Facebook. As
for the motives, users’ experience of positive or negative affect may depend on who they meet,
stalk, or seek companionship from.
The result which specifies the dimensions of Facebook Use that best predicts Social
Comparison was examined through regression analysis. Facebook Use Intensity, Social
Investigation and Companionship best predicted Upward and Nondirectional Social Comparison
while Facebook Use Intensity and Relationship Maintenance best predicted Downward Social
Comparison. Relationship Maintenance predicted Social Downward Comparison in a negative
direction.
Facebook Use Intensity and Social Investigation were both identified from previous
researches as related to making social comparisons. From earlier discussions, it was shown that
most of the posts on Facebook are geared toward positive contents, thus the more one uses
Facebook and aims to acquire information about other people, the more one engages in Upward
Social Comparisons as well as Nondirectional and Downward Social Comparisons. In relation to
this, the affordances of Facebook Use may be facilitating gossiping among Facebook users, which
is commonly cited as part of the Filipino culture. Pertierra (2010) explained that gossip operates
in an in-group by serving as a ‘sanction for inappropriate behavior’ or a way for expressing
dissatisfaction with the present situation, and may also be for people to discuss individuals who
are objects of envy – those who usually have high status in life. Therefore, with Facebook contents
that are positive in nature, Facebook users may find themselves gossiping about people they find
in Facebook, thus accounting for Upward and Nondirectional Social Comparisons.
Results showing Companionship as a predictor of Upward and Nondirectional Social

Comparison are unprecedented. However, such results can be explained by several factors. First,
it may be that as individuals seeking company go on Facebook and try to develop romantic
relationships, they come across posts of couples who are happy together or of relationship status
updates of other people. As they access these kinds of information, the more that they make
Upward and Nondirectional Social Comparison. Interestingly, Upward Social Comparison may
give them an idea of what kind of relationship they would want to develop. For example, Leung
(2016) studied how single individuals are affected by romantic social comparisons online and
found that individuals who were high in attachment anxiety experienced lower levels of trait self-
esteem when they were presented with romantic relationship content which encouraged an Upward
Social Comparison. Second, Facebook users may be utilizing Facebook to gauge their
‘marketability’ as well as ‘suitability’ in developing romantic relationship. With this in mind, users
may be estimating how a person in a relationship looks and acts like on Facebook and how other
people may be responding to this person and compare his own standing. Lastly, it can be inferred
that as Facebook users try to reduce loneliness, the more Upward and Nondirectional Social
Comparisons they make because most of the materials they find on Facebook are already the
‘glamorized’ version of things – photogenic pictures, well-thought captions for photos and status
updates, awards and or citations.
Relationship Maintenance as a negative predictor of Social Comparison may be regarded,

for as users use Facebook more to stay connected with friends and family, the lesser is the
Downward Social Comparison because their Facebook use is primarily involved with people they
already know. As such, the more they know the person, the more that they are able to relate to
these people’s adversaries or unfortunate experiences in life; thus, they may not feel the need to
make more Downward Social Comparisons.
The results show Facebook Use Intensity, Self-expression, and Reconnection as predictors
of Positive Affect. However, Facebook Use Intensity and Companionship and Passing Time as
predictors of Negative Affect proved that while motives and intensity of Facebook Use are related
to affect, how they influence the user to feel a certain affect is not clear. A specific motive of
Facebook Use may make one Facebook user feel positively while another user may not. This could
be related to other factors that may be affecting the users while they are on Facebook. Facebook
Use Intensity as a predictor of both Positive and Negative Affect demonstrates that outcomes of
Facebook use may depend on what users encounter while they are online. Also, illustrated in the
results above, Social Investigation, and Companionship are both related to Upward and
Nondirectional Social Comparison.
Earlier researches have claimed that time spent on Facebook use was related to depression
via Social Comparisons. Seemingly, it looks that when individuals use Facebook for these reasons,
they are more likely to make Social Comparisons. Previous literature also indicated Social
Comparison as a mediator to Facebook Use and Depression. These motives predict Positive and
Negative Affect, depending on who they compare themselves with on Facebook. Self-expression
and Reconnection predicted Positive Affect since these motives provide individuals to go on
Facebook to affirm themselves and manage their self-image, as well as to reconnect with lost
contacts. Carvajal (2014) cited that the millennial generation typically used Facebook to show off
their best characteristics in order to gain approval and admiration. Negative Affect as negatively
predicted by Passing Time gives implication for cases regarding Facebook addiction. Since the
more that individuals use Facebook for passing time, the lesser the Negative Affect they
experience; hence, this makes it imperative to further investigate exactly what activities the youth
engages in while they are using Facebook. Apparently, passing time relates to reduction of
negative feelings but not the increase in positive feelings. It implies that users already feel badly
or negatively, thus with the use of Facebook, these negative feelings are somehow reduced.
Finally, the results of the study show Self-esteem to be a not significant mediator of the
relationships between Facebook Use and Social Comparison; and Facebook Use and Affect may
be related to other factors that were not examined in this study. It is inferred that self-esteem does
not facilitate the relationship of Facebook Use to Social Comparison or to Affect. Regardless of a
person’s level of self-esteem, the use of Facebook is still related to Social Comparison and Affect.
One possible explanation for this is that for whatever reason individuals may have in using
Facebook, they will still engage in social comparisons regardless of their self-esteem levels since
it has been established that social comparison is innate to people. It would not really matter if
individuals have higher or lower self-evaluations as they would still engage in comparing
themselves. Another possible explanation is the influence of other factors such as personality traits
and other personal characteristics. The user’s current feelings or situation may lead his usage of
Facebook to making comparisons or experiencing a certain type of affect. Depending on what a
person is going through, only the relevant information about the comparison target will prompt
him to compare himself to the other person. For instance, a person who is struggling with a setback
in his relationship checks on his peer’s post with their partners may make Upward Social
Comparison. The post may also upset him as he is currently dealing with relationship issues.
Personality factors may also be linked in the relationship between Facebook Use and Affect, such
that extroverted individuals benefit more compared to introverted individuals in using Facebook
as they are highly oriented towards sociability.
Overall, the results of this study give insight on the nature of Facebook Use among Filipino
youth. The theoretical implication of the study extends the previous Western studies of Motives of
Facebook Use. It appears that Filipinos thrive in Facebook to communicate with friends and family
and to distract themselves by engaging in pleasurable activities on Facebook. More than this, the
friendly nature and importance of kinship among the Filipinos encourage the expansion of personal
networks through instant and convenient connectivity on Facebook.
The results also show that Facebook gratifies different needs of the users. All of the motives
of Facebook use were found to be related to Positive Affect, but some were also found to be related
to Negative Affect which indicates that the effects of Facebook on individuals can vary depending
on the characteristics of the users as well as what they see on Facebook.
Another theoretical implication is premised on the Self-affirmation theory whereby

