University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Offline social functioning and online communication: how social competence translates to an online context

(USC Thesis Other)

Offline social functioning and online communication: how social competence translates to an online context

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Running head: ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

Offline Social Functioning and Online Communication:
How Social Competence Translates to an Online Context

by

Alexandra Cram Ross

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY)

August 2016
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

2
Abstract
Electronic interaction through Social Networking Sites (SNS) is central to the social landscape of
today’s adolescents and young adults. Social science research methodology, however, has yet to
catch up with more rapid advances in communication technology. In the current study, we
examined associations between college students’ offline social functioning (i.e., social skills and
social anxiety) and language obtained from their Facebook profiles via a customized Facebook
application. Data were collected from 92 (female=54, male=38) first-year college students at the
University of Southern California. A novel observational coding system was created for the
current study to capture and systematically examine the nature of language used in participants’
Facebook posts. Results highlight reflections of individuals’ social skills and social anxiety in
patterns of online language. Stronger social skills were related to the adoption of “Facebook
norms” cited in previous literature. Specifically, social skills related to more frequent use of
language referencing existing offline relationships, increased initiations of interactions specific
to an online context, and higher levels of positivity across types of posts. Endorsement of greater
social anxiety was associated with higher levels of content promoting interactions isolated to an
online context as well as increased use of language praising and supporting other users. Study
methodology highlights the feasibility of capitalizing on novel technology to obtain direct
observations of electronic communication. Limitations and implications are discussed.
Keywords: social skills, social anxiety, social networking sites, online behaviors, young
adults

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

3
Acknowledgements

I wish to express my appreciation to my graduate advisor, Dr. David Schwartz for encouraging
me to pursue my own interests while simultaneously providing invaluable guidance over the last
six years. I am also sincerely grateful to my brilliant mentor, Dr. Sonya Negriff, for welcoming
me as a research collaborator and for her countless hours of advice and feedback. In addition,
special thanks are due to my committee members whose thoughtful contributions have played an
important role in the formation of my research ideas and study design. My gratitude also goes
out to my research partner and close friend, Ilana Kellerman Moss. Ilana, I could not have
completed this project with out you. I thank my amazing labmates and friends, Tana Luo and
Luiza Vianna Mali for their thoughtful feedback, support, and humor. I also feel fortunate to
have had the opportunity to work with my many bright, thoughtful, and driven research assistants
whose countless hours piloting my coding system are the foundation of this project.

I extend my deepest gratitude to my family and friends who provided emotional support and
much-needed distraction throughout this process. Thank you to my parents for their confidence
in my ability to succeed and my peers who spent hours working and laughing by my side in
coffee shops throughout Los Angeles and Portland. I would like to express special appreciation
for Jean Kim, Kalina Babeva, Molly Priedeman, Harpreet Nagra, and Samantha Barry, who
frequently shared in the milestones achieved and challenges faced along the way. Lastly, I cannot
imagine completing this process without the love, support, humor, and top-notch editing skills of
my husband and best friend, Jonah Ross.

This investigation was supported in part by numerous grants provided by the University of
Southern California including: USC Diploma in Innovation Award, USC College Doctoral
Fellowship, USC Heather Anne Barnes Endowed Fellowship, USC Hamovitch Summer
Research Fellowship, USC Summer Undergraduate Research Fund (SURF), and USC Student
Opportunities for Academic Research (SOAR).

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page

I. TITLE PAGE............................................................................................................ 1
II. ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ 2
III. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................... 3
IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... 4
V. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 6
Offline Social Difficulties...................................................................................... 6
Social Networking Cites (SNS) ............................................................................. 8
Social Difficulties and Online Interactions............................................................ 11
Observational Research ......................................................................................... 15
Current Study......................................................................................................... 15
VI. METHODS............................................................................................................ 16
Participants............................................................................................................. 16
Procedure ............................................................................................................... 17
Coding Facebook Data........................................................................................... 19
Measures ................................................................................................................ 23
VII. RESULTS............................................................................................................. 25
Descriptive Statistics.............................................................................................. 25
Demographic Differences and Basic Correlations................................................. 26
Reliability Analyses of Facebook Codes ............................................................... 26
Substantive Analyses ............................................................................................. 27
VIII. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 29
Social Functioning and Interactivity of Facebook Language ................................ 30
Social Functioning and Valence of Facebook Language....................................... 32
Social Functioning and the Quantity of Facebook Activity................................... 34
Limitations and Directions for Future Research.................................................... 36
Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................... 36
IX. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 38
X. TABLES AND FIGURES ...................................................................................... 47
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

5
XI. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 60
A. APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE OF PARTICIPANTS FACEBOOK DATA........ 60
B. APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRES ASSESSED VIA QUALTRICS........... 61
C. APPENDIX C: FACEBOOK CODEBOOK FINAL........................................ 68

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

6
Offline social functioning and online communication:
How social competence translates to an online context
Over the past decade, as social networking platforms have increased in popularity, an
emerging field of research has argued that young people who experience face-to-face social
difficulties may gravitate toward internet communication (Caplan, 2005; 2007; Kang & Munoz,
2014). Social deficits both adversely affect the quality of face-to-face interpersonal interactions
and have been implicated in a range of mental health problems (Austin, Saklofske, & Egan,
2005). Growing up in a world embedded with technology, today’s adolescents and young adults
are “digital natives” (Bjorkland, 2012). Electronic interaction is integrated as a normative aspect
of peer relationships and daily life (Bjorkland, 2012; Brennar & Smith, 2013). Because
components of an online social context may demand less interpersonal proficiency as compared
to a face-to-face interaction, certain social difficulties may be mitigated through electronic
communication (Caplan, 2005; Kang & Munoz, 2014). Alternatively, it is likely that other
components of offline social difficulty are reflected in equivalent online behaviors (Weisbuch,
Ivcevic, & Ambady, 2009).
This study considers these possibilities by raising the question, “How do individuals’
offline social skills and social anxiety manifest within an online context?” By identifying
associations between young people’s offline social functioning and their Facebook presentation,
we seek to understand social behavior in a context central to the contemporary social experience.
Offline Social Difficulties
In the current study, we focus our investigation on social skills and social anxiety. Past
research has demonstrated the disruptiveness of these two constructs on interactions in an offline
context.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

7
Broadly, social skills are defined as a capacity for appropriate and effective social
interactions (Segrin, 1992). Socially skilled individuals flexibly produce a range of social
behaviors and adapt these behaviors to match changing environmental factors and interpersonal
partners. In behavioral terms, such skills can be understood as the ability to execute behaviors
that are positively reinforced and avoid behaviors that are punished by others (Libet &
Lewinsohn, 1973). Inherent in this definition is an association between social skills and
interpersonal relationships. Indeed, stronger social skills as measured by both self-report and
observer rating have been positively related to perceptions of social support and relationship
satisfaction (Flora & Segrin, 1999; Riggio & Zimmerman, 1991; Sarason, Sarason, Hacker, &
Bashm, 1985; Segrin & Taylor, 2007). Conversely, peer interaction partners report heightened
levels of dislike for persons scoring low on measures of social skills (Riggio, 1986).
Social anxiety is defined as fear regarding social situations in which the individual is
exposed to possible scrutiny by others (American Psychological Society, 2013). Although there
are numerous conceptualizations of the construct of social anxiety, theories converge in the
statement that social anxiety is generated when people are motivated to impress others and hold
low expectations regarding their ability to do so (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). In an offline
context, anxiety regarding social situations can disrupt interpersonal relationships through
several mechanisms. Social anxiety may manifest in the avoidance of interpersonal interactions
(American Psychological Association, 2013), especially high pressure interactions (e.g.,
speaking to a group of people; Brown, 1970). Avoidance may lead to isolation and subsequently
missing opportunities to develop and hone social skills. Research also suggests that those
behaving in socially anxious manners (i.e., an interaction style characterized by more self-
focused talk, higher levels of reassurance seeking, and asking fewer questions) have the tendency
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

8
to make others feel uncomfortable and are more likely described as less enjoyable companions as
compared to non-anxious peers (Cappella, 1985; Heerey & Kring, 2007). Likewise, non-verbal
socially anxious behaviors such as fidgeting, self-manipulating (playing with hair, clothes, etc.),
and perspiring can interrupt interpersonal interactions (Cheek & Buss, 1982; Heerey & Kring,
2007). Although there are commonalities between social skills deficits and social anxiety, they
are distinct in that, whereas individuals with social deficits may struggle to adhere to behavioral
norms in new environments, those with social anxiety may avoid engaging in social interactions
perceived to be high risk for rejection altogether.
Social Networking Sites (SNS)
The current study explores associations between social skills, social anxiety and
individuals’ online behavior in the context of social networking interactions. Over the past
decade, social networking sites (SNS) have come to play a vital role in young adults’
interpersonal experiences. These websites allow users to construct a public or semi-public
profile, determine a list of other members with whom they choose to share their personal
information, and use the SNS platform to communicate with other users. As of May 2013, when
data for this study were collected, 72% of internet users of all ages reported membership to at
least one SNS (Brenner & Smith, 2013). In addition to high membership levels, SNS are
frequently visited. In fact, approximately 20 percent of all online time is spent social networking
(Shelton & Skalski, 2013). Such websites play a particularly prominent role in the lives of young
adults, the population of interest in the proposed study. At an 89% usage rate, 18-29 year olds are
more likely than any other demographic cohort to have an SNS profile and report the most time
spent engaging in social networking activities (Brennar & Smith, 2013; Smith, 2013).
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

9
Facebook. Facebook is one of the most heavily accessed social networking tools
among adults and adolescents (Duggan & Brennar, 2013; Duggan, 2015). This popular SNS
enables users to construct a personal profile that includes both written information and pictures.
Facebook users may add other users as “friends”, post written “status updates”, pictures, or
videos on their own profile page (i.e., “Timeline”), exchange public and private messages, peruse
the activities of their friends via the “newsfeed” stream, join common-interest user groups,
communicate through the Facebook instant-messaging chat function, and RSVP to attend offline
events (Please see Table 1 for definitions of all relevant Facebook terminology). Facebook use is
most prominent among young adults aged 18-29, with 82% of internet users reporting engaging
in Facebook activity and 70% reporting logging in at least once per day (Duggan, 2015).
Normative patterns of SNS use. Although much of early electronic communication
research examined online interactions between strangers (Donn & Sherman, 2002; McKenna,
Green, & Gleason, 2002; Parks & Floyd, 1996), current SNS relationships tend to be established
with persons the user already knows from his or her offline world. Users most often describe
accessing SNS to stay in touch with current friends, communicate with family members, and
strengthen prior relationships (Smith, 2011). Facebook interactions appear to be characteristic of
this overarching pattern, with members generally reporting interest in maintaining and enhancing
existing relationships, not making new friends (Ellison, Stienfield, & Lampee, 2007; Pempek,
Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009; Reich, Subrahmanyam, & Espinoza, 2012).
Recent literature has begun to consider the specifics of normative behavior on Facebook
(Bryant & Marmo, 2012; Mansson & Myers, 2011; McLaughlin & Vitak, 2012). For example,
several surveys and focus groups of college students have explored Facebook social interaction
rules or “implicit behavioral norms”. Cited norms include reciprocity in communication (posting
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

10
back when a friend posted on a user’s wall), using SNS to address social goals, and maintaining
offline relationships with Facebook communication partners (Bryant & Marmo, 2012). Likewise,
young adults tend to discourage posting an excessive number of status updates, providing too
much intimate, personal, or emotional information, displays of aggression, using coarse
language, and/or posting content that could embarrass or negatively affect another user (Hooper
& Kalidas, 2012; McLaughlin & Vitak, 2012).
Other research indicates that normative Facebook behavior likely involves the use of high
levels of positive affect and is guided by the general goal of presenting one’s own profile in a
flattering light. Positive language may be aimed toward expressing affection towards others,
managing the impressions of profile viewers (i.e., making oneself “look good”), and sharing
humorous content (Barash, Ducheneaut, Isaacs, & Bellotti, 2010; Bareket-Bojmel, Moran, &
Shahar, 2016; Karl, Peluchette, & Schlaegel, 2010; Mansson & Myers, 2011). In one study,
Facebook users rated the qualities of both their own and others’ posts from their newsfeed
streams (Barash et al., 2010). Findings suggested that users frequently shared positive content
and experienced success in projecting an intended positive self-image. Profile viewers were
typically receptive to this positive content. The use of humor, in particular, was received with
approval as measured both by viewers’ subjective ratings of posts and a tendency to reinforce
such posts through positive feedback (i.e., “liking” or “commenting”).
Given implicit behavioral norms regarding Facebook posting, users whose posts are
unreciprocated and who post aggressive or disrespectful comments may be considered by others
to have deviated from expected Facebook behavior and subsequently negatively evaluated by
their peers. Other behaviors potentially viewed as atypical or problematic include posting
excessive amounts of depressive personal content and engaging in exclusively online interactions
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