individuals who experience threat to their egos find solace on Facebook as they get affirmation by
viewing their Facebook profiles. It is in this light that the examination of personal attributes and
experiences contributing to the propensity of individuals to make social comparisons should also
be studied.
Another theoretical implication is a new conceptual model whereby social comparison may
act as the mediator variable between Facebook Use and Affect. As shown in the study of Steers,
Wickham, and Acitelli (2014), social comparisons mediated the relationship between Facebook
and Depression. Thus, the more people use Facebook, the more they feel depressed because of the
social comparisons they engaged in while using the site. As already mentioned previously,
Facebook opens up doors for comparisons to take place. However, the effect of comparisons may
depend on who people will compare with, thus feelings experienced from Facebook use may also
likely depend on the social comparisons people make on Facebook. Lastly, the use of Filipino
psychology concepts and values to explain the relationships between Facebook Use and Social
Comparison as well as Affect is encouraged. Further development of a Filipino psychology
oriented towards the digital realm of the youth today is also vital for psychology research-
practitioners in explaining phenomena and research findings that are unique to the Filipino
population.
The results of the study also give practical implications for educators to promote social
belongingness in the school through fun and group-oriented programs or activities. Guidance
counselors and psychology practitioners, and event parents may draw from the results of this study
some ways to help young individuals affected negatively from social media use. Knowing that
most of the content posted on Facebook is mostly idealized, adults can help the youth become
aware of this ‘phenomenon’ in the virtual world to prevent them from feeling down or depressed
from using Facebook. Guidance counselors and psychology practitioners may also develop
programs and strategies for Facebook users especially students in helping them regulate their
Facebook use to minimize negative consequences of using the site.
There are several limitations to this study. First, considering that the current study is based
upon quasi-experimental approach, the findings from the analysis do not warrant a direct causal
relationship. Interpretation should be carried out with caution. Also, the self-report method of
gathering data regarding Social Comparison may not be a sufficient tool to determine exactly how
the respondents made social comparisons on Facebook. The survey questions were stated in a way
that would help them recall their actions while viewing Facebook; however, direct testing of their
behaviors was not conducted. Longitudinal studies as well as experiments may be pursued to
overcome these problems. In addition, although the study applied a random sampling approach in
the given university, a single school as a sample calls generalizability of the findings into question.
Also, most of the respondents were 18 years old which may not have captured accurately the
characteristics of Facebook users. Lastly, certain variables may have confounded the results of the
study such as the social desirability among the respondents.
Recommendations
In terms of the welfare of Facebook users, particularly college students, the researcher
recommends the following:
1. Facebook users are reminded that Facebook should be used to enhance relationships and
not a substitute for face-to-face interactions. While it may be a useful tool to maintain existing
relationship, Facebook users are recommended not to undermine engaging with other people
outside their circle. Facebook may allow them to connect globally, but they may be missing out
on what is happening in real life;
2. It is also recommended that individuals, particularly the youth should not focus on the
things they see online. Parents, adults, guidance counselors, and other helping professionals may
help the youth become aware that most user-generated contents they see on Facebook are idealized
and glamorized versions already. Thus, they may not be getting accurate feedbacks as they
compare themselves to the best versions of people they see on Facebook;
3. Since Facebook turns out to elicit positive feelings from people as they express
themselves through photos or status updates, it is important for users, especially the young ones to
observe discretion in disclosing information about themselves on Facebook. While it helps them
to vent out their feelings, they should be reminded that there are things that one may share to a
public audience and there are also things that are better kept in private. Aside from this, although
posting of beautiful sceneries, foods or clothing and check-ins at luxurious places give users a
heightened sense of self-esteem, it also puts their safety at risk. Relevant information like the
places they are staying in at the moment or photos with their personal identification details visible
give perpetrators opportunities to harm them;
4. For users whose parents, friends, and other loved ones are far away, Facebook may be
one of the best alternatives to keep in touch and stay connected. It makes communication easier
and faster. Features from Facebook’s in-app Messenger allow its users to immediately see
messages sent by their friends or families. Documents, videos, and photos can also be attached in
the message. Video call and group call also makes communication more convenient. However,
maintenance of relationship must not rely solely on the use of these applications. Even without the
use of social networking sites, bonding with loved ones must still be kept constant;
5. Regulation of Facebook use should also be observed. For parents, they may help their
children, especially the young ones to regulate the time they spend on Facebook. Parents should
also be aware of the information young people see on Facebook. Because they rely heavily on
information they see on the internet, it is necessary that they are made aware that most of the things
they see online are not as accurate as it may seem and should be oriented to trust only credible
sources;
6. In terms of acquiring information about other people, it is deemed that face-to-face

interaction is still the best way to get to know another person well. Facebook stalking may be a
non-intrusive manner of getting information about other people; however, information obtained
may after all not be accurate;
7. Facebook serves as an enjoyable distraction for many young individuals. Its usage should
only be a temporary escape from stress. Users should be aware that while they can have fun in
Facebook, using it should not keep important things or responsibilities at bay; and
8. Lastly, it is recommended that the youth should not rely on any social media in
understanding their place in the social world or in evaluating themselves. Getting the views or
opinions of people who matter and play a significant role in their lives is still one of the best ways
to assess themselves.
In terms of the results that could set direction for future studies, the researcher recommends
the following:
1. Future research may focus on the nature of relationship between Facebook Use Intensity
and Motives of Facebook Use to allow for a deeper understanding on what drives Filipinos to
continue using Facebook and which motives makes them intensely connected to the site. Future
researches may also generate a measure of the motives of Facebook Use that is uniquely based on
the Filipino sample;
2. Future research may also consider a bigger study sample to capture a generalizable data
regarding Facebook use of the Filipinos. Demographic characteristics of the participants may also
be taken into consideration as age and gender may play a factor in the use of Facebook, the social
comparisons made and the affect experienced by the Facebook users;
3. The method used in this study did not include actual observations in the same way as a
full experimental method would yield, so conclusions about causality is limited by this aspect.
Also, the contents the respondents see on their Facebook accounts may differ from one person to
another; thus, the direction to which they make Social comparisons is indefinite. One respondent
may be exposed to less information about other people and may be motivated to use Facebook just
to communicate with his family while another respondent may be greatly motivated to seek
information about other people. Consequently, future research may consider a mixed method of
studying the impact of Facebook use on Social Comparison. Qualitative means such as in-depth
analysis may pave way for phenomenological understanding of the online behaviors of the
Filipinos;
4. Another interesting avenue for future research may be to examine other variables that
may explain the relationship between Facebook Use and Social Comparison, as well as Affect.
The results of this study failed to demonstrate self-esteem as a significant mediator of the
relationship between the identified variables. Rather than a mediator variable, self-esteem may be
examined as a moderator variable along with other variables. Future researches may also consider
personality factors or demographic factors as mediator variables;
5. Lastly, future researches may extend the study to other social media platforms. Although
Facebook remains to be the largest social networking site, other sites continue to gain popularity
such as the Instagram and Snapchat;
The following conclusions and recommendations may not be the ultimate representation
of Filipino online behaviors and solution to the addiction and negative consequences felt by young
Filipinos but through this study, it is revealed that Facebook, indeed, encourages opportunities for
social comparison as well as experience of positive and negative affect. This study confirms some
of previous researches’ findings on Facebook use. Ultimately, this study shows the complexity of
human behaviors as well as the digital world.
References
Ariate, R., Cruz, R., Dimaculangan, J., & Tibayan, C. (2015). The Role of Facebook in Sustaining
Relationship among Families of OFW. LPU Laguna Journal of Arts and Sciences
Communication Research, 2(1), 156-181. Retrieved from http://lpulaguna.edu.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/7.The-Role-Of-Facebook-In-Sustaining-Relationship-Among-
Families-Of-Ofw.pdf
Baumeister, R., & Vohs, K. (2007). Encyclopedia of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
SagePublications.
http://people.psych.ucsb.edu/sherman/david/cohernshermanency2007.pdf
Blomfield Neira, C., & Barber, B. (2013). Social networking site use: Linked to adolescents'
social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood. Australian Journal of Psychology,
66(1), 56-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12034
Boyd, D. & Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Brown, J., Dutton, K., & Cook, K. (2001). From the top down: Self-esteem and self-evaluation.
Cognition & Emotion, 15(5), 615-631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930126063
Capulong, A. (2016, September). Facebook Usage among Selected College Freshmen. Poster
presented at the annual meeting of 53rd Psychological Association of the Philippines
Convention, Pampanga, Philippines.
Carvajal, A. (2014). Social Transformations facilitated by Facebook on the Filipino Generation

Y. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(10), 77-90. Retrieved from
http://www.ijern.com/journal/2014/October-2014/07.pdf
Chen, Y., Mark, G., & Ali, S. (2016). Promoting Positive Affect through Smartphone
Photography. Psych Well-Being, 6(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13612-016-0044-4
Cherry, K. (2016). How Does the Social Comparison Process Work?. About.com Health.
Retrieved 20 March 2016, from
http://psychology.about.com/od/sindex/g/Socialcomp.htm
Chou, H. & Edge, N. (2012). “They Are Happier and Having Better Lives than I Am”: The
Impact of Using Facebook on Perceptions of Others' Lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 15(2), 117-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0324
Corcoran, K., Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2015). Figure 1.1 Hypotheses of the theory of social
comparison processes. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265634849_Social_Comparison_Motives_Stan
dards_and_Mechanisms
Corcoran, K., Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2015). Social Comparison: Motives, Standards, and
Mechanisms. ResearchGate. Retrieved 19 March 2016, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265634849_Social_Comparison_Motives_Stan
dards_and_Mechanisms
Del Rosario, A., Pacho, P., Raboy, R. (2015). Hidden from your Timeline: Facebook Envy and
Self-esteem of the Filipino Youth. European Academic Research, 3(1), 117-150.
Retrieved from http://euacademic.org/UploadArticle/1528.pdf.
Ellison, N., 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2007.00367.x
Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Facebook. PAGE INFO. Retrieved February 24, 2016 from

https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info/?tab=page_info
Faraon, M. & Kaipainen, M. (2014). Much more to it: The relation between facebook usage and
self-esteem. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 15Th International Conference on
Information Reuse and Integration (IEEE IRI 2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/iri.2014.7051876
Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-
140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Flaherty, L., Pearce, K., & Rubin, R. (1998). Internet and face‐to‐face communication: Not
functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 250-268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379809370100
Fox, J., Warber, K., & Makstaller, D. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship
development: An exploration of Knapp's relational stage model. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 30(6), 771-794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407512468370
Franken, R. (2002). Human motivation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Froget, J., Baghestan, A., & Asfaranjan, Y. (2013). A Uses and Gratification Perspective on
Social Media Usage and Online Marketing. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research,
15(1), 134-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.15.1.2127
Gastardo-Conaco, M. & Labor, P. (2016, September). Unpacking Internet Use and Life
Satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 53rd Psychological Association of
the Philippines Convention, Pampanga, Philippines. Abstract retrieved from
https://www.papconvention.org/sites/default/files/presentation/b2-3.pdf
Gibbons, F., & Buunk, B. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a
scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(1), 129-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129
GMA News Online. (2014). Pinoys lead the world in social media engagement–study. Retrieved
15 February 2016, from
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/367983/scitech/technology/pinoys-lead-the-
world-in-social-media-engagement-study
Gonzales, A. & Hancock, J. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411
Heatherton, T., & Wyland, C. Assessing Self-Esteem. Retrieved 21 March 2016, from
https://www.dartmouth.edu/
Heatherton, T.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2000). Self-esteem. In E.F. Borgatta & R.J.V. Montgomery
(Eds.) Encyclopedia of Sociology. Pp. 2511-2518. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved
from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~thlab/pubs/00_Heatherton_Vohs_EncySoc.pdf
Hechanova, M., & Ortega-Go, R. (2014). THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY: Internet
Use, Outcomes and the Role of Regulation in the Philippines. Ejisdc.org. Retrieved 21
March 2016, from http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/1200/524
Hollenbaugh, E. & Ferris, A. (2014). Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits,
social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 50-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.055
Hunt, D., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2012). The Influence of Computer-Mediated
Communication Apprehension on Motives for Facebook Use. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 56(2), 187-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.678717
iGEN TECH DISRUPTION: 2016 National Study on Technology and the Generation after
Millennials. (2016). The Center for Generational Kinetics. Retrieved 1 January 2017,
from http://genhq.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/iGen-Gen-Z-Tech-
Disruption-Research-White-Paper-c-2016-Center-for-Generational-Kinetics.pdf
Internetworldstats.com. (2015). Asia Internet Stats and 2015 Population Statistics. Retrieved 15
February 2016, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia.htm
Jaremka, L., Bunyan, D., Collins, N., & Sherman, D. (2011). Reducing defensive distancing:
Self-affirmation and risk regulation in response to relationship threats. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 264-268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.015
Joinson, A. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?. Proceeding Of The
Twenty-Sixth Annual CHI Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems - CHI
'08. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357213\
Kalish, N. (2015). You might find your long-lost love on Facebook, but research shows you
won’t make it work. Washington Post. Retrieved 20 November 2016, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Krasnova H, Wenninger H, Widjaja T, Buxmann P: Envy on Facebook: A hidden threat to users’

life satisfaction? Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on
Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI). 2013.
Labrague, L. (2014). Facebook use and adolescents’ emotional states of depression, anxiety, and
stress. Retrieved February 24, 2016 from http://www.hsj.gr/medicine/facebook-use-and-
adolescents-emotional-states-of-depression-anxiety-and-stress.php?aid=2769
Lee, S. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites?: The
case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253-260.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009
Leung, P. (2016). Please Stop Rubbing Your Relationship In My Face(Book): An Investigation

Of Online Romantic Social Comparison (Master’s Degree). Queen’s University.
Makashvili, M., Ujmajuridze, B., Amirejibi, T., Kotetishvili, B., & Barbakadze, S. (2013).
Gender Difference in the Motives for the Use of Facebook. Asian Journal of Humanities
and Social Studies, 1(3), 130-135.
Maldonado, M. (2015). The Anxiety of Facebook. Psych Central. Retrieved February 24, 2016
from http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-anxiety-of-facebook/
Marshall, T., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The Big Five, self-esteem, and
narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates.
Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.039
Matikainen, J. (2015). Motivations for content generation in social media. Participations:

Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 12(1). Retrieved from
http://www.participations.org/Volume%2012/Issue%201/4.pdf
Mecca, A., Smelser, N., & Vasconcellos, J. (1989). The Social importance of self-esteem.
Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Retrieved March 21, 2016
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/
Midgley, C. (2013). Keeping in Touch or Keeping Score? Social Comparisons on Facebook.