11
unrelated to further involvement in offline interactions. In this study, we build on this newly
developing research domain by directly examining associations between adherence to and
deviance from such implicit online behavioral norms and indicators of Facebook users’ offline
social presentation. This domain of research is the next step in increasing our understanding of
the role of online communication in modern interaction.
Social Difficulties and Online Interactions
A burgeoning research area that has generated interest among the academic community
and general public alike addresses the extent to which offline social functioning relates to
internet behaviors. Some findings suggest that persons experiencing social difficulties are likely
to gravitate toward online interactions (Caplan, 2005; Caplan, 2007; Kang & Munoz, 2014). It
has been posited that such users find the more simplistic social demands of online interactions
relatively comfortable to navigate as compared to the complex offline cues present in face-to-
face communication (Caplan, 2003; Caplan, 2007; McKenna et al., 2002). In particular, the
asynchronous nature of SNS exchanges may facilitate an increasing sense of control over
communication patterns and eliminate some of the intricacies in conversational timing inherent
to face-to-face communication (Caplan, 2007; McKenna et al., 2002; Valkenburg & Peter,
2008). Furthermore, online exchanges can be edited, users have more time to compose what they
write, and cognitive resources generally devoted to environmental scanning and nonverbal
management remain available to be directed solely toward message composition. Online
platforms also mask involuntary, nonverbal cues displayed by those with social difficulties
(Walther, 2007), such as fidgeting, poor eye contact, and inappropriate displays of affect
(Fischetti, Curran, & Wessberg, 2002; Heerey & Kring, 2007; Riggio, 1986). With these findings
in mind, research has begun to explore parallels between social difficulties in an offline context
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

12
and specific online behaviors. Extant findings regarding the associations between the quantity of
internet use and offline psychosocial functioning, however, are somewhat inconsistent.
SNS compensation hypothesis. On the one hand, the ease of online communication may
predispose individuals with various social difficulties to become vulnerable to excessive amounts
of internet activity. In prior research, this hypothesis has been referred to as “problematic
Facebook use” (Lee-Won, Herzog, & Park, 2015) or internet addiction (Casale, Tella, &
Fioravanti, 2013; Weinstein et al., 2015). Concerned about their ability to engage in effective
offline social interactions, users with social anxiety or social deficits may view SNS as a
compensatory connection medium in response to unsatisfactory face-to-face social connections
(Nie, 2001). Indeed, individuals rated as “less socially skillful” by an interaction partner in an
offline conversation are more likely to endorse a preference for online as compared to offline
interactions (Kang & Munoz, 2014). In a cyclical manner, more time spent online has been
hypothesized to facilitate further isolation from offline relationships for those with social
deficits, impeding maintenance of “real world” social abilities (Caplan, 2005; Nie, 2001).
Consistent with this hypothesis, comparisons between the Facebook pages of socially anxious
and non-socially anxious Facebook users reveal that socially anxious users post more
information about themselves in every section of their profile, with the exception of “number of
activities” (i.e., hobbies, offline activities; Fernandez, Levinson, & Rodebaugh, 2012). Likewise,
several prior studies have noted associations between deficits in social competence and higher
self-reported posting of personal information online (McKenna et al., 2002; Valkenburg & Peter,
2008).
SNS extension hypothesis. Conversely, others theorize that online interactions serve as
an extension of offline interactions (Birnie & Horvath, 2002; Ledbetter et al., 2011; Weidman &
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

13
Levinson, 2015). This line of reasoning would suggest that individuals with stronger social skills
will likely also learn to navigate the specifics of social norms in a new online context and are
likely to be highly engaged online. Likewise, individuals experiencing social difficulties in an
offline context may struggle to adeptly navigate internet norms. Given its public nature, SNS is
likely a particularly high-risk electronic medium for those experiencing social discomfort as
compared to other modes of social communication such as texting or instant messaging
(Ledbetter et al., 2011). Similar to the contrast between an intimate conversation with close
friends and opting to attend a large party containing both friends and acquaintances, individuals
uncomfortable with their social abilities may prefer these one-on-one forms of electronic
communication over public SNS use. Supporting this perspective, some research suggests that
those with offline social difficulties may indeed be less likely to engage with others on SNS. For
example, individuals with social anxiety were less likely to report having a Facebook account as
compared to non-anxious peers (Ghosh & Dasgupta, 2015). Likewise, prior literature notes
positive correlations between the frequency of face-to-face and SNS social interactions between
pairs of college classmates (Birnie & Horvath, 2002). Socially anxious Facebook users are less
likely to post status updates and have fewer “Facebook friends” (Weidman & Levinson, 2015).
Socially anxious individuals also spend more time on Facebook while passively using this social
networking site (i.e., viewing others’ profiles without interacting; Shaw, Timpano, Tran, &
Joormann, 2015).
Social functioning and quality of online behaviors. A small body of research has
investigated associations between offline behavioral patterns and the quality of content posted by
participants on SNS. College students report viewing some qualities of their own off- and online
behaviors as continuous, as seen in self-report ratings of intimacy (i.e., sharing personal
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

14
information with friends) in online posts and offline communications (Birnie & Horvath, 2002).
Corresponding with Birnie and Horvath’s (2002) self-report study, confederates’ positive
impressions of undergraduate Facebook users in face-to-face interactions have also been
demonstrated to correlate with ratings by separate coders’ positive impressions of these users
based on review of their Facebook pages. In this study, offline “nonverbal expressivity” (e.g.,
smiling, lively vocal expression) and online “webpage expressivity” (e.g., posting to friends,
posting photos) were also noted to be associated (Weisbuch et al., 2009).
Competing hypotheses. Taken together, existing evidence evaluating Facebook norms
and exploring SNS interactions in the context of offline functioning suggests that both the
frequency and quality of Facebook use may be related to users’ offline social presentation. There
is some mixed evidence regarding the direction of these associations. Regarding quantity, it has
been posited that online social interactions serve both as an extension of offline social behavior
(i.e., better face-to-face social functioning facilitates more online communication; Ledbetter et
al., 2011) as well as a compensatory mechanism for offline social difficulties (i.e., individuals
struggling in their face-to-face relationships may compensate for this social void through
increased initiation of online communication; Nie, 2001).
Regarding quality, given the recency of electronic communication research, literature in
this domain remains relatively limited. Considering the consistency of young people’s definitions
of specific themes as online behavioral norms across studies (e.g., using positivity online, using
electronic communication to promote further offline interactions, etc.), in the current study we
expect that more adaptive offline social functioning will align with adherence to such norms.
That is, more socially skilled and less socially anxious individuals will use language that creates
a positive impression of the self, is supportive towards other users, and promotes interactions
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

15
with others in both an offline (“real world”) and in a Facebook context. Likewise, it is expected
that individuals experiencing offline social difficulties will be more likely to violate these social
norms.
Observational Research
To date, the majority of studies examining adolescents’ use of SNS utilize self-reported
SNS behaviors (Shapiro & Margolin, 2014). Although users’ perceptions of their own online
behaviors contribute important and meaningful information, observations of young adults’ SNS
activity provide a unique platform for studying interaction in that users’ online experiences leave
a measurable behavioral record (Graham, Sandy, & Gosling, 2011). In this study, we build on
current literature by using advances in technology to directly measure participants’ online
behaviors and examine this data in relation to participants’ perceptions of their offline social
functioning. To our knowledge, although several prior investigations have recorded Facebook
data through analyzing public pages (i.e., pages with low security settings; Nosko, Wood, &
Molema, 2010) or viewing participants’ profile through “friending” the user from a Facebook
page created for that study (Swedzo, Mikami, & Allen, 2012), the current study is the first within
the field of social science to create an application that downloads users’ Facebook data in a
direct, confidential, and codable manner.
Current Study
In this study, we examined associations between young adults’ offline social functioning
(i.e., social skills and social anxiety) and their online behaviors on the social networking site
Facebook. We expected that adaptive offline social functioning (higher social skills and lower
social anxiety) would be associated with posts that adhere to online behavioral norms.
Specifically, we expected that high levels of social skills and low social anxiety would relate to
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

16
(1a) posts expressing positive affect toward peers, (1b) posts presenting the self in a positive
light, and (1c) more general use of positive language. We also hypothesized that higher social
skills and lower social anxiety would relate to posts that promote further interaction across
contexts. That is, higher social skills and lower social anxiety would relate to more (2a)
interactive content directly suggesting offline relationships and (2b) interactive content specific
to an online context.
Conversely, we expected that poorer offline social functioning (lower social skills and
higher social anxiety) would be associated with posts violating social norms. Specifically, we
expected that social difficulties (lower social skills and higher social anxiety) would be related to
(3a) posts containing a depressive tone and (3b) posts containing an aggressive tone. Finally, we
expected that lower social skills and higher social anxiety would be related to (3c) non-
interactive content that does not facilitate enhancing offline relationships.
Given mixed evidence regarding social functioning and quantity of Facebook
interactions, our analyses examining associations between social skills, social anxiety, and
quantity of Facebook posts were exploratory in nature. Table 2 provides a summary of all
predictor and outcome variables included in these analyses. Understanding how social
difficulties translate to an online context may both help identify individuals in need of
intervention and determine intervention strategies aimed to improve social functioning.
Methods
Participants
This study was conducted within the context of the Social Networkology Project
(Ross, Moss, & Negriff, 2013). In the spring of 2013, data were collected from 92 first year
college students at the University of Southern California (female=54, male=38). Participants’
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

17
ages ranged from 18 to 22 (M=18.57; SD = .75). Self-identified race was as follows: 38.7%
Asian, 45.2% White or Caucasian, 2.2% Black or African American, 12.9 % more than one race,
and 1.1% unknown. Approximately 8.4% reported their ethnicity to be Hispanic/Latino.
Participants were recruited via emails directed to electronic mailing lists for first-year college
seminars (required for all freshman students) and introductory level lecture courses. Efforts were
taken to ensure that classes were sampled across disciplines. Students were required to be first-
year college students and Facebook users to participate in the study. Participants were excluded
if greater than half of their Facebook information was in a language other than English. All
participants were given $25.00 in cash upon the completion of study protocol. The university’s
Institutional Review Board approved all procedures.
Procedure
Data collection was implemented in research labs and classrooms on the university
campus. Testing periods were one hour in length and participants were tested in groups ranging
in size from five to ten. Groups were conducted by one of the two primary investigators and/or
an undergraduate research assistant. Prior to leading any groups independently, the research
assistant received extensive supervision from the primary investigators to ensure her ability to
strictly adhere to study protocol. Study procedures were administered on participants’ personal
laptop computers or laptop computers provided by the examiners. Barriers were set up between
participants’ computers to ensure that participants could not see each other’s data and to thus
secure confidentiality during testing. Examiners orally administered a detailed explanation of
confidentiality procedures and instructed participants to read this information reiterated in the
informed consent document. Prior to receiving access to the Facebook application or online

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

18
questionnaire, all participants were required to take a short quiz assessing their understanding of
confidentiality procedures.
Participants were next asked to download the Facebook application designed for this
study. Participants entered their Facebook login information to run the application. Adhering to
Facebook’s privacy policy, participants were provided with a notification listing the specific
types of information accessed by the application. The application extracted select pieces of
information from participants’ Facebook profile for the 31 days prior to application download.
Please refer Table 1 for definitions of all Facebook terminology. Collected information included
all text content that appears on participants’ Facebook profile (such as gender, birthday,
relationship status, quotes, biography) and timeline (such as status updates and posts others write
on participants’ timelines). Private messages, photographs, videos, and Facebook instant-
messaging chats were not downloaded. Likewise, identifying information (e.g., user name, e-
mail, or address) was not downloaded. At the end of the testing period, the examiners guided
participants in deleting the application from their Facebook profiles.
In order to protect the privacy of participants and their Facebook friends,
comprehensive deidentification procedures were implemented at both the data collection and
download stages. First, the application was designed to automatically replace instances of the
participants’ full, first, and last names with a randomly generated unique number-letter code.
Following data download, coders manually deidentified any instances where the application
failed to properly deidentify a name (e.g., misspellings, nicknames, errors made by the
application, etc.). Additionally, web addresses, phone numbers, group names, locations, and
other pieces of potentially identifying information were manually stripped by two independent
coders from each post.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