(Master’s Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada). Retrieved January 16, 2016 from
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/43235/1/Midgley_Claire_E_201311_M
A_thesis.pdf
Mueller, W. (2014). Facebook Depression. Center for Parent/Youth Understanding. Retrieved

March 22, 2016, from http://www.cpyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPYU-Trend-
Alert-Facebook-Depression.pdf
Papacharissi, Z. Uses and Gratifications. In M.Salwen and D. Stacks, eds., An Integrated

Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2008, 137-152
Retrieved from http://zizi.people.uic.edu/Site/Research_files/PapacharissiU&G.pdf.
Park, L., & Maner, J. (2009). Does self-threat promote social connection? The role of self-esteem
and contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1),
203-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013933
Park, N. & Lee, S. (2014). College Students' Motivations for Facebook Use and Psychological
Outcomes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 601-620.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.966355reve
Pertierra, R. (2010). The Anthropology of New Media in the Philippines (1st ed.). Quezon:
Ateneo de Manila University.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879-891.
Raacke, J. & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the Uses and
Gratifications Theory to Exploring Friend-Networking Sites. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 11(2), 169-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0056
Rae, J., & Lonborg, S. (2015). Do motivations for using Facebook moderate the association
between Facebook use and psychological well-being?. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 771.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00771
Revesencio, J. (2015). The Huffington Post. Retrieved 8 March 2016, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonha-revesencio/philippines-a-digital-
lif_1_b_7199924.html
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale. Retrieved March 21, 2016 from
http://fetzer.org/sites/default/files/images/stories/pdf/selfmeasures/Self_Measures_for_Se
lf-Esteem_rosenberg_self-esteem.pdf
Rubin, R., Perse, E., & Barbato, C. (1988). Conceptualization and Measurement of Interpersonal
Communication Motives. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 602-628.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00169.x
Ryan, T., Chester, A., Reece, J., & Xenos, S. (2014). The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review
of Facebook addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(3), 133-148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/jba.3.2014.016
Sedikides, C., Skowronski, J., & Dunbar, R. (2006). When and Why Did the Human Self
Evolve?. In M. Schaller, D. Kenrick & J. Simpson, Evolution and Social Psychology (1st
ed., pp. 55 - 75). New York: New York Press. Retrieved from
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~crsi/Sedikides,%20Skowronski,%20&%20Dunbar,%202
006.html.pdf
Sheldon, P. (2008). The Relationship between Unwillingness-to-Communicate and Students’

Facebook Use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(2), 67-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.20.2.67
Smith, C. (2014). By the Numbers: 200+ Amazing Facebook Statistics (January 2015). DMR.
Retrieved 15 February 2016, from http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/by-the-
numbers-17-amazing-facebook-stats/
Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., and Schkade, L. L. (2004). Determining uses and gratifications
for the internet. Decision Sciences, 35(2):259-288.
Steers, M., Wickham, R., & Acitelli, L. (2014). Seeing Everyone Else's Highlight Reels: How
Facebook Usage is linked to Depressive Symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 33(8), 701-731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.701
Stone, M. (2014). A City In The Philippines Is Officially The Selfie Capital Of The World.
Business Insider. Retrieved 8 March 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.com/makati-
city-is-the-selfie-capital-of-the-world-2014-3
Suls, J., & Krizan, Z. (2005). On The Relationships between Explicit And Implicit Global Self-
Esteem And Personality. In Marsh, H., Craven, R., & McInerney, D. New frontiers for
self-research. (Pp.79-94) Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Pub. Retrieved from
https://public.psych.iastate.edu/zkrizan/pdf/Suls_and_Krizan05.pdf
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Handbook of social comparison. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=3lDxBwAAQBAJ&dq=social+comparison&hl=fi
l&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Swayne, M. (2013). Penn State News. Esteem issues determine how people put their best
Facebook forward. Retrieved April 5, 2016 from
http://news.psu.edu/story/286310/2013/09/05/research/esteem-issues-determine-how-
people-put-their-best-facebook-forward
Tanta, I., Mihovilović, M., & Sablić, Z. (2014). Uses and Gratification Theory – Why
Adolescents Use Facebook?. Media Research: Croatian Journal for Journalism And The
Media, 2(2), 85-110.
Tesser, A., Felson, R., & Suls, J. (2000). Psychological perspectives on self and identity.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. p.100
Toma, C. & Hancock, J. (2013). Self-Affirmation Underlies Facebook Use. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 321-331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212474694
Uses and gratification theory. (2016). Communication Theory. Retrieved 21 March 2016, from
http://communicationtheory.org/uses-and-gratification-theory/
Utwentenl. (2010). Uses and Gratifications Approach. University of Twente. Retrieved 21

March, 2016, from
https://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Mass%20Media/Uses
_and_Gratifications_Approach/
Verduyn, P., Lee, D., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., & Bayer, J. et al (2015). Passive
Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal
evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480-488.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057
Vogel, E., Rose, J., Okdie, B., Eckles, K., & Franz, B. (2015). Who compares and despairs? The
effect of social comparison orientation on social media use and its outcomes. Personality
and Individual Differences, 86, 249-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.026
Vogel, E., Rose, J., Roberts, L., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-
esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206-222.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000047
Walther, J., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. (2008). The role of friends‟
appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by
the company we keep?. Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28-49
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
White, J., Langer, E., Yariv, L., & Welch, J. (2006). Frequent Social Comparisons and
Destructive Emotions and Behaviors: The Dark Side of Social Comparisons. Journal of
Adult Development, 13(1), 36-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-006-9005-0
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-Protection and Self
Enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 713-731. Abstract

retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7965616
Yang, C. & Brown, B. (2012). Motives for Using Facebook, Patterns of Facebook Activities, and
Late Adolescents’ Social Adjustment to College. Journal of Youth And Adolescence,
42(3), 403-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9836-x
Zuo, A. (2014). Measuring Up: Social Comparisons on Facebook and Contributions to Self-
Esteem and Mental Health (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/107346
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 Communication, 14(1), 1-34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x
Appendix A
Letter of Request
Rev. Fr. Gilbert B. Sales, CICM, PhD

President
Baguio City, Philippines
Thru: Dr. Gaston P. Kibiten

Assistant Vice President
Research and Development
Dear Rev. Fr. Sales:
Greetings!
My name is Angelica Nichole Mendoza, I am student at Saint Louis University taking up Masters
of Science in Psychology. I am currently writing my thesis entitled, Facebook Use and Its Influence
on Social Comparison and Affect as Mediated by Self-esteem. The aim of the study is to determine
social comparison behaviors and feelings of Facebook users from Saint Louis University. I am
subscribed to the idea that the analysis and measurement of feelings and social comparison
behaviors of Facebook users may help bring awareness of the behavioral determinants and
consequences of Facebook use.
In this regard, may I request your permission to conduct this study in SLU by distributing the
attached questionnaire to 300 SLU college students who have Facebook accounts from August 24
to September 24, 2016. Rest assured that information gathered will be handled with utmost
confidentiality and used for academic purposes only. Upon completion of the study, I agree to
provide your office with a copy of the paper. Your permission to conduct this study will be greatly
appreciated.
Very Truly Yours,
Angelica Nichole B. Mendoza, RPm
Noted by:
Ederlyn Marie Gatchalian

Thesis Adviser
Appendix B
Letter of Consent to the participants
Dear Respondents,
I am Angelica Nichole Mendoza, a graduate student at Saint Louis University taking up

Master of Science in Psychology. I am currently writing my thesis entitled, Facebook Use and Its
Influence on Social Comparison and Affect as Mediated by Self-esteem. In line with this, I am
seeking Facebook users aged 18 to 24 years old to take part in this study.
Your participation in this study is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. This survey is for

RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY. Your decision to participate or not participate will not affect
your academic performance and will not be taken against you. There are no known risks to
participation beyond those encountered in everyday life. Your responses will remain confidential
and anonymous.
If you agree to participate in this study, please answer the questions on the questionnaire
as best you can. It should take you approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
Thank you for your assistance in this important endeavor.
Sincerely Yours,
Angelica Nichole B. Mendoza, RPm

Appendix C
Sample Questionnaire of Facebook Use Intensity
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Disagree
1. Facebook is part of my everyday

activity
1 2 3 4
2. I am proud to tell people I'm on
Facebook
1 2 3 4
3. Facebook has become part of my
daily routine
1 2 3 4
4. I feel out of touch when I haven't
logged onto Facebook for a while
1 2 3 4
5. I feel I am part of the Facebook
community
1 2 3 4
6. I would be sorry if Facebook shut

down
1 2 3 4
Appendix D
Sample Questionnaire of Motives of Facebook Use
Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great

extent
1. To communicate with my 1 2 3 4
friends and family
2. To stay in touch with friends 1 2 3 4
and family
3. To reconnect with people I 1 2 3 4
lost contact with
4. To get through to someone 1 2 3 4
who is hard to reach
5. To pass time when bored 1 2 3 4
6. It is one of the routine things I 1 2 3 4

do when online
7. To meet new people 1 2 3 4
8. To find people who share 1 2 3 4

similar interests with me
9. Organizing/Joining groups 1 2 3 4
and events
10. Browsing other people’s 1 2 3 4
profile
11. Reading comments on my 1 2 3 4
friend’s posts
12. Stalking other people 1 2 3 4
13. To play games and other 1 2 3 4

applications within Facebook
14. Checking on funny videos 1 2 3 4
and other posts
15. To upload my photos 1 2 3 4
16. To update my status 1 2 3 4
17. It makes me cool among my 1 2 3 4

peers
18. It is fun 1 2 3 4
19. To develop a romantic 1 2 3 4

relationship
20. To feel less lonely 1 2 3 4
Appendix E
Sample Questionnaire of Comparison Orientation Measure-Facebook
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

Agree
Disagree
1. Today when I was on Facebook, I felt

less confident about what I have
1 2 3 4
achieved compared to other people
2. Today when I was on Facebook, I

concluded I am not as popular as other
1 2 3 4
people.

paid a lot of attention to how I do things
1 2 3 4
compared to how others do things.

compared what I have done with how
1 2 3 4
well others have done if I wanted to find
out how well I have done something.

paid attention to how I do things versus
1 2 3 4
how others do things and felt my way
was better.
believed that I had accomplished more
1 2 3 4
than other people had.
Appendix F
Sample Questionnaire of Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Very slightly or not at all A little Quite a bit Extremely

1. Interested 1 2 3 4
2. Distressed 1 2 3 4
3. Excited 1 2 3 4
4. Upset 1 2 3 4
5. Strong 1 2 3 4
6. Guilty 1 2 3 4
7. Scared 1 2 3 4
8. Hostile 1 2 3 4
9. Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4
10. Proud 1 2 3 4
11. Irritable 1 2 3 4
12. Alert 1 2 3 4
13. Ashamed 1 2 3 4
14. Inspired 1 2 3 4
15. Nervous 1 2 3 4
16. Determined 1 2 3 4
17. Attentive 1 2 3 4
18. Jittery 1 2 3 4
19. Active 1 2 3 4
20. Afraid 1 2 3 4
21. Envy 1 2 3 4
Appendix G
Sample Questionnaire Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4
2. At times I think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4
3. I feel that I have a number of good 1 2 3 4

qualities.
4. I am able to do things as well as most 1 2 3 4

other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 1 2 3 4

6. I certainly feel useless at times.
1 2 3 4
7. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least
on an equal plane with others.
1 2 3 4
8. I wish I could have more respect for
myself.
1 2 3 4
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a
failure.
1 2 3 4
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 1 2 3 4

Appendix H
Reliability Analysis for the Motives of Facebook Use
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items
Standardized Items
.817 .818 17
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N Cronbach
alpha
Reconnect 2.81 .868 329
get through someone 2.85 .920 329 .608
who is hard to reach
stay in touch 3.33 .713 329 .793
communicate 3.46 .698 329
pass time when bored 3.19 .869 329
fun 2.91 .773 329 .738
Routine 3.03 .930 329
find people who 1.97 .902 329
share similar interest .739
with me
organize/join events 2.11 .932 329
meet new people 1.93 .905 329
browse other people's 2.33 .958 329
profile .758
read comments on 2.22 .912 329
my friend's posts
stalking other people 2.17 1.019 329
upload my photos 2.61 .891 329 .803
update my status 2.15 .934 329
develop romantic 1.52 .804 329 .529
relp
feel less lonely 2.27 .981 329
Appendix I
Reliability Analysis for the Facebook Use Intensity Scale
Cronbach's Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
Alpha
.820 .821 6
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
1. 2.79 .854 329
2. 2.33 .827 329
3. 2.74 .906 329
4. 2.19 .862 329
5. 2.60 .739 329
6. 2.65 .896 329
Appendix J
Reliability Analysis for Comparison Orientation Measure-Facebook
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized N of Items
Items
.834 .834 6
Item Statistics
upward 2.01 .757 329
upward 2.17 .833 329
nondirectional 2.17 .814 329
nondirectional 2.15 .805 329
downward 2.14 .793 329
downward 1.96 .714 329
Appendix K
Reliability Analysis for Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Positive Affect
Items
.878 .878 10
Item Statistics
1. 2.48 .757 329
3. 2.23 .816 329
5. 2.07 .861 329
9. 2.27 .776 329
10. 2.39 .918 329
12. 2.15 .905 329
14. 2.81 .919 329
16. 2.48 .901 329
17. 2.27 .896 329
19. 2.39 .856 329
Negative Affect
Items
.840 .846 11