19
As the Facebook application was downloading their information, participants
completed a series of questionnaires online using Qualtrics Survey Software. Participants’
Facebook profiles were linked to their online questionnaires through the use of the unique
random letter-number code assigned by the Facebook application during the data download
process. Participants manually entered their own unique random letter-number code as their “test
identification” at the start of their testing session. The online questionnaire included questions
assessing demographic information, self-reported electronic media use, participants’ perceptions
of their own social abilities, and self-reported social anxiety. All questions in the survey
contained a “choose to skip” option.
Coding Facebook Data.
Four trained undergraduate coders coded participants’ deidentified Facebook data
according to a theoretically based coding system designed for the current study. Prior to
beginning the coding process, the coding system was piloted extensively by the primary
investigator and six undergraduate research assistants to address current ambiguities, increase
validity, and maximize the potential for high inter-rater reliability. During the piloting process,
all participants’ data were coded with the exception of 15 participants. Data from these 15
participants were not seen by coders until after the coding system was finalized in order to be
used as comparison data for analyses of inter-rater reliability. Coders were blind to users’
responses on measures of social functioning as well as study hypotheses. For the purposes of the
current study, only the activity of the participants themselves (i.e., participants’ status updates,
posts to friends’ timelines, posts to groups, and comments) were coded.
Coders viewed individual participants’ data one post at a time. For each post, coders
coded first for post type, second for interactivity, and third for valence. Each participant’s data
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

20
was coded by two different coders to provide a measure of consistency among raters. Two forms
of interrater reliability were calculated: (A) interrater reliability across all 92 participants and (B)
interrater reliability across the 15 participants who were not included in the original piloting
procedure.
Post Type. A frequency count was conducted for the following online activities for each
participant over the 31 days prior to that participants’ completion of study procedures: (A) Status
Update: the participant posts text, a photo, or a link on his/her own timeline; (B) Post to Friend:
the participant posts text, a photo, or link to a friend’s timeline; (C) Post to Group: the
participant posts text, a photo, or a link to a group page; (D) Comment on Friend’s Post: the
participant posts text, a photo, or a link on another Facebook user’s post; (E) Comment Self Post:
the participant posts text, a photo, or a link on his or her own post; (F) Friending: the participant
adds another Facebook user to their “friends list”; (G) Group/Event Activity: the participant
engages in group, page, or event activity other than posting content (e.g., attending event,
updating time); (H) Other Activity: the participant engages in Facebook activity that does not fall
into any of the above category (e.g., updating language or city of residence on profile).
Interactivity Type. After coding for post type, coders next examined the content of
Facebook activity containing text posted by participants over the 31 days prior to their
participation in the study. Every post received a 1 (present) or a 0 (absent) for each of three
hierarchical and mutually exclusive interactivity categories (Figure 1). Posts that had no text or
non-English text were not included in this hierarchical coding system.
1. Offline Interactive posts included language (A) suggesting the goal of setting
up/facilitating offline interactions/activities, meeting someone, attending a social event (e.g.,
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

21
“Our first [event]
1
practice is tomorrow at 3:00 and we'll meet in the front of the [location]”) or
(B) referring to past/present participation in offline interaction with other Facebook users (e.g.,
"Partying with you last night pretty much made my life”).
2. Online Interactive posts demonstrated the goal of interacting with others online but
did not include references to past, present, or future offline connections (e.g., “you are pretty
<3”).
3. Non-Interactive posts contained statements that referenced solely participants’
activities, thoughts, or belongings and did not involve interaction with others in any way (e.g.,
“Watching the SAG awards red carpet”).
Valence Type. Subsequent to coding interactivity, every post additionally received a 1
(present) or a 0 (absent) for each of four hierarchical and mutually exclusive valence categories.
Posts that had no text or non-English text were not included in this hierarchical coding system
(Figure 2).
1. Negative posts had an overarching negative valence. Within this category, posts fell
into one of three mutually exclusive categories. 1.a. Negative Aggressive/Teasing posts
contained negative and oppositional, antagonistic, violent, offensive, threatening, or angry
content. Posts fell into this category even if they could be perceived as joking or banter. (e.g.,
"ya'll are big assholes....". 1.b. Negative Depressive posts contained negative content that was
depressive, sad, down, or self-deprecating (e.g., “I'm going to flunk my midterms, get kicked out
of [University] and have to live with my parents for the rest of my life. Welcome to my future”).
1.c. Negative General posts had a negative valence but did not contain enough language to be
categorized into aggressive/teasing or depressive category (e.g., “BOOOOOOOOOOO!”).

1
Square brackets indicated potentially identifying language that has been anonymized by coders.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

22
2. Positive posts had overarching positive valence. Within this category, posts fell into
one of three mutually exclusive categories. 1. a. Positive Supportive posts had a positive valence
directed toward others (not just the participant). Praise, compliments, and encouragement fall
into this category (e.g., “Good luck with midterms! You can do it!!!”). 1.b. Positive Self posts
had a positive valence concerning characteristics, accomplishments, experiences, or possessions
of the posting participant. The primary goal of this category of post type appeared to be
presenting the poster in a positive light. Posts may also be characterized as boastful or bragging
(e.g., “just landed an internship, feeling on top of the world right now :) ”). 1.c. Positive General
posts indicated positive emotion directed towards a situation or object (e.g., “campus is beautiful
in the rain”) in the absence of directly mentioning the self or others. Positive general posts may
also have clearly conveyed positive valence but did not contain enough language to be
categorized into positive self or positive supportive category (e.g., “YAY! [link to website
attached]”).
3. Neutral posts contained no form of negative or positive valence (e.g., “hey guys, so
are we meeting tomorrow during class time to work on our contract?”).
4. Ambiguous posts contained text that was clearly intended to express either positive or
negative emotion when it is not possible to determine valence (e.g., “OMG!”).
5. Valence Uninterpretable posts contained only text that was not interpretable in any
way. Uninterpretable language includes non-English characters and gibberish (e.g., “å€§ä¸‰å–
œ”).

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

23
Measures
Facebook Interactivity. The total number of posts coded as each Facebook Interactivity
category (1. Online Interactive; 2. Offline Interactive; 3. Non-Interactive; 4. Interactivity
Uninterpretable) was summed to create scores for the Facebook Interactivity variables.
Facebook Valence. The total number of posts coded as each Facebook Valence category
(1. Positive Supportive; 2. Positive Self; 3. Positive General; 4. Negative Aggressive/Teasing; 5.
Negative Depressive; 6. Negative General; 7. Neutral; 8. Ambiguous; 9. Valence
Uninterpretable) were summed to create scores for the Facebook Valence variables.
Facebook Behavior. The total number of posts coded as each Facebook Behavior
category (1. Status Update; 2. Post to Friend; 3. Post to Group; 4. Comments on Friend Post; 5.
Comment on Self Post; 6. Friending other Facebook User; 7. Group/Event Activity; 8. Other
Activity) were summed to create scores for each Facebook behavior frequency count variable.
Demographic Information. An 11-item questionnaire developed for the current study
recorded participant demographic information. Questions addressed participants’ gender, age,
and race/ethnicity.
Online Activity Questionnaire – Revised (OAQ-R; Negriff, 2013). The OAQ-R is a
51-item revision of the Online Activity Questionnaire (OAQ; Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechter,
& Espinoza, 2008) adapted to assess the extent and quality of participants’ use of electronic
communication in more detail. Items from the Internet and Media Consumption Inventory (Noll
et al., 2013) were also incorporated into the questionnaire. Although the entire OAQ-R was
administered to participants, only a subset of questions from the OAQ-R were used in the
current study: (1) “What is the profile you use/update most often?” (1. “Facebook”, 2.
“MySpace”, 3. “Twitter”, 4. “Instagram”, 5. “Youtube”, 6. “GooglePlus”, 7. “LinkedIn”, 8.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

24
“Other”); (2) “On a typical week day (Monday through Friday) how much time (on average) do
you spend using social networking sites per day?” (1. “None”, 2. “Less than 1 hour”, 3. “1-3
hours”, 4. “4-6 hours”, 5. “7-9 hours”, 6. “10 or more hours”); (3) “Please choose a response
below that best describes the total amount of time you spend online compared to offline
2
”. (1. “I
mainly spend my time OFFline”, 2. “I spend 25% of my time ONline", “I spend half of my time
ONline”, “I spend 75% of my time ONline”, “I mainly spend my time ONline”).
Brief Social Skills Inventory (Brief SSI; Riggio, 1986; Riggio & Canary, 2003). This
30-item instrument assessed participants’ perceptions of elements of social skills such as social
expressivity (e.g., ‘‘I usually take the initiative to introduce myself to strangers’’), emotional
expressivity (e.g., ‘‘I rarely show my feelings or emotions’’ [reverse scored]), social sensitivity
(e.g., ‘‘I am generally concerned about the impression I’m making on others’’), emotional
sensitivity (e.g., ‘‘I am often told that I am a sensitive and understanding person’’), social control
(e.g., ‘‘I can easily adjust to being in just about any social situation’’), and emotional control
(e.g., ‘‘I am very good at maintaining a calm exterior even if I am upset’’). Participants were
asked to rate themselves on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all like me” to “Exactly
like me.” The Brief SSI suggests good reliability and validity as a global measure of adjustment
(Riggio & Canary, 2003). Internal consistency of the full 30 item instrument was acceptable (α =
.79).
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998): The SIAS is a 20-
item measure assessing participants’ anxiety-related reaction to social interactions (e.g., “I am
tense mixing in a group”). Responses are scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (“not at
all”) to 4 (“extremely”). The SIAS shows moderate to high internal consistency and test-retest

2
Participants were provided with the following explanation of online and offline behavior: “OFFline = going to
parks, playing sports, playing an instrument, spending face to face time with others. ONline = surfing the internet,
messaging or texting friends, watching movies on the computer”.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

25
reliability. This measure has also been shown to correlate well with established measures of
social anxiety in both clinical and non-clinical groups (.66 – .81; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) and
showed high internal consistency during the current study (α = .92).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Univariate statistics, graphical analyses, and bivariate correlation analyses were used to
examine the distribution of study variables. Social skills and social anxiety were normally
distributed across participants with no notable outliers. The distributions of Facebook variables
tended to be moderately to highly skewed with relatively few adolescents posting at high
quantities in any given Facebook category. Several Facebook language variable codes were
removed following this initial examination due to very low frequency of language use across
participants (mean < 1 post). Removed codes included: interactivity uninterpretable, negative
general, ambiguous, and valence uninterpretable.
Participant self-reported online activity was as follows: All participating students had a
Facebook profile and 83.7% of participants (N=72) reported using Facebook more frequently
than any other social networking profile. Over half of participating students reported using
Facebook for 1-3 hours per weekday (65.1%; N=54). Approximately one quarter of participating
students (24.1%, N=20) used social media for less than 1 hour per weekday and 10.1% (N=9)
reported using social media for 4 to 6 hours per weekday. During a typical day, 68% of
participating students stated they spent 25% to 50% of their time on the internet (N=57). A
smaller proportion (10.8%, N=9) reported mainly spending time offline while 16.8% reported
spending greater than 75% of their time online (N=14).
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

26
Univariate statistics for all independent and dependent variables are presented in Table 3.
Overall, frequency of all post and language types varied widely. Most frequent post types
included posting to friends and adding new Facebook friends. The majority of posts contained
interactive content specific to an online context and were positive supportive in nature. Overall,
participants posted an average of approximately 40 posts and engaged in approximately 70
activities on Facebook over the 31 days prior to data collection.
Demographic differences and basic correlations
Mean differences were tested using t-tests and ANOVAS. Table 4 summarizes
demographic differences. Females posted significantly more to friends and used more positive
general language as compared to males, t (90) = -2.00, p < .01. Non-Hispanic white participants
endorsed higher levels of social skills as compared to Asian participants, F(3,88) = 3.61, p < .05.
Many Facebook variables were intercorrelated. For brevity, correlations between
Facebook variables can be found in Table 5. Bivariate correlations between social skills, social
anxiety, and Facebook variables were also examined (see Table 6). Social skills was significantly
positively correlated with posting to friends, offline interactive Facebook language, online
interactive language, all forms of positive Facebook language (positive supportive, positive self-
focused, positive general), total number of Facebook posts, and total amount of Facebook
activity. Social anxiety was not significantly correlated with any Facebook variable.
Reliability analyses of Facebook codes
To fully explore the consistency of our Facebook coding system, we analyzed the
interrater agreement of coded Facebook variables using two versions of Kappa (κ). First, we
analyzed the Kappa of all 92 participants for whom we had data. Second, we reran the Kappa
analyses examining interrater agreement for only the 15 participants whose data were coded after
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