2. 1.81 .762 329
4. 1.60 .701 329
6. 1.42 .716 329
7. 1.39 .668 329
8. 1.46 .619 329
11. 1.81 .872 329
13. 1.46 .702 329
15. 1.47 .690 329
18. 1.57 .687 329
20. 1.39 .654 329
21. 1.66 .844 329
Appendix L
Reliability Analysis for Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
Items
.374 .370 10
Item Statistics
1 3.22 .677 329
2 2.52 .800 329
3 3.07 .580 329
4 3.01 .644 329
5 2.16 .761 329
6 2.25 .893 329
7 2.93 .717 329
8 2.67 .906 329
9 1.81 .817 329
10 3.34 .715 329
Appendix M
Breakdown of Respondents
Sample Size
Gender Course Age
N Valid 329 329 329
Missing 0 0 0
Gender
Frequency Percent
Female 214 65.05
Valid Male 115 34.95
Total 329 100.00
Course
Frequency Percent
STELA 177 53.80
SOM 22 6.69
SEA 80 24.32
SON 4 1.21
Valid SNS 3 0.91
SABM 37 11.25
SCIS 5 1.52
SOL 1 0.30
Total 329 100.00
Age
Frequency Percent
18 years old 140 42.55
19 years old 59 17.93
20 years old 45 13.68
21 years old 20 6.08
Valid
22 years old 34 10.34
Total 329 100
Appendix N
Factor Analysis of Motives of Facebook Use
Initial Solution
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Cumulative % Total % of Cumulative %
Variance Variance
1 5.036 25.181 25.181 5.036 25.181 25.181
2 2.009 10.044 35.225 2.009 10.044 35.225
3 1.853 9.263 44.488 1.853 9.263 44.488
4 1.403 7.016 51.504 1.403 7.016 51.504
5 1.286 6.431 57.935 1.286 6.431 57.935
6 1.098 5.489 63.424 1.098 5.489 63.424
7 .987 4.936 68.361
8 .788 3.941 72.302
9 .736 3.680 75.982
10 .674 3.371 79.353
11 .605 3.023 82.376
12 .579 2.893 85.269
13 .542 2.712 87.981
14 .477 2.386 90.367
15 .386 1.928 92.294
16 .364 1.818 94.112
17 .331 1.656 95.768
18 .310 1.552 97.319
19 .274 1.372 98.692
20 .262 1.308 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Scree plot
Component Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6
V18 .632 .045 -.137 -.412 .226 .012
V7 .610 -.430 .139 .150 .014 -.182
V11 .602 .088 -.205 .256 -.193 -.061
V16 .588 .291 .205 -.191 -.475 .237
V10 .587 .268 -.290 .432 -.119 -.226
V17 .581 -.241 .149 -.277 -.269 .092
V6 .579 .177 -.430 -.174 .186 .074
V8 .578 -.486 .144 .050 -.105 -.214
V15 .519 .397 .208 -.153 -.426 .276
V5 .518 .183 -.459 -.102 .135 .257
V14 .503 -.053 -.240 .076 .375 .154
V3 .465 .048 .453 .159 .242 .317
V12 .451 .337 -.416 .407 -.071 -.282
V9 .396 -.358 .269 .310 -.304 -.007
V13 .297 -.478 -.040 .055 .235 .300
V19 .445 -.473 .069 -.102 .055 -.293
V2 .401 .451 .509 -.105 .241 -.275
V1 .296 .434 .504 -.120 .322 -.367
V4 .301 .028 .310 .475 .343 .378
V20 .459 -.219 -.199 -.471 .079 -.137
Final Solution
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
.780
Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square 2119.435
Bartlett's Test of
df 190
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative
%
1 4.469 26.286 26.286 4.469 26.286 26.286
2 1.822 10.720 37.006 1.822 10.720 37.006
3 1.809 10.641 47.647 1.809 10.641 47.647
4 1.367 8.038 55.685 1.367 8.038 55.685
5 1.156 6.800 62.485 1.156 6.800 62.485
6 1.042 6.127 68.613 1.042 6.127 68.613
7 .949 5.583 74.196 .949 5.583 74.196
8 .708 4.164 78.359
9 .608 3.577 81.936
10 .546 3.213 85.149
11 .525 3.087 88.236
12 .414 2.433 90.669
13 .374 2.202 92.871
14 .346 2.038 94.909
15 .314 1.845 96.754
16 .283 1.662 98.416
17 .269 1.584 100.000
Rotated Component Matrix

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
V8 .823 .053 .130 .044 .074 .245 -.010
V9 .796 .050 -.017 .183 -.043 -.132 .107
V7 .708 .170 .109 -.017 .096 .291 .160
V10 .103 .853 .147 .119 .072 .074 .117
V12 -.015 .850 .192 .016 .064 .008 -.005
V11 .229 .610 .126 .286 -.015 .145 .054
V5 .078 .189 .864 .100 -.049 -.017 .065
V6 .076 .243 .799 .079 .089 .150 -.013
V18 .072 .049 .532 .211 .209 .521 .066
V15 .033 .143 .112 .856 .136 .036 .111
V16 .145 .150 .116 .853 .135 .084 .045
V1 .003 .055 .009 .059 .908 .026 .083
V2 .085 .056 .078 .202 .859 -.003 .124
V20 .021 .044 .227 .123 -.033 .804 -.042
V19 .342 .138 -.129 -.067 .000 .715 .124
V4 .073 .133 .019 -.032 .041 -.055 .880
V3 .146 -.015 .054 .238 .200 .159 .752
Appendix O
One-way Analysis of Variance Repeated Measures and Pairwise Comparisons of Motives of
Facebook Use
Multivariate Tests
Effect Value F Hypothesis Error df Sig.
df
FB Pillai's Trace .822 249.331 6.000 323.000 .000
Wilks' Lambda .178 249.331 6.000 323.000 .000
Hotelling's Trace 4.632 249.331 6.000 323.000 .000
Roy's Largest 4.632 249.331 6.000 323.000 .000
Root
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity
Within Mauchl Approx df Sig. Epsilonb

Subject y's W . Chi- Greenhouse- Huynh-Feldt Lower-
s Effect Square Geisser bound
FB .791 76.326 20 .000 .929 .947 .167
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Source Type III df Mean F Sig.

Sum of Square
Squares
FB Sphericity 619.117 6 103.186 244.261 .000
Assumed
Greenhouse- 619.117 5.574 111.081 244.261 .000
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 619.117 5.681 108.980 244.261 .000
Lower-bound 619.117 1.000 619.117 244.261 .000
Error(FB) Sphericity 831.367 1968 .422
Assumed
Greenhouse- 831.367 1828.131 .455
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 831.367 1863.369 .446
Lower-bound 831.367 328.000 2.535
Pairwise Comparisons
(I) FB (J) FB Mean Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for
Difference (I-J) Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
2 -.238* .051 .000 -.394 -.082
3 -1.040* .049 .000 -1.188 -.891
4 -.377* .054 .000 -.542 -.213
1
5 -1.391* .050 .000 -1.545 -1.237
6 .106 .046 .465 -.035 .247
7 -.826* .050 .000 -.979 -.673
1 .238* .051 .000 .082 .394
3 -.801* .044 .000 -.936 -.667
4 -.139 .052 .155 -.298 .019
2
5 -1.153* .052 .000 -1.312 -.994
6 .344* .053 .000 .182 .506
7 -.588* .054 .000 -.754 -.421
1 1.040* .049 .000 .891 1.188
2 .801* .044 .000 .667 .936
4 .662* .049 .000 .512 .812
3
5 -.352* .047 .000 -.496 -.207
6 1.145* .045 .000 1.006 1.285
7 .214* .052 .001 .053 .374
1 .377* .054 .000 .213 .542
2 .139 .052 .155 -.019 .298
3 -.662* .049 .000 -.812 -.512
4
5 -1.014* .049 .000 -1.163 -.864
6 .483* .056 .000 .310 .656
7 -.448* .054 .000 -.615 -.282
1 1.391* .050 .000 1.237 1.545
2 1.153* .052 .000 .994 1.312
3 .352* .047 .000 .207 .496
5
4 1.014* .049 .000 .864 1.163
6 1.497* .053 .000 1.336 1.658
7 .565* .047 .000 .422 .709
1 -.106 .046 .465 -.247 .035
2 -.344* .053 .000 -.506 -.182
3 -1.145* .045 .000 -1.285 -1.006
6
4 -.483* .056 .000 -.656 -.310
5 -1.497* .053 .000 -1.658 -1.336
7 -.932* .055 .000 -1.099 -.764
1 .826* .050 .000 .673 .979
2 .588* .054 .000 .421 .754
3 -.214* .052 .001 -.374 -.053
7
4 .448* .054 .000 .282 .615
5 -.565* .047 .000 -.709 -.422
6 .932* .055 .000 .764 1.099
Appendix P
Descriptive Analysis of Scores
N Min. Max. M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic SD Statistic SD
EXPANDING
SOCIAL 329 1.00 4.00 2.0041 .73987 .520 .134 -.251 .268
NETWORKS
SOCIAL
329 1.00 4.00 2.2421 .79151 .393 .134 -.388 .268
INVESTIGATION
PASSING TIME 329 1.00 4.00 3.0436 .69634 -.695 .134 .008 .268
SELF-EXPRESSION 329 1.00 4.00 2.3815 .83443 .210 .134 -.539 .268
RELATIONSHIP
329 1.00 4.00 3.3951 .64186 -1.090 .134 1.291 .268
MAINTENANCE
COMPANIONSHIP 329 1.00 4.00 1.8982 .73944 .696 .134 .103 .268
RECONNECTION 329 1.00 4.00 2.8298 .75802 -.291 .134 -.563 .268
FACEBOOK USE
329 1.00 4.00 2.5466 .61584 -.228 .134 -.110 .268
INTENSITY
UPWARD SOCIAL
329 1.0 4.0 2.087 .7056 .161 .134 -.444 .268
COMPARISON
NONDIRECTIONAL 329 1.0 4.0 2.163 .7115 .121 .134 -.397 .268
DOWNWARD
SOCIAL 329 1.0 4.0 2.050 .6601 .190 .134 -.142 .268
COMPARISON
POSITIVE AFFECT 329 10 38 23.55 5.951 -.106 .134 -.390 .268
NEGATIVE AFFECT 329 11 36 17.04 4.930 .907 .134 .558 .268
Self-esteem 329 16 35 26.98 2.941 -.560 .134 1.340 .268
Valid N (listwise) 329
Appendix Q
Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Upward Social Comparison and Facebook Use
Model Summary
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of the Change Statistics Durbin-
Square Square Estimate Watson
R Square F df1 df2 Sig. F