27
the initial piloting phase of coding system development. Analyses were run using both methods
to insure Kappa was not inflated due to coders’ previous exposure to coding material during the
piloting phase. Interrater reliability fell in the moderate (.41-.60), substantial (0.61–0.80), and
almost perfect (0.81–1.00) ranges (Landis & Koch, 1977). Interrater reliability was comparable
between the two versions of analyses (See Table 7).
Substantive Analyses
Missing data. Missing data was dealt with using two methods. Prior to analysis, multiple
imputation was used to impute data missing for individual variable scores within scales with
partial data (e.g., when a participant skipped an item). Data missing for full scales was imputed
using Full Information Maximum Likelihood imputation. Full scale missing data was minimal
(SIAS missing 1.1% of data; SSI containing no missing data). FIML serves to estimate
maximum likelihood functions for each individual on the basis of existing data, resulting in more
realistic estimates than listwise deletion (Schafer & Graham, 2002) and produces robust standard
errors that can account for non-normality.
Offline social functioning and Facebook interactivity. The first substantive aim of this
study was to examine the associations between offline social variables and interactivity codes of
language used by participants on Facebook. The data were analyzed using path analysis with the
robust maximum likelihood robust estimation (MLR) in Mplus 7.0 (Múthen & Múthen, 2007).
Path analysis using MLR simultaneously calculates associations among all measured variables
(including predictors) and accounts for variable nonnormality.
A model was stipulated in which offline social functioning variables (social skills, social
anxiety) predicted Facebook Interactivity language codes (Online Interactive, Offline Interactive,
Non-Interactive) while controlling for demographic variables (gender, race/ethnicity). To
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

28
simplify the number of variables included in this model, race/ethnicity was condensed into the
three largest subgroups of participants (i.e., Caucasian, Asian, and other) and these subgroups
were coded orthogonally. All variables were allowed to correlate, producing a fully saturated
model (See Figure 3). There were significant associations between social skills and both online
interactive and offline interactive content. The direction of path coefficients indicated that higher
social skills were associated with higher levels of both online interactive (ß = 0.53, p < .001) and
offline interactive (ß = 0.36, p < .01) content. Higher social anxiety predicted more online
interactive content (ß = 0.36, p < .01).
Offline social functioning and Facebook valence. We next examined the associations
between offline social variables and the valence of language used by participants in their
Facebook posts. We included offline social functioning variables (social skills, social anxiety) as
predictors and Facebook valence language codes (negative aggressive, negative depressive,
positive supportive, positive self-focused, positive general, and neutral) as outcomes, and
controlled for demographic variables (gender, ethnicity/race) in this analysis (See Figure 4).
There were significant associations between social skills and all positive online content (positive
supportive ß = .51, p < .001; positive self ß = .29, p < .05; and positive general ß = .38, p < .01).
The direction of path coefficients indicated that higher social skills were positively associated
with all types of positive online content. Higher social anxiety scores predicted more positive
supportive content online (ß = .45, p < .01).
Offline social functioning and Facebook post type. The third aim was to examine the
associations between offline social variables and types of posts used by participants online. We
included offline social functioning variables (social skills, social anxiety) as predictors and
Facebook interactivity type codes (status, post to friend, post to group, comment on friend post,
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

29
comment on self post, friend count, group and event activity, other) as outcomes, and controlled
for demographic variables (gender, ethnicity/race) in this analysis (See Figure 5). As with the
above analyses, the path model was fully saturated, producing a perfect fit to the data. There
were significant associations between both social skills and social anxiety and posting to friends
(ß = .57, p < .001; ß = .41, p < .001, respectively). Higher social skills and social anxiety also
predicted more overall group and event activity (ß = .23, p < .01; ß = .25, p < .01, respectively).
However, social anxiety was inversely related to posting to groups, such that higher social
anxiety predicted lower levels of posts to groups (ß = -.26, p < .05).
Offline social functioning and total Facebook activity. Lastly, we examined the
associations between offline social variables and the total number of Facebook posts as well as
total Facebook activity. We included offline social functioning variables (social skills, social
anxiety) as predictors, total number of posts and total Facebook activity as outcomes, and
controlled for demographic variables (gender, ethnicity/race) in this analysis. There were
significant associations between both social skills and social anxiety and total number of posts (ß
= .50, p < .001; ß = .32, p < .05, respectively) as well as total Facebook activity (ß = .46, p <
.001; ß = .31, p < .01, respectively).
Discussion
Electronic communication is an integral component of the present day social experience.
Research regarding social functioning within an online context is essential in developing an
understanding of today’s adolescents and young adults. In the current study, we explored
associations between participants’ reports of their own social functioning in an offline context
(i.e., face-to-face) and direct observation of language used on the social networking site
Facebook. Individuals’ social skills and social anxiety were reflected in online language patterns.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

30
Stronger social skills were related to the use of language corresponding with “Facebook norms”
cited in previous literature. Specifically, social skills related to more frequent use of language
referencing existing offline relationships, increased initiations of interactions specific to an
online context, and higher levels of positivity across types of posts. Endorsement of greater
social anxiety, on the other hand, was associated with higher levels of content promoting
interactions isolated to an online context as well as increased language praising and supporting
other users. These results provide clues about the role of technology in the social world of
today’s adolescents and young adults. Moreover, our observational approach provides novel
insight into the dynamics of online social exchanges.
Social functioning and the interactivity of Facebook language
Prior evidence has suggested that some patterns of social functioning may be transferable
across offline and online contexts (Valkenburg & Peter, 2008; Weisbuch, et al., 2009). Current
findings provide some support for this hypothesis. One of the most oft cited “Facebook norms”
discussed in prior research involves using online connection to support existing face-to-face or
“real world” relationships (Bryant, 2012; Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012). In the current
study, socially skilled individuals appeared able to structure their online behavior to build from
offline interactions and reflect such contextual norms. Specifically, participants’ offline social
skills predicted more posts referring to offline (face-to-face) interactions (“hang soon bud?” or
“It was so sad saying goodbye to you yesterday ”) as well as interactions specific to the context
of Facebook (“You are pretty <3”). This particular posting pattern is likely adaptive in that users
are initiating social communication with peers that can build cyclically across off- and online
contexts. More opportunities to interact socially offline provide more material to reference in
online interactions. Simultaneously, interactive behavior in an online context provides a
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

31
frequency of social contact unavailable face-to-face and may serve to enhance offline
relationships.
On the other hand, findings regarding social anxiety provide some support for the
hypothesis that youth with face-to-face social difficulties may aim to compensate for limited
offline interactions through their approach to the online context (Nie, 2001). Youth reporting
higher social anxiety tended to post more interactive content specific to Facebook (e.g., “You are
pretty <3”). Social anxiety, however, was not related to language referring to offline or face-to-
face relationships. This finding may suggest that users experiencing social anxiety in an offline
context are more likely to seek out interactions that are constrained to the context of Facebook.
The association is again posited to be bidirectional as socially anxious youth may also have
fewer real world friendships and interactions to build from (Le Greca & Lopez, 1998).
Relevant to these findings, some prior literature has noted that perceptions of “Facebook
connectedness” (i.e., feeling connected to others online) is distinct from offline social
connectedness for some individuals (Grieve et al., 2013). Specifically, electronic social
communication is posited to play an important role in wellbeing for individuals with social
anxiety who may otherwise avoid interpersonal interactions offline. Indeed, some research does
suggest that self-reports of “feeling supported on Facebook” predicts wellbeing over offline
support for individuals endorsing high social anxiety but not those individuals endorsing low
social anxiety (Indian & Grieve, 2014). Indian and Grieve’s (2014) findings suggest that current
associations between social anxiety and interactive Facebook content constrained to an online
context may, in some ways, be adaptive.
Finally, the vast majority of posts in this sample involved interactive content directed
toward other Facebook users. Posts that did not involve connecting with other individuals (i.e.,
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

32
non-interactive content; e.g., “Watching the SAG awards red carpet”) were relatively low
frequency across participants and unrelated to either social skills or social anxiety. As a general
statement, young people simply rarely use SNS such as Facebook for non-social purposes.
Social functioning and the valence of Facebook language
A significant body of existing research suggests that positivity is the norm online (Barash
et al., 2010; Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2016; Karl et al., 2010; Mansson & Myers, 2011). SNS users
report that in addition to building relationships, creating a positive impression of oneself for
profile viewers is a central aim of SNS use (Barash et al., 2010). Thus, it is not surprising that
social skills were related to higher levels of posts of all positive types of content measured in this
study. It is important to note that our measure of social skills is self-report. Therefore, current
findings suggest that those individuals who are more confident in their social abilities tend to
present themselves (e.g., “just landed an internship, feeling on top of the world right now :)”),
their experiences (e.g., “this is dope [link to website]”), and their relationships (e.g., “Break a leg
tonight [friend’s name]! I know you'll be awesome.”) through a positive lens on Facebook.
Nevertheless, the measure of social skills used in the current study (SSI) has been demonstrated
by prior research to correlate with overall “likability” by offline interaction partners (Riggio,
1986). This measure is thus expected to validly capture overall social competence in an offline
context. Positivity manifests somewhat differently online in relation to social anxiety. Although,
like social skills, social anxiety predicted more praise and supportive comments directed toward
Facebook friends, content posted by more socially anxious individuals did not appear to be
aimed at overall self-promotion. That is, social anxiety was not significantly related to posts
containing positive information about participants themselves or their experiences more
generally. Interestingly, this pattern of behavior diverges from observations of socially anxious
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

33
individuals in an offline context in which social anxiety relates to the tendency to engage in
excessively self-focused talk (Heerey & Kring, 2007). Perhaps given the asynchronous nature of
Facebook exchanges, socially anxious individuals are more likely to spend time considering their
social goals with an emphasis on negative thinking patterns characteristic of social anxiety (e.g.,
that a positive post about oneself may lead to rejection manifesting in few comments or likes) in
their posting decision making.
Given observers’ negative reactions to the positive-self talk exhibited by socially anxious
individuals offline (Cappella, 1985; Heerey & Kring, 2007), it will be interesting to explore
online interaction partners’ reactions to this differential online conversational pattern. It is
important to note that a strong focus on positive content supporting or praising others was by no
means atypical among these college students. In fact, supporting prior research examining
student perceptions of online norms (Bryant & Marmo, 2012; Hooper & Vitak, 2012;
McLaughlin & Vitak, 2012), participants used primarily positive language supporting others in
their posts across levels of social skills and social anxiety. While supportive posts (e.g., “Happy
Birthday!” or “great pic”) are likely to be interpreted as relatively positive by other users, it is
also likely these posts are viewed as mundane. That is, such posts are positive but fail to
successfully represent that user to the best of his or her abilities. Parallel behavioral patterns in
the offline context have been described by prior social anxiety researchers. For example, in spite
of having an insightful comment to add to a conversation, an individual experiencing social
anxiety will choose to engage in a more innocuous communication such as head nodding or
smiling (Leary, 1982).
Lastly, aggressive (e.g., “You suck so much [name of Facebook friend]."), depressive
(“A negative credit card balance. My favorite.”), and neutral (“hey guys, so are we meeting
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

34
tomorrow during class time to work on our contract?”) posts appeared to be larger deviations
from Facebook norms. Like non-interactive posts, they were rare for all Facebook users
regardless of level of social skills or anxiety. Given peers clear articulation that such behavior is
a substantial deviation from social norms noted in prior literature (Hooper & Kalidas, 2012;
McLaughlin & Vitak, 2012), it is likely that aggressive, depressive, and neutral behavior is
negatively reinforced by peers through disapproving comments or lack of likes and subsequently
avoided by posters. The relative infrequency of negative Facebook posts and emphasis on
positive content directed toward other Facebook users is of note given the focus of prior research
and media attention on detrimental impacts of negative online experiences including bullying or
aggression (Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross, 2009).
Social functioning and the quantity of Facebook activity
Regarding quantity, higher levels of social skills and social anxiety each predicted an
increased quantity of overall Facebook posts and Facebook activity (posts, updating profile,
friending other Facebook users, etc.). Findings regarding specific types of post quantity followed
a similar pattern with social skills and social anxiety each uniquely predicting more initiations
toward friends (i.e., posting on friends’ walls), and more overall group or event activity (e.g.,
joining a group or updating information in a group). Parallel findings for social skills and social
anxiety in relation to post quantity are somewhat counterintuitive given negative associations
between these two domains of social functioning. Perhaps both self-reported social skills and
self-reported social anxiety emphasize a strong focus on interpersonal interactions. Individuals
scoring higher on measures of social skills and social anxiety may be invested in social
interactions and motivated to improve relationships with social partners. These constructs split
apart in their association with specific content, as opposed to quantity of posts, as individuals
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

35
with social anxiety are likely motivated by fear that offline initiations may be rejected, whereas
socially skilled individuals may be motivated by promoting further offline engagement.
More intuitively, social anxiety was also inversely related to posting on a group forum.
Fitting with Ledbetter and colleagues’ (2011) “high risk medium” hypothesis (e.g., individuals
uncomfortable with their social abilities may prefer one-on-one forms of electronic
communication), a post to a group forum requires presenting information to be read by multiple
individuals. This may be the online equivalent to attending a party or speaking to a large group
of people in a face-to-face context, and thus may be particularly anxiety provoking for
individuals experiencing higher levels of social anxiety.
Lastly, SNS use was ubiquitous among this college student sample. This statistic is
comparable to adolescents and young adults in the general population (Brenner & Smith, 2013).
The large majority of participants (more than 75%) reported using Facebook for at least an hour
per day, using Facebook more than any other social networking profile, and spending greater
than half of their waking hours on the internet. While consistent with previous literature, the
frequency of internet, SNS, and Facebook use across patients is nevertheless striking in the clear
centrality of these modalities of communication within the modern social world. The frequency
of Facebook use suggests this particular SNS was likely a useful representation of electronic
communication more generally at the time of data collection.
Limitations and directions for future research
Before moving on to concluding comments, limitations and future research directions are
noted. First, given our study goals, the emphasis of this paper was restricted to participants’ own
behavior. Next steps will involve examining how online interaction partners respond to
individuals specific online behaviors, how these interactions patterns relate to both offline social
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

36
functioning, and how such patterns relate to subsequent mental health outcomes. Second, we
were unable to obtain access to certain important types of information due to confidentiality and
legality (pictures, private messages). Keeping in mind these ethical concerns, future research that
explores these more restricted forms of communication is important given that individuals with
social difficulties favor individual (as opposed to group) interactions in offline settings. Third,
the current investigation explores associations between offline social variables and overall
frequency of posts containing various types of content. Future research exploring other aspects of
posting, such as the ratio of participants’ posts of various content types to overall number of
posts (e.g., percentage of posts containing interactive content pertaining to the offline world)
may be informative. Fourth, in this study, we specifically investigated online posts on Facebook.
Participants’ self reports confirmed the popularity of this SNS and provided rationale for
focusing on Facebook. Nevertheless, the rapidly increasing availability of a wide range of social
networking sites and online interactions warrants future investigations with a focus on
communication across different contexts (e.g., twitter, Instagram, or texting). Lastly, as our
participants were first-year college students at a large urban university, the generalization of our
results is limited to similar populations. This is an important area of research given college
students’ heavy use of SNS. However, as 71% of teens aged 13-17 use Facebook (Lenhart,
2015), future research should also involve younger youths.
Summary and conclusions
As communication technology has become increasingly accessible to the general
population, we have seen a qualitative shift in socialization and communication patterns. Given
the centrality of online communication in modern social interactions, it is vital to consider how
individuals’ social functioning is reflected online. In this study, we capitalized on the capabilities
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

37
of current technology to directly observe online behaviors. The current results suggested
differential content in SNS communications given individuals’ social motives, goals, and
functioning. Participants reporting stronger offline social skills were able to use their social
strengths to successfully adhere to online social norms. Social anxiety, on the other hand, was
related to a unique pattern of posting appearing to emphasize lower risk content isolated to an
online context. Such findings caution against simplifying the role of social electronic
communication as either adaptive or maladaptive for those with social difficulties. Rather, like
offline communication, online communication contains intricacies, norms, and themes that are
grasped and implemented at varying levels by internet users. Building an understanding of such
intricacies is critical to researchers and interventionists interested in adolescent and young adult
social functioning.
To the best of our knowledge, this project is the first to either directly explore content of
language on SNS or use an objective coding system to analyze this language. Results suggest
that electronic observation is indeed a viable form of capturing online interactions. Continued
efforts in this domain may build on existing research by informing detection and intervention of
social difficulties. For example, continued investigation of socially skilled behavior online may
help identify individuals with offline social difficulties and coach those struggling socially online
in maximizing electronic communications to promote wellbeing. Furthermore, it is expected that
the internet will only continue to become more central to daily functioning as continued
technological advances facilitate increased popularity and usability of mobile technology while
simultaneously decreasing in cost. Future research incorporating a range of electronic
communication media (e.g., texting and other forms of social networking) and analyzing
interaction partners’ responses in relation to post content is warranted.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

38
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health correlates
of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 547-558.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.009
Barash, v., Ducheneaut, N., Isaacs, E., & Bellotti, V. (2010). Faceplant: Impression
(Mis)management in Facebook Status Updates. Proceedings of the Fourth International
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Retrieved from
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM10/paper/view/1465
Bareket-Bojmel, L., Moran, S., & Shahar, G. (2016). Strategic self-presentation on Facebook:
Personal motives and audience response to online behavior. Computers in Human
Behavior, 55, 788-795.
Birnie, S. A., & Horvath, P. (2002). Psychological predictors of internet social communication.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4) Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/619781364?accountid=14749
Bjorklund, David F. (2012) Children's thinking: Cognitive development and individual
differences, 5
TH
edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Brenner, J. & Smith, A. (2013). 72% of Online Adults are Social Networking Site Users. Pew
Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project,
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/social-networking-sites.aspx
Brown, B. R. (1970). Face-saving following experimentally induced embarrassment. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 6(3), 255-271.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

39
Bryant, E. M., & Marmo, J. (2012). The rules of facebook friendship: A two-stage examination
of interaction rules in close, casual, and acquaintance friendships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 29(8), 1013-1035. doi: 10.1177/0265407512443616
Cappella, J. N. (1985). Production principles for turn-taking rules in social interaction: Socially
anxious vs. socially secure persons. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4(3-4),
193-212. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/617254978?accountid=14749
Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic Internet
use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30, 625-648. doi:
10.1177/0093650203257842
Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic internet use. Journal of
Communication, 55(4), 721-736. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03019.x
Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic internet use.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 234-242. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9963
Casale, S., Tella, L., & Fioravanti, G. (2013). Preference for online social interactions among
young people: Direct and indirect effects of emotional intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 54(4), 524-529. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.023
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 41(2), 330.
Donn, J. E., & Sherman, R. C. (2002). Attitudes and practices regarding the formation of
romantic relationships on the internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 107-123. doi:
10.1089/109493102753770499

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

40
Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A
theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology,
217(4), 182-188.
Duggan, M. & Brennar, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users — 2012,
Washington DC: Pew Internet Research and American Life Project,
Retrieved from: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-media-users.aspx
Duggan, M. (2015). The demographics of social media users, Washington DC: Pew Internet
Research and American Life Project, Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook "friends:" social
capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Fernandez, K. C., Levinson, C. A., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2012). Profiling: Predicting social
anxiety from facebook profiles. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 706-
713. doi: 10.1177/1948550611434967
Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (1999). Social skills are associated with satisfaction in close relationships.
Psychological Reports, 84, 803–804. doi: 10.2466/PR0.84.3.803-804
Fischetti, M., Curran, J. P., & Wessberg, H. W. (1977). Sense of timing: A skill deficit in
heterosexual–socially anxious males. Behavior Modification, 1(2), 179-194. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/616213044?accountid=14749
Ghosh, A., & Dasgupta, S. (2015). Psychological Predictors of Facebook Use. Journal of the
Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41(1), 101.

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

41
Graham, L. T., Sandy, C. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Manifestations of individual differences in
physical and virtual environments Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/926275063?accountid=14749
Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Tolan, G. A., & Marrington, J. (2013). Face-to-face or
Facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online?. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(3), 604-609.
Heerey, E. A., & Kring, A. M. (2007). Interpersonal consequences of social anxiety. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 116(1), 125-134. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.116.1.125
Hooper, V., & Kalidas, T. (2012). Acceptable and unacceptable behaviour on social networking
sites: A study of the behavioural norms of youth on facebook. Electronic Journal of
Information Systems Evaluation, 15(3), 259-268. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1284712276?accountid=14749
Indian, M., & Grieve, R. (2014). When Facebook is easier than face-to-face: Social support
derived from Facebook in socially anxious individuals. Personality and Individual
Differences, 59, 102-106.
Kang, S. M., & Munoz, M. J. (2014). Preference for online communication and its association
with perceived social skills. Individual Differences Research, 12.
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Schlaegel, C. (2010). Who's posting Facebook faux pas? A cross-
cultural examination of personality differences. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 18(2), 174-186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00499.x
La Greca, A. M., & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer
relations and friendships. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 26(2), 83-94.

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

42
Landis, J.R. & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33 (1), 159–174.
Leary, M. R. Social anxiety. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology
(Vol. 3). Beverly Hills, Calif/Sage, 1982.
Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Mao, Y., & Swafford, B. (2011).
Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of facebook
communication and relational closeness. Communication Research, 38(1), 27-53.
doi: 10.1177/0093650210365537
Lee-Won, R. J., Herzog, L., & Park, S. G. (2015). Hooked on Facebook: The role of social
anxiety and need for social assurance in problematic use of facebook. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(10), 567-574.
Lenhart, A., (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015, Washington DC: Pew
Internet Research and American Life Project, Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
Libet, J. M., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1973). Concept of social skill with special reference to the
behavior of depressed persons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40(2),
304-312. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034530 doi: 10.1037/h0034530
Mansson, D. H., & Myers, S. A. (2011). An initial examination of college students' expressions
of affection through Facebook. Southern Communication Journal, 76(2), 155-168. doi:
10.1080/10417940903317710
Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia
scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455-
470. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619340736?accountid=14749
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

43
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the
Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 659-671.
McLaughlin, C., & Vitak, J. (2012). Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media &
Society, 14(2), 299-315. doi:10.1177/1461444811412712
Mikami, A. Y., Szwedo, D. E., Allen, J. P., Evans, M. A., & Hare, A. L. (2010). Adolescent peer
relationships and behavior problems predict young adults’ communication on social
networking websites. Developmental Psychology, 46, 46–56. doi: 10.1037/a0017420
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus User's Guide (Sixth Edition). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Negriff, S. (2013). Online Activity Questionnaire – Revised (OAQ-R). Unpublished manuscript.
Nie, N. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the internet: Reconciling conflicting
findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 420–435. doi:
10.1177/00027640121957277
Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010). All about me: Disclosure in online social
networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3),
406-418. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.012
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 1(4). Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1083-6101
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students' social
networking experiences on facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
30(3), 227-238. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

44
Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Espinoza, G. (2012). Friending, IMing, and hanging out
face-to-face: Overlap in adolescents' online and offline social networks. Developmental
Psychology, 48(2), 356-368. doi:10.1037/a0026980
Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 649–660. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.649
Riggio, R. E., & Canary, D. R. (2003). Social skills inventory manual (2nd ed.). Redwood City,
CA: MindGarden.
Riggio, R. E., & Zimmerman, J. (1991). Social skills and interpersonal relationships: influences
on social support and support seeking. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in
personal relationships (vol. 2, pp. 133–155). London: Jessica Kingsley. Retrieved from:
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/61
8041593?accountid=14749
Ross, A. C., Moss, K. I., & Negriff, S. (2013). Social Networkology: Developing a Facebook
application to understand online social networks, peer relationships, and mental health.
Unpublished manuscript.
Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., Hacker, T. A., & Basham, R. B. (1985). Concomitants of social
support: Social skills, physical attractiveness, and gender. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49(2), 469-480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.469
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147-177. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation:
conceptualization model. Psychological bulletin, 92(3), 641.

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

45
Segrin, C. (1992). Specifying the nature of social skill deficits associated with depression.
Human Communication Research, 19, 89–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00296.x
Segrin, C., & Taylor, M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships mediate the association
between social skills and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43(4), 637-646. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.017
Shapiro, L. A. S., & Margolin, G. (2014). Growing up wired: Social networking sites and
adolescent psychosocial development. Clinical child and family psychology review,
17(1), 1-18.
Shaw, A. M., Timpano, K. R., Tran, T. B., & Joormann, J. (2015). Correlates of Facebook usage
patterns: The relationship between passive Facebook use, social anxiety symptoms, and
brooding. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 575-580.
Shelton, A. K., & Skalski, P. (2013). Blinded by the light: Illuminating the dark side of social
network use through content analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.017
Smith, A. (2011). Why Americans use social media, Washington DC: Pew Internet and
American Life Project, Retrieved from:
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Why-Americans-Use-Social-%20Media.aspx
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline
social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420-433. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003
Swedzo, D., Mikami, A.Y., & Allen, J. (2012). Social Networking Site use predicts changes in
young adults’ psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(3),
453–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00788.x
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

46
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet:
Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research,
35, 208–231. doi: 10.1177/0093650207313164
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication:
Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23(5), 2538-2557. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002
Weidman, A. C., & Levinson, C. A. (2015). I’m still socially anxious online: Offline relationship
impairment characterizing social anxiety manifests and is accurately perceived in online
social networking profiles. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 12-19.
Weinstein, A., Dorani, D., Elhadif, R., Bukovza, Y., Yarmulnik, A., & Dannon, P. (2015).
Internet addiction is associated with social anxiety in young adults. Annals of Clinical
Psychiatry, 27(2), 2-7.
Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2009). On being liked on the web and in the "real
world": Consistency in first impressions across personal webpages and spontaneous
behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 573-576. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.009
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.

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

47

Table 1
Definitions of relevant Facebook terminology
Facebook Term Definition
Chat Real-time instant messages sent to Facebook friends.