Change Change Change
1 .265a .070 .067 .6814 .070 24.681 1 327 .000

2 .347b .121 .099 .6699 .050 2.619 7 320 .012 1.845
a. Predictors: (Constant), FACEBOOK USE INTENSITY
b. Predictors: (Constant), FACEBOOK USE INTENSITY, RECONNECTION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
MAINTENANCE, SELF-EXPRESSION, SOCIAL INVESTIGATION, EXPANDING SOCIAL NETWORKS, PASSING
TIME
c. Dependent Variable: UPWARD
Anova
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 11.459 1 11.459 24.681 .000b
1 Residual 151.822 327 .464
Total 163.281 328
Regression 19.687 8 2.461 5.484 .000c
2 Residual 143.594 320 .449
Total 163.281 328
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.314 .160 8.208 .000
1
FACEBOOK USE INTENSITY .304 .061 .265 4.968 .000
(Constant) 1.473 .254 5.801 .000
EXPANDING SOCIAL
.003 .057 .003 .049 .961
NETWORKS
SOCIAL INVESTIGATION .145 .055 .163 2.645 .009
2 PASSING TIME -.071 .069 -.070 -1.038 .300
SELF-EXPRESSION -.040 .051 -.047 -.782 .435
RELATIONSHIP
-.059 .064 -.054 -.928 .354
MAINTENANCE
COMPANIONSHIP .155 .056 .163 2.758 .006
RECONNECTION -.052 .053 -.056 -.978 .329
Appendix R
Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Nondirectional Social Comparison and Facebook Use
Model Summary

1 .303a .092 .089 .6792 .092 32.988 1 327 .000

2 .373b .139 .118 .6684 .048 2.523 7 320 .015 2.018
Anova
Regression 15.216 1 15.216 32.988 .000b
1 Residual 150.834 327 .461
Total 166.050 328
Regression 23.104 8 2.888 6.465 .000c
2 Residual 142.946 320 .447
Total 166.050 328
Coefficients

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.272 .160 7.973 .000
1
(Constant) 1.207 .253 4.764 .000
EXPANDING SOCIAL
.039 .057 .041 .682 .496
NETWORKS
2 PASSING TIME -.097 .069 -.095 -1.408 .160
SELF-EXPRESSION .066 .051 .077 1.299 .195
RELATIONSHIP
-.039 .063 -.035 -.613 .540
MAINTENANCE
COMPANIONSHIP .119 .056 .124 2.123 .034
RECONNECTION -.019 .053 -.020 -.360 .719
Appendix S
Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Downward Social Comparison and Facebook Use
Model Summary

1 .317a .100 .098 .6271 .100 36.459 1 327 .000

2 .378b .143 .121 .6188 .042 2.254 7 320 .030 1.885
Anova
Regression 14.337 1 14.337 36.459 .000b
1 Residual 128.586 327 .393
Total 142.922 328
Regression 20.379 8 2.547 6.652 .000c
2 Residual 122.543 320 .383
Total 142.922 328
Coefficients

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.186 .147 8.049 .000
1
(Constant) 1.309 .235 5.580 .000
EXPANDING SOCIAL
.045 .053 .051 .849 .397
NETWORKS
2 PASSING TIME -.085 .063 -.089 -1.334 .183
SELF-EXPRESSION .067 .047 .085 1.430 .154
RELATIONSHIP
-.125 .059 -.122 -2.135 .034
MAINTENANCE
COMPANIONSHIP .089 .052 .100 1.715 .087
RECONNECTION .021 .049 .025 .435 .664
Appendix T
Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Positive Affect and Facebook Use
Model Summary

1 .329a .108 .105 5.629 .108 39.636 1 327 .000

2 .466b .217 .197 5.332 .109 6.351 7 320 .000 1.760
Anova
Regression 1255.723 1 1255.723 39.636 .000b
1 Residual 10359.699 327 31.681
Total 11615.422 328
Regression 2519.338 8 314.917 11.079 .000c
2 Residual 9096.084 320 28.425
Total 11615.422 328
Coefficients

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 15.459 1.322 11.693 .000
1
FACEBOOK USE INTENSITY 3.177 .505 .329 6.296 .000
(Constant) 6.853 2.021 3.390 .001
EXPANDING SOCIAL
.683 .458 .085 1.492 .137
NETWORKS
SOCIAL INVESTIGATION .432 .437 .057 .990 .323
2 PASSING TIME .469 .547 .055 .858 .392
SELF-EXPRESSION .891 .403 .125 2.209 .028
RELATIONSHIP
.897 .506 .097 1.774 .077
MAINTENANCE
COMPANIONSHIP .528 .448 .066 1.180 .239
RECONNECTION 1.215 .423 .155 2.873 .004
Appendix U
Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Negative Affect and Facebook Use
Model Summary

1 .224a .050 .047 4.812 .050 17.304 1 327 .000

2 .351b .123 .101 4.674 .073 3.804 7 320 .001 1.793
Anova
Regression 400.745 1 400.745 17.304 .000b
1 Residual 7572.817 327 23.158
Total 7973.562 328
Regression 982.500 8 122.813 5.621 .000c
2 Residual 6991.062 320 21.847
Total 7973.562 328
Coefficients

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 12.466 1.130 11.028 .000
1
(Constant) 10.555 1.772 5.956 .000
EXPANDING SOCIAL
.709 .401 .106 1.768 .078
NETWORKS
2 PASSING TIME -1.158 .480 -.164 -2.415 .016
SELF-EXPRESSION -.241 .354 -.041 -.682 .496
RELATIONSHIP
.397 .443 .052 .895 .371
MAINTENANCE
COMPANIONSHIP 1.322 .393 .198 3.368 .001
RECONNECTION .153 .371 .023 .412 .680
Appendix V
Mediation Analyses of Self-esteem to Facebook Use and Social Comparison
Model Summary
Self-esteem
Predictors
R2 F p
Facebook Use .0463 15.8757 .0001
Intensity
Social Investigation .0403 13.7482 .0002
Passing Time .0339 11.4676 .0008
Companionship .0130 4.3029 .0388
Model Summary
Upward Nondirectional Downward