Comment A reply containing text, a link, or a photo posted under an existing post.

Group A forum for a group of people with common interests to communicate and post relevant
content.

Emoticon A representation of a facial expression (e.g., :D ), formed by keyboard characters used to
indicate the intended tone of a post.

Facebook An online social networking site allowing users to create a personal profile and interact with
other users through posting content and viewing the content of others.

Friend A person that the user connects and shares with on Facebook.

Friending Adding another user as a Facebook friend.
Friends list A list of all of the user’s Facebook friends.
Like Clicking the “like” or thumbs up button below a Facebook post. This action indicates the
user has given positive feedback.

Newsfeed An ongoing list of updates on the user’s homepage that shows the activity of friends and
pages.

Note A text editor where the user types documents or blog entries on Facebook.

Post A comment, photograph or other media that is posted on Facebook.

Private messages Ongoing asynchronous private conversations with other Facebook users that are only
accessible to those included in the message.

Status update A post made by the user on their own Facebook timeline.

Tag A method used to link a user, page, or place to a post. For instance, a user can tag a friend in
a status update to indicate he or she is with that person or simply that the post pertains to
them.

Timeline The user’s profile, where all information posted by the user, posted from a friend to a user,
or tagging the user appears.

Note. The information in this table was obtained from the Facebook Help Center Glossary of Terms
(https://www.facebook.com/help/glossary) as well as common knowledge of Facebook.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

48
Table 2.
Summary of independent and dependent variables.
Predictor Variables Definition
Social Skills (Brief SSI) • participants’ perceptions of their social skills
Social Functioning
Social Anxiety (SIAS) • participants’ anxiety-related to social interactions
Outcome Variables: Facebook Coding System Definition
Offline interactive • references to participation in past, present, or future face-to-face interactions
Interactive
Online interactive • references interaction with others, does not refer to offline interactions
Interactivity

Non-interactive Non-interactive • not interactive with others in any way (offline or online)
Positive supportive • positive valence concerning others (i.e., praise, compliments)
Positive self • positive valence concerning the participant only (i.e., self presentation) Positive
Positive general • positive valence and no mention of self/others (e.g., positivity toward object)
Negative aggressive • negative and hostile or aggressive content, may be teasing
Negative depressive • negative content that is depressive/self-deprecating
Negative

Negative general • negative content that does not indicate aggressive or depressive intent
Valence
Neutral Neutral • contains no valence (i.e., neither positive or negative)
Outcome Variables: Facebook behavior frequency counts Definition
Status update • participant posts to their own timeline
Post to friend • participant posts to another Facebook user’s timeline
Post to group • participant posts to a group page
Comment on post (friend) • participant adds a response under the post of a Facebook friend
Post/comment
Comment on post (self) • participant adds a response under their own post
Friending activity Friending activity • participant adds another user as a Facebook friend
Event/group activity Event/group activity • participants engages in non-posoting group/event activity (e.g., changes date)
Quantity

Other Other • participant engages in other Facebook activity not specified above
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

49
Table 3
Descriptive statistics for offline social functioning and Facebook interactions
N Mean SD Min Max
Offline social variables
Social skills (SSI-SF) 92 98.61 12.85 62 125
Social anxiety (SIAS) 91 25.27 13.19 2 59
Facebook activity type
Status update 92 6.50 8.21 0 41.00
Post to friend 92 19.60 20.77 0 105.00
Post to group 92 2.40 5.42 0 33.00
Comment on friend post 92 8.70 5.29 0 20.00
Comment on own post 92 2.04 1.89 0 10.00
Friend count 92 19.43 14.20 0 70.00
Group/Event activity 92 3.85 6.91 0 51.00
Other
a
92 1.69 1.75 0 8.00
Interactivity of Facebook language
Offline interactive 92 3.32 4.26 0 19.00
Online interactive 92 24.17 21.43 0 95.00
Non-interactive 92 5.01 7.45 0 43.00
Valence of Facebook language
Negative aggressive 92 1.61 2.76 0 19.00
Negative depressive 92 1.92 2.77 0 12.00
Positive supportive 92 12.43 15.48 0 101.00
Positive self-focused 92 1.75 2.47 0 13.00
Positive general 92 4.75 5.00 0 20.00
Neutral 92 5.35 5.95 0 28.00
Total number of Facebook posts 92 39.24 29.83 1 127.00
Total amount of Facebook activity 92 70.30 43.78 3 221.00
Note.
a
Other = Facebook content that does not fall into any other defined category (e.g., adding a language to
Facebook profile; updating profile picture etc.)

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

50
Table 4
Demographic differences on offline social functioning and Facebook interactions
Gender Race
Male (n=39) Female (n=53) White (n=42) Asian (n=35) Other (n=15)
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)
Offline social variables
Social skills (Brief SSI) 100.21(13.21) 97.42(12.57) 101.33(9.49)
c
94.01(14.47)
c
101.71(14.68)
Social anxiety (SIAS) 24.30(13.37) 25.96(13.14) 24.88(13.58) 27.83(13.27) 20.33(10.96)
Facebook activity type
Status update 7.31(8.51) 5.91(8.02) 7.67(9.71) 5.17(6.93) 6.33(6.10)
Post to friend 14.64(17.84)
a
23.24(22.14)
a
17.52(16.76) 18.66(22.36) 27.60(26.10)
Post to group 3.51(1.59) 1.59(3.53) 3.24(6.99) 1.29(2.81) 2.67(4.98)
Comment on friend post 9.46(5.33) 8.13(5.08) 8.86(5.27) 8.23(5.41) 9.33(5.33)
Comment on own post 1.77(1.54) 2.25(2.09) 2.12(1.85) 1.80(1.64) 2.40(2.50)
Friend count 19.92(14.98) 19.08(13.73) 20.48(13.61) 16.49(12.77) 23.40(18.17)
Group/Event activity 4.39(3.45) 3.45(3.76) 4.24(9.34) 3.14(3.51) 4.40(4.76)
Other 1.38(1.70) 1.92(1.77) 1.73(1.45) 1.71(2.02) 1.53(1.96)
Facebook interactivity
Offline interactive 2.97(3.57) 3.82(4.57) 2.95(3.86) 3.03(4.36) 5.00(4.96)
Online interactive 20.82(19.39) 26.64(22.68) 23.26(17.40) 21.77(22.43) 32.33(28.08)
Non-interactive 6.08(7.91) 4.23(7.07) 6.05(9.06) 3.94(6.06) 4.60(5.03)
Facebook valence
Negative aggressive 1.64(3.32) 1.58(2.29) 1.79(3.26) 1.14(2.03) 2.20(2.70)
Negative depressive 2.05(3.13) 1.83(2.48) 1.88(2.96) 1.57(2.17) 2.87(3.36)
Positive supportive 9.25(13.23) 14.77(16.69) 12.23(13.43) 11.37(18.32) 15.47(14.19)
Positive self-focused 1.85(2.71) 1.68(2.30) 2.14(2.99) 1.31(1.98) 1.67(1.72)
Positive general 3.64(3.35)
b
5.57(5.83)
b
4.52(4.70) 3.77(4.17) 7.67(6.66)
Neutral 6.61(6.63) 4.42(5.26) 5.73(6.27) 4.86(5.65) 5.40(6.01)
Total Facebook posts 36.69(29.09) 41.11(30.50) 39.41(25.62) 35.14(31.24) 48.33(36.89)
Total Facebook activity 69.05(45.70) 71.23(42.73) 72.55(40.70) 61.51(43.92) 84.53(50.01)
Note.
ab
Females posted significantly more to friends and used more positive general language as compared to males,
t (90) = -2.06, p < .05; t (90) = -2.00, p < .01.
c
Non-Hispanic white participants endorsed higher levels of social
skills as compared to Asian participants, F(3,88)=3.61, p < .05.
*
p < .05.

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

51
Table 5
Bivariate associations between Facebook valence, interactivity, and post type variables
Facebook Valence
1. 2. 3.
1. Offline Interactive - - -
2. Online Interactive .63*** - -
3. Non-interactive .16 .21* -

Facebook Post Type
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1. Status update - - - - - - - -
2. Post to friend .18 - - - - - - -
3. Post to group .24* .08 - - - - - -
4. Comment friend post .46*** .33** .33** - - - - -
5. Comment self post .39*** .37*** .17 .26* - - - -
6. Friend count .11 .29** .23* .35* .16 - - -
7. Group/event activity .13 .50*** .01 .41*** .06 .30** - -
8. Other .40*** .30** .02 .27* .23* .14 .20 -
Note. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

Facebook Interactivity
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Positive Supportive - - - - - -
2. Positive Self .17 - - - - -
3. Positive General .23* .47*** - - - -
4. Negative Aggressive .15 .33** .43*** - - -
5. Negative Depressive .17 .61*** .46*** .34** - -
6. Neutral .20 .42*** .33*** .51** .41***- -

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

52
Table 6
Bivariate associations between offline social functioning and Facebook interactions
Social Skills (SSI-
SF)
Social Anxiety
(SIAS)
Facebook activity type
Status update .14 -.06
Post to friend .29** .09
Post to group .15 -.21
Comment on friend post .17 .05
Comment on own post -.11 -.11
Friend count .18 -.03
Profile photo update .10 .08
Event activity .14 .03
Group activity .02 .19
Liking .05 .01
Other .00 -.06
Interactivity of Facebook language
Offline interactive .24* -.04
Online interactive .31** .04
Non-interactive .10 -.02
Valence of Facebook language
Negative aggressive .14 -.13
Negative depressive .08 -.10
Positive supportive .23* .15
Positive self-focused .29* -.14
Positive general .30** -.09
Neutral .07 -.03
Total number of Facebook posts .32** .01
Total amount of Facebook activity .30** .02
Note.
*
p < .05;
**
p<.01;
***
p<.001.

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

53
Table 7
Interrater reliability (Kappa) for Facebook interaction codes

Coding Category
κ
all

(all participants)
κ
15

(15 participants)
Interactivity of Facebook language
Offline interactive .67 .69
Online interactive .80 .80
Noninteractive .75 .76
Valence of Facebook language
Negative aggressive .69 .66
Negative depressive .73 .75
Positive supportive .89 .82
Positive self .61 .55
Positive general .63 .53
Neutral .72 .72
Note. κ
all
= Kappa across all posts from all participants; κ
15
= Kappa across all posts from 15 participants reserved for
comparison codes and not included in original coding system piloting

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

54

Figure 1. Hierarchical interactivity coding system. Posts’ interactivity type were coded
hierarchically as follows: (B1) Offline Interactive; (B2) Online Interactive; (B3) Non-Interactive.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

55

Figure 2. Hierarchical valence coding system. Posts’ valence type were coded hierarchically as follows: (C1) Negative or C2 (Positive) content
(i.e., valence) in a post. If NO (C1) Negative or (C2) Positive content, coders coded post as (C3) Neutral. Posts’ negative valence type were coded
hierarchically as follows: (C1a) Negative aggressive; (C1b) Negative depressive; (C1c) Negative general. Posts’ positive valence type were coded
hierarchically as follows: (C2a) Positive supportive; (C2b) Positive self; (C2c) Positive general.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

56

Figure 3. Path diagram testing the relationship between offline social functioning and interactivity of Facebook language. Standardized path
coefficients are shown. In the full model, offline social functioning variables (social skills, social anxiety) predicted Facebook Interactivity
language codes (Online Interactive, Offline Interactive, Non-Interactive) while controlling for demographic variables (gender, race/ethnicity).
Covariates (gender, race/ethnicity) and non-significant paths and correlation coefficients were omitted from the figure for simplicity. ***p<0.001,
**p<0.01, *p<0.05.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

57

Figure 4. Path diagram testing the relationship between offline social functioning and valence of Facebook language. Standardized path
coefficients are shown. In the full model, offline social functioning variables (social skills, social anxiety) predicted Facebook Valence language
codes (Positive General, Positive Self, Positive Supportive, Negative Aggressive, Negative Depressive, Neutral) while controlling for
demographic variables (gender, race/ethnicity). Covariates (gender, race/ethnicity) and non-significant paths and correlation coefficients were
omitted from the figure for simplicity. ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05.
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

58

Figure 5. Path diagram testing the relationship between offline social functioning and valence of Facebook language. Standardized path
coefficients are shown. In the full model, offline social functioning variables (social skills, social anxiety) predicted Facebook Valence language
codes (Positive General, Positive Self, Positive Supportive, Negative Aggressive, Negative Depressive, Neutral) while controlling for
demographic variables (gender, race/ethnicity). Covariates (gender, race/ethnicity) and non-significant paths and correlation coefficients were
omitted from the figure for simplicity. ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05.

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

59

Figure 6. Path diagram testing the relationship between offline social functioning, total number of posts, and total Facebook activity.
Standardized path coefficients are shown. In the full model, offline social functioning variables (social skills, social anxiety) predicted
Facebook quantity count codes (total number of posts, total Facebook activity) while controlling for demographic variables (gender,
race/ethnicity). Covariates (gender, race/ethnicity) were omitted from the figure for simplicity. ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.001

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

60
Appendix A
Example of Participant’s Facebook Data

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

61
Appendix B
Questionnaires Administered via Qualtrics

Online activity questionnaire – Revised (OAQ-R; Negriff, 2013)

Please tell us about what you do on MySpace/Facebook/other similar social networking sites. If
you have more than one profile, think of the one that you currently use and update most often.

1. Do you have a profile on any Social Networking sites? (mark "yes" to all that apply)
Yes -Facebook (How many profiles? _________)
Yes -MySpace (How many profiles? _________)
Yes -Twitter (How many profiles? _________)
Yes -Instagram (How many profiles? _________)
Yes -YouTube (How many profiles? _________)
Yes -GooglePlus (How many profiles? _________)
Yes -LinkedIn (How many profiles? _________)
Yes -Other: _________________(How many profiles? _________)

2. What is the profile you use/update most often?
Facebook
MySpace
Twitter
Instagram
Youtube (upload videos or just watch?)
GooglePlus
LinkedIn
Other: _________________
3. Why do you have a profile on any Social Network Site (Facebook/MySpace/Twitter, etc.)?
(Check all that apply)
Because all of my friends have accounts
My friend(s) made it for me
To make plans with friends I see often
To stay in touch with friends I don’t see often
To meet new people and to make new friends
To find new romantic/sexual partners
To flirt
To share my favorite music and video clips
To voice my opinions on various topics (social issues, political issues, current events)
To stay in touch with relatives and family
To fill up free time/ not be bored
To read private entries /to comment on people’s profiles
To explore interests such as music, television shows, etc.
To post pictures and/or videos
Other: _______________________________

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

62

4. In general, when I create a profile on-line, the profile can be seen by…
(1) Anyone who goes on-line to the site (my profile is public)
(2) Only my “online friends” or those who have my permission can see my profile
(3) No one else other than myself
(4) I do not know who can see my profile
5. How do you decide who to add as an online friend? (Check all that apply)
I will add anyone who sends a friend request.
I will add anyone who sends a request and looks cool
I will only add a person who I have met in person
I will only add a person if they are face-to-face friend
I will add a person who is a friend of a friend
6. What percentage of your “online friends” have you NEVER met in person (face to face)?
(0) I have met ALL of my “online friends” face to face
(1) I have never met 25% of my “online friends” face to face
(2) I have never met 50% of my “online friends” face to face
(3) I have never met 75% of my “online friends” face to face
(4) I have never met with any of my “online friends” face to face

7a On a typical week day (Monday through Friday) how much time (on average) do you spend
using social networking sites per day?
(0) None
(1) Less than 1 hour
(2) 1-3 hours
(3) 4-6 hours
(4) 7-9 hours
(5) 10 or more hours

7b. How about on the weekend (Saturday or Sunday) per day?
(0) None
(1) Less than 1 hour
(2) 1-3 hours
(3) 4-6 hours
(4) 7-9 hours
(5) 10 or more hours

8. Please choose how important online social networking sites are to you in the following ways:

8a. Staying in touch with friends you see a lot.
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

63
8b. Staying in touch with friends you rarely see in person
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

8c. Making plans with your friends
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

8d. Making new friends
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

8e. Flirting with someone
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

9a. On a typical weekday (Monday through Friday) how much time do you spend on Facebook per
day?
(0) None
(1) Less than 1 hour
(2) 1-3 hours
(3) 4-6 hours
(4) 7-9 hours
(5) 10 or more hours

9b. How about on a weekend (Saturday or Sunday) per day?
(0) None
(1) Less than 1 hour
(2) 1-3 hours
(3) 4-6 hours
(4) 7-9 hours
(5) 10 or more hours

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

64
10. Why do you have a profile on Facebook? (Check all that apply)
Because all of my friends have accounts
My friend(s) made it for me
To make plans with friends I see often
To stay in touch with friends I don’t see often
To meet new people and to make new friends
To find new romantic/sexual partners
To flirt
To share my favorite music and video clips
To voice my opinions on various topics (social issues, political issues, current events)
To stay in touch with relatives and family
To fill up free time/ not be bored
To read private entries /to comment on people’s profiles
To explore interests such as music, television shows, etc.
To post pictures and/or videos
Other: _______________________________

11. When you visit your Facebook profile how often do you do each of the following activities?
0=Never
1=Sometimes
2=Always
__ Edit my profile and update my status
__ Change profile picture
__ Read/respond to comments on my page/posts on my wall
__ Write comments on other peoples’ page/wall
__ Post/tag pictures and/or video
__ Browse my friends’ profiles/walls/pages
__ Create/visit groups to talk about specific topics
__ Listen to/find new music
__ Look for the profiles of people I know or used to know
__ Look for new friends, send friend requests, and add friends
__ Send/respond to messages/invites
__ Make plans to hang out in person
__ Other: __________________________________
12. How do you decide who to add to your friends list? (Check all that apply)
I will add anyone who sends a friend request.
I will add anyone who sends a request and looks cool
I will only add a person who I have met in person
I will only add a person if they are face-to-face friend
I will add a person who is a friend of a friend

13. Who do you post/comment to most when you are on Facebook? (Check all that apply)
Friends I know offline and see frequently in person
Friends I made online and don't see in person
Family members I see in person
Family members I don't see in person

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

65
14. Please choose how important Facebook is to you in the following ways:

14a. Staying in touch with friends you see a lot
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

14b. Staying in touch with friends you rarely see in person
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

14c. Making plans with your friends
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

14d. Making new friends
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

14e. Flirting with someone
(0) Not at all important
(1) Somewhat important
(2) In between
(3) Fairly important
(4) Extremely important

15a. On a typical school day (Monday through Friday) how much time (on average) do you spend
texting others on your cell phone per day?

(0) None
(1) Less than 1 hour
(2) 1-3 hours
(3) 4-6 hours
(4) 7-9 hours
(5) 10 or more hours

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

66
15b. How about on the weekend (Saturday or Sunday) per day?
(0) None
(1) Less than 1 hour
(2) 1-3 hours
(3) 4-6 hours
(4) 7-9 hours
(5) 10 or more hours

16a. How do you access the internet?
(1) Personal computer
(2) Shared computer in home
(3) Public computer (e.g. library, school)
(4) Smartphone (e.g. iphone, android, blackberry)
(5) ipad/tablet
(6) someone’s else’s computer/phone/tablet

16b. What do you use the Internet for? (Circle all that apply)
(1) Homework
(2) Online (Virtual) School
(3) Social Networking (for example, Facebook)
(4) Downloading and or listening to music
(5) Streaming and watching videos (for example Netflix, Hulu, YouTube)
(6) Creating webpages
(7) Blogging
(8) Playing games
(9) Shopping
(10) Watching sports
(11) Emailing
(12) Researching hobbies and interests
(13) Reading the news
(14) Other (explain) _______________________________________

16c. Of all the things you do on the Internet, which do you do MOST often? (Choose only one)
(1) Homework
(2) Online (Virtual) School
(3) Social Networking (for example, Facebook)
(4) Downloading and or listening to music
(5) Streaming and watching videos (for example Netflix, Hulu, YouTube)
(6) Creating webpages
(7) Blogging
(8) Playing games
(9) Shopping
(10) Watching sports
(11) Emailing
(12) Researching hobbies and interests
(13) Reading the news
(14) Other (explain) _______________________________________

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

67
17. Please choose a response below that best describes the total amount of time you spend online
compared to offline.
OFFline = going to parks, playing sports, playing an instrument, spending face to face time with others.
ONline = surfing the internet, messaging or texting friends, watching movies on the computer.
(0) I mainly spend my time OFFline
(1) I spend 25% of my time ONline
(2) I spend half of my time ONline
(3) I spend 75% of my time ONline
(4) I mainly spend my time ONline

18. Please choose a response below that best describes the total amount of time you spend
communicating to your friends and family online compared to offline.
OFFline = spending face to face time with others or having conversations on the phone.
ONline = social networking, sending messages through instant message, texting or emailing.
(0) I mainly spend my time OFFline
(1) I spend 25% of my time communicating with my friends and family ONline
(2) I spend half of my time communicating with my friends and family ONline
(3) I spend 75% of my time communicating with my friends and family ONline
(4) I mainly spend my time communicating with my friends and family ONline

19. How often have you met someone in person (face to face) who you first met online (for example
a social networking site like Facebook or online chat room)?
(0) Never
(1) 1 time
(2) 2 or 3 times
(3) 4 or 5 times
(4) 6 to 10 times
(5) 11 to 20 times
(6) More than 20 times

19a. What is typically your main interest for meeting up with a person you met online?
(0) Hang out/friendship
(1) Romantic interests
(2) Sexual interests
(3) Other (explain)_________________

20. How often have you had sexual advances from people on-line (explicit sexual chatting in chat
rooms or online social networking sites)?
(0) Never
(1) 1 time
(2) 2 or 3 times
(3) 4 or 5 times
(4) 6 to 10 times
(5) 11 to 20 times
(6) More than 20 times

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

68
Appendix C
FACEBOOK CODEBOOK FINAL

• Go through individual participant one post at a time coding for:
(1) INTERACTIVITY; (2) VALENCE
• A description and examples will be provided for all content types [below].
• All posts must fall into exactly one INTERACTIVITY category and exactly one
VALENCE category.

(B) INTERACTIVITY

INTERACTIVITY CODING STEPS:

Posts’ interactivity type will be coded hierarchically as follows:

(B1) Offline Interactive (B2) Online Interactive (B3) Non-Interactive.

STEP 1: Coders will first detect if there is ANY indication of (B1) Offline
Interactivity in the post.
STEP 2: If no (B1) Offline Interactivity is present they will look for (B2) Online
Interactivity.
STEP 3: If no (B2) Online Interactivity is present the post will be coded (B3)
Non-Interactive

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

69
(B1) Offline Interactive: Posts with: (A) the goal of setting up/facilitating offline
interactions/activities, meeting someone, attending a social event OR (B) referring to
past/present participation in offline connection/interaction with other people in any way. The
participant indicates that s/he will, desires to, or have seen/spoken/communicated with
person/people mentioned in post. Content may include either the Facebook friend the poster is
contacting OR another individual/group. Using labels that imply interaction (e.g., “roomie”,
“gym buddy”, “floormate”), would qualify as Offline Interactive. [NOTE: Discussion of offline
activities that do not involve individuals other than the participant or only involve seeing famous
individuals would NOT fall into this category. Although attending a class lecture or talking about
a professor would NOT fall into this category, the description of a direct interaction with a
professor or peer would.]

EXAMPLES (future):
• “Our first [EVENT] practice is tomorrow at 3:00 and we'll meet in the front of the
[LOCATION***]. It's mandatory if you're participating! See you all tomorrow!”
• “who is going to coachella weekend 2? deciding whether to buy this ticket or not...”
• "come to [LOCATION] i got a study..."
• "CAN YOU PLEASE HURRY UP? I'M HUNGRY."
• “hey guys, so are we meeting tomorrow during class time to work on our contract”
• “anyone driving down to san diego friday morning that could possibly give me a lift?
amtrak prices have become just stupidly inflated :/”
• "I SIGNED UP FOR [COLLEGE MASCOT PARTY EVENT] 2013! NOW I CAN
PARTY WITH A PURPOSE!!!”
• "Happy Birthday 9292D8AA!!!! I hope it was awesome! We have to hangout soon!"
• “Guys I just cut my hand with a razor. Does anyone have a band aid??”
• ““So the event is going to take place in [LOCATION] restaurant ya?”

EXAMPLES (present/past):
• “My first sorority meal! Thanks BC6D25A9!”
• “[COLLEGE] bound with the besties <3”
• "Partying with you last night pretty much made my life.”
• "Thanks for teaching me how to iron. "
• “You're the best floormate/gym buddy a girl could ask for!!”
• “I left a check for you at the [LOCATION] PM Desk! come in today and pick it up!”
• “Hey [ORGANIZATION] friends! I am looking for a sub on [DATE] from 5:30pm-
10:00pm”
• “I miss you. It was so sad saying goodbye yesterday :(“
• “Ain't no one ever believe me when I tell them I'm not drunk at parties :(“
• “I want to come with you next time!”

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

70
(B2) Online Interactive: Posts with the goal of interacting with others online that do not
include references to past, present, or future offline connections (i.e. interactive posts that do not
meet criteria for Offline Interactive). A post from the participant  Facebook friend / group
(e.g., posting on another participant’s wall) will always fall into this category in the absence of
offline interactive content. This includes uninterpretable text posted from the participant to friend
/group. A status update referencing or tagging someone else that does not contain offline
interactive content will fall into this category. [NOTE: In the absence of information indicating a
direct interaction, the phrase, “I miss you” will be coded as online interactive. In the absence of
information suggestive of a direct interaction, selling/buying something will be coded as online
interactive].