Predictors 2 2 2
R F p R F p R F p
Facebook Use .0702 24.6805 .0000 .0916 32.9876 .0000 .1003 36.4594 .0000
Intensity
Social .0508 17.4832 .0000 .0695 24.4397 .0000 .0487 16.7580 .0001
Investigation
Passing Time .0220 7.3703 .0070 .0286 9.6419 .0021 .0281 9.4605 .0023
Companionship .0523 18.0632 .0000 .0484 16.6160 .0001 .0436 14.9076 .0001
Facebook Use .1027 18.6506 .0000 .1048 19.0842 .0000 .1066 19.4568 .0000
Intensity
Self-esteem
Social .0805 15.6301 .0000 .0856 15.2650 .0000 .0595 10.3081 .0000
Investigation
Self-esteem
Passing Time .0658 11.4892 .0000 .0507 8.7106 .0002 .0418 7.1099 .0009
Self-esteem
Companionship .0957 17.2593 .0000 .0718 12.6117 .0000 .0587 10.1624 .0001
Self-esteem
Indirect Effects of Facebook Use to Upward Social Comparison
95% CL
Predictor
Coefficient Boot SE Boot LL Boot UL
Facebook Use Intensity .0455 .0200 .0146 .0935
Social Investigation .0350 .0144 .0125 .0695
Passing Time .0397 .0169 .0133 .0817
Companionship .0228 .0124 .0033 .0532
Indirect Effects of Facebook Use to Nondirectional Social Comparison
95% CL
Predictor
Facebook Use Intensity .0292 .0175 .0038 .0754
Passing Time .0284 .0152 .0060 .0680
Companionship .0169 .0107 .0017 .0449
Indirect Effects of Facebook Use to Downward Social Comparison
95% CL
Predictor
Facebook Use Intensity .0188 .0155 -.0036 .0614
Passing Time .0208 .0135 .0014 .0550
Companionship .0126 .0095 .0004 .0387
Appendix W
Mediation Analyses of Self-esteem to Facebook Use and Affect
Model Summary
Positive Negative
Predictors
R2 F p R2 F p
Facebook Use
Intensity .1081 39.6364 .0000 .0503 17.3045 .0000
Social
Investigation .0684 24.0242 .0000 .0283 9.5322 .0022
Passing Time .0797 28.3304 .0000 .0049 1.5958 .2074
Companionship .0463 15.8612 .0001 .0658 23.0285 .0000
Facebook Use
Intensity Self- .1147 21.1219 .0000 .0506 8.6916 .0002
esteem
Social
Investigation .0784 13.8596 .0000 .0295 4.9490 .0076
Self-esteem
Passing Time .0897 16.0627 .0000 .0079 1.2954 .2752
Self-esteem
Companionship
.0130 4.3029 .0388 .0672 11.7482 .0000
Self-esteem
Indirect Effects of Facebook Use to Positive Affect
95% CL
Predictor
Passing Time .1598 .0966 .0149 .4065
Companionship .1167 .0743 .0123 .3146
Indirect Effects of Facebook Use to Negative Affect

95% CL
Predictor
Social Investigation .0432 .0804 -.0961 .2310
Passing Time .0730 .0868 -.0578 .2981
Companionship .0290 .0525 -.0488 .1753

Facebook Use (Motives and Intensity) and Its Influence On Social Comparison and Affect As Mediated by Self-Esteem

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Facebook Use (Motives and Intensity) and Its Influence On Social Comparison and Affect As Mediated by Self-Esteem

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FACEBOOK USE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SOCIAL COMPARISON AND AFFECT AS

ANGELICA NICHOLE MENDOZA, RPm

Republic of the Philippines

FORM FOR THESIS/DISSERTATION REVIEW AND REPORT

1. Title: FACEBOOK USE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SOCIAL COMPARISON

GODOFREDO PRISCILLO NEBRIJA, PhD

English Editing Certification Form

This is to certify that I have edited this thesis/dissertation manuscript entitled

Facebook Use and its Influence on Social Comparison and Affect as

Angelica Nichole B. Mendoza

Angelica Nichole B. Mendoza, RPm January 14, 2017

Ederlyn Marie Gatchalian, RPsy January 14, 2017

RINA H. DIARON, PhD

Date: January 14, 2017

The thesis/dissertation entitled FACEBOOK USE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON

EDERLYN MARIE GATCHALIAN

JOJET LAMBERTO MONDARES, RPsy, RPm

SALLY I. MAXIMO, RPsy, RGC MARY CATHERINE QUINTOS, RGC

GODOFREDO PRISCILLO NEBRIJA, PhD FELINA P. ESPIQUE, PhD

Approved by the Committee on oral examination as PASSED on December 20, 2016.

JOJET LAMBERTO MONDARES, RPsy, RPm

SALLY I. MAXIMO, RPsy, RGC MARY CATHERINE QUINTOS, RGC

GODOFREDO PRISCILLO NEBRIJA, PhD

GODOFREDO PRISCILLO NEBRIJA, PhD FELINA P. ESPIQUE, PhD

Appendix A. Letter of Request …………..................................................... 62

Appendix B Letter of Consent to the participants. ………………………… 63

Figure 1. Hypotheses of the theory of social comparison processes ……….……...

Figure 3. Cluster of Means of Motives of Facebook Use ………………………… 26

Table 1. Factor Loadings for Principal Components Analysis with Varimax

Table 3 Summary of Intercorrelations for Scores on Facebook Use, Social

Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Upward Social

Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Nondirectional

Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Downward Social

Table 7 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Positive Affect

Table 8 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Negative Affect

A quasi-experimental study examined the influence of motives and intensity of Facebook

Keywords: Facebook, Motives, Intensity, Social Comparison, Affect, Self-esteem

Background of the study

In the Philippines, there are 47 million Facebook users (Internetworldstats.com, 2015).

In a research by Lee (2014), it was revealed that social comparison frequency is

The study’s practical implication is an attempt to provide an empirical understanding of

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The behavioral implication of the existence of such a drive is that we would

Festinger’s theory of social comparison process is mainly an adjunct to his theory of

Self-improvement motives also operate in the comparison process. To gain information

Facebook Use: Motives and Intensity

According to Sheldon (2008), Relationship maintenance refers to interacting with members

Further investigation of motives of Facebook use found relationship with certain

Social Comparisons on Facebook

Traditionally, social comparisons take place in offline face-to-face situations. However,

As previously stated, motivations and emotional connectedness to Facebook influences the

Facebook and Self-esteem

Whereas High Self-Esteem appearance-contingent people responded to

close others are likely to be perceived as positive sources of support and

Self-esteem and Social comparison

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Facebook Use Intensity

Figure 2. Research Paradigm

Statement of the problem and Hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Consistent with the researchers and literature on motives of Facebook

Hypothesis 3a: Social Investigation is anticipated to predict Negative Affect;

Hypothesis 4a: Self-esteem is predicted to mediate the relationship between

Hypothesis 4b: Self-esteem is predicted to mediate the relationship between

Expanding social .133 .191 .198 .268 .227** .012 NS

Social investigation .225 .264 .221 .262 .168 .201

Passing time .148 .169 .168 .282 .070 NS .184**

Self-expression .056 NS .188 .178 .305** .074 NS .067 NS

Companionship .229 .220 .209 .215 .256** .114*

Facebook Use .265 .303 .317 .329 .224 .215