EXAMPLES:
• “Happy BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!”
• “You are pretty <3”
• “Here's the assignment that we need to have done.”
• “Anyone selling an AT&T iPhone?”
• “How did you get the job? I've always wanted to be a part of that."
• “My juniors~ where are you all going to school? Where did you get accepted? Please
oh please, tell me because I am curious!”
• "Wait. You know 34366705?"
• “Good luck with midterms! You can do it!!!”
• “did we have to do anything for [ACADEMIC]?”
• “I miss you.”

(B3) Non-Interactive: References to subjects/activities/thoughts that do not involve interaction
with others in any way. Examples may be watching TV, eating, exercising, etc. The goal of the
post could also be to be share factual information about culture, politics, weather, opinions etc.
[NOTE: Posts from participant  friends will never fall into this category. Non-interactive posts
will always be status updates or commenting on self-post that do not contain information
suggestive of interactions with others. In the absence of direct interaction, seeing a famous
person will be coded as non-interactive.]

EXAMPLES:
• “Late night pancakes.. Always a good decision :)”
• “Watching the SAG awards red carpet”
• "all i want right now is cold stone"
• “Alright Microsoft. I took your little "Bing it on" challenge and no, I don't want to
switch. I'm impressed though; Bing definitely sucks less than it used to.”
• “So, I've been thinking about [FAMOUS] lately. I don't really care that he was using
drugs. He still won the medals in my book, even if he is an insufferable prick.”
• “Huh. It appears [LOCATION***] is a beach today.”
• "Best skyline ever"
• “a recent poll of professional philosophers showed that more than 58% of philosophers
beloved that zombies could exist on some level. in contrast, fewer than 15% of the same
respondents were prepared to believe in God. makes you think!”
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

71
(C) VALENCE

CODING STEPS:

STEP 1: Coders will determine if there is any (C1) Negative or (C2) Positive content (i.e.,
valence) in a post. Carefully consider emoticons and punctuation when
interpreting valence. [NOTE: jokes should be read as though they are not funny to
determine if positive or negative content].
STEP 2: Coders will determine the relative strength of (C1) Negativity and (C2)
Positivity. Posts will be coded within the hierarchy of the stronger valence.
STEP 3: If relative strength of (C1) Negativity and (C2) Positivity is equal, posts will be
coded within the (C1) Negativity hierarchy.
STEP 4: If, and only if, there is NO (C1) Negative or (C2) Positive content, coders code
post as (C3) Neutral.
STEP 5: If, and only if, there is EITHER (C1) Negative or (C2) Positive valence but there
is not enough information to code as either negative or positive, text will be coded
as (C4) Ambiguous.
STEP 6: When the text is completely uninterpretable (i.e., another language or gibberish)
code it as (C5) Uninterpretable. When there is not text, code the valence as (C6)
N/A.

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

72
(C1) NEGATIVE VALENCE CODING STEPS:
Posts’ negative valence type will be coded hierarchically as follows:

(C1a) Negative Aggressive (C1b) Negative Depressive
(C1c) Negative Uninterpretable

STEP 1: Coders will first detect if there is ANY indication of (C1a) Negative
Aggressive.
STEP 2: If no (C1a) Negative Aggressive is present they will look for
(C1b) Negative Depressive.
STEP 3: If no C1a) Negative Aggressive or (C1b) Negative Depressive is present
the post will be coded (C1c) Negative General

(C1a) Negative Aggressive: Negative and oppositional, antagonistic, violent, offensive,
threatening, angry, or purposefully exclusive content. Aggression/hostility can be directed
towards the recipient of the post, other people, society, or a specific object or event (e.g., a class,
project). Disgust directed toward a specific person would be coded in this category. [NOTE:
Posts will fall into this category even if they can be perceived as joking or banter.]

EXAMPLES:
• "ya'll are big assholes...."
• "You suck so much 572EE777."
• "this is creepy as fuck"
• “You dicks”
• "I HATE YOUR TENNIS PLAYING WAYS I WILL WRECK YOU AND YOUR
RACKET"
• “im sorry i'm having way too much fun watching you sob your eyes out
HAHAHHAHAH”
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

73
• “this is the gurl 2022342F F4A0B14B knows who you are just cause you a freak on
instagram and fb. F4A0B14B agrees, you a creep. NOW GET OUT OF MY LIFE SLUT
#alcoholic”
• “Check out this fucker shit talking [GREEK***]. Thank god we didn't even invite him
to [EVENT]. Fuck this kid.”
• “Mastering [ACADEMIC] can go die.”
• “Whos down to ditch this stupid final”
• “Tell your dad to sue”
• “I wasn’t! I swear!”
• “ >:( “
• "[FIRST NAME], how could you!"

(C1b) Negative Depressive: Negative content that is depressive, sad, down, or self-deprecating.
Complaining about or sharing negative occurrences, thoughts, actions, information would fall
into this category. Descriptions of physical discomfort or regret are negative depressive.
Depressive negativity directed towards others/society/objects will fall into this category only if it
is not aggressive. Aggression/hostility will fall into this category only if the statements are
directed towards the participant and only the participant (e.g., “I hate myself.”). Mention of death
will be categorized as negative depressive. Disgust (with the exception of disgust directed toward
a specific person) would be coded in this category. [NOTE: Mentioning even very small negative
personal occurrences fall into this category].

EXAMPLES:
• “Fire alarm at midnight fml...”
• “I am having a small problem”
• “I'm going to flunk my midterms, get kicked out of 70B137DD and have to live with my
parents for the rest of my life. Welcome to my future.”
• “I didn't notice I had tree sap on my foot until after I put my sock on. It doesn't want to
come off now.”
• “A negative credit card balance. My favorite. Though, I think I'm credit carding all
wrong.”
• “675460B4, it appears a new computer virus has come out today and I have managed
to acquire it already”
• “the ultimate evil is that time is perpetual perishing, and being actual involves
elimination.”
• “Inherent flaws in the Amazon student offer: People like me exist that have a million
active .edu email addresses.”
• “A dying walrus and a duck”
• “I miss you and am so lonely”
• “owwwww my head”
• “I’m sorry I made a mistake”
• “ :( “
• “ewww this is super gross”

ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

74
(C1c) Negative General. Posts have a negative valence but do not contain enough language to
be categorized into depressive or hostile aggressive categories.

• "#suckstosuck"
• “woooorst”
• “BOOOOO”
• “merp”
• “ehhhh”
• “stooooop”
• “bleh”

(C2) POSITIVE VALENCE CODING STEPS:
Posts’ positive valence type will be coded hierarchically as follows:

(C2a) Positive Supportive (C2b) Positive Self (C2c) Positive General

STEP 1: Coders will first detect if there is ANY indication of (C2a) Positive
Supportive
STEP 2: If no (C2a) Positive Supportive is present they will look for (C2b)
Positive Self
STEP 1: If no (C2a) Positive Supportive or (C2b) Positive Self is present the post
will be coded (C3) Positive General

(C2a) Positive Supportive: Posts with (A) positive valence or (B) express caring and concern
others (not just the participant). The recipient of the support can be a friend, group, or the general
Facebook audience. However they must be someone the participant knows or aims to know
personally or over Facebook (e.g., not a celebrity). The positive statement can be directed
towards a person or group. Praise, compliments, and encouragement would fall into this
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

75
category. The poster may express wishes that the targeted person/group succeeds or indicate that
s/he likes/appreciates/loves/admires the person/group, an aspect of the person/group, or
something the person/group has done. Posts will fall into this category regardless of whether or
not they are flirtatious or sexual in nature. Posts will also fall into this category if they express
general concern or reassurance directly towards the targeted person/group. Agreement will fall
into this category if presented with positive affect. [NOTE: “I miss you” will fall into this
category in the absence of indicators of negative emotion. If someone is tagged in a post, assume
the participant knows the person].

EXAMPLES:
• "i think ur pretty <3"
• "Omg are you ok?"
• “Congrats to my babies (residents) F81706D1 16B2F6C9, E5C7DB30, and
8833ADC9--they made the 70B137DD hip hop dance group [GROUP ***]!”
•"Oh, my love. <3"
• “Break a leg tonight 1FCAAE89! I know you'll be awesome.”
• "Is it hot in here or is it just you? <3 ;D”
• "YAY EEDCEF51!”
• “I AM SO EXCITED FOR THURSDAY NIGHT! Love, Your Big!”
• “Dear FA2BA5F5, I am sorry I facebook-stalked your profile pictures and spammed
you with likes.
• “I miss you!!!”
• “sure sounds good”
• “YES PLEASE [NAME]”
• “My juniors~ where are you all going to school? Where did you get accepted? Please
oh please, tell me because I am curious!”
• “all we do is win win win no matter what, ready to [COLLEGE CHEER AGG] at
sectionals!”
• “Share this number! The opposition will be calling as well. Let's send a strong message
to today's youth that it does get better! Spread the news!”

(C2b) Positive Self: Posts with a positive valence concerning characteristics, accomplishments,
experiences, or possessions of the posting participant. Post may aim to present the poster in a
positive light. Posts may be characterized as boastful or bragging (e.g., “just landed an
internship, feeling on top of the world right now :)”). Posts are also categorized as positive self if
they indicate positive emotion directed towards a situation or object and directly mention the self
such as “I”, “me”, or “my” (e.g., “I <3 my new macbook air sooooo much!”) or an experience
unique to the participant. [NOTE: coding will take into account the type of post in determining
positive valence. “Yay. Yummy breakfast food :)” will be positive self as a status update but
positive general as a comment on a friend’s picture.]

EXAMPLES:
• “just landed an internship, feeling on top of the world right now :)”
• “B+ on my [ACADEMIC] paper after not having been to a single class before the due
date... WHADDUP MODAFOCKAS!!!”
• “Clearly, I'm BEE12383's favorite. She loves me beary much. <3”
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

76
• “NO MORE 8 AM'S!!!! SWEET BABY JESUS LIFE IS GOOD!”
• “I love the rain”
• “Dude..... I'm so awesome.”
• “LOVE ME”
• “Late night pancakes.. Always a good decision :)” [status]
• “Yay. Yummy breakfast food :)” [status]
• “campus is beautiful” [status]
• “[LOCATION ***] bound! [status]

(C2c) Positive General: (A) Posts indicating positive emotion directed towards a situation or
object (e.g., “campus is beautiful in the rain”) in the absence of directly mentioning the self or
others. (B) Posts with a positive valence but not containing enough language to be categorized
into positive self or positive supportive category. [NOTE: in the absence of other information,
laughter (i.e., lol, hahaha, hehehe) will be categorized as positive general].

EXAMPLES:
• "Best skyline ever"
• “:D”
• “this is dope”
• "Yaaaaay clubbed thumbs!"
• “lul lul”
• “Mo' money mo' money”
• “pancakes are good”
• “lucky charms: best pregame food ever.”
• “YAY! [LINK]”
• "HAHAHAHAOMGYES"
• "beautiful! :)"
• “Late night pancakes.. Always a good decision :)” [comment on friend picture]
• “Yay. Yummy breakfast food :)” [comment on friend picture]
• “campus is beautiful” [comment on friend picture]
• “[LOCATION ***] bound! [post to friend]

(C3) Neutral: This code is assigned when posts contain no negative or positive valence or when
posts that do not contain enough language to be categorized into positive or negative categories.
In the absence of positive or negative content, agreement, disagreement, goals, expectations,
preferences, or prediction, will be coded as neutral. Likewise, conversational phrases including
apologies and reassurances will be coded as neutral in the absence of positive or negative
content.

EXAMPLES:
• “It's what it's all about”
• “#whitepeopletakingpicturesofFood - [FOODLOCATION]'s "special"”
• “Winter, they say. University, they say”
•” hey guys, so are we meeting tomorrow during class time to work on our contract?”
• "Wait. You know 34366705?"
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

77
• “Watching the SAG awards red carpet”
• "all i want right now is cold stone"
• "Ok ima shower quick..."
• “uh, yeah.”
• “Old, but basically describes me perfectly.”
• “Yes, I’ll do that”
• “It’s cool. I’ll be on campus.”
• “no”
• “I’m sorry”.
• "I hope it is ^"
• "All day err day"

(C4) Ambiguous: This category should ONLY be used for text that is clearly intended to express
either positive or negative content but it is not possible to determine valence. One indication of
an ambiguous post may be an exclamation point, high levels of punctuation, or “surprise”
emoticons (e.g., :o or o.O ) in the absence of clear positive or negative indicators.

EXAMPLES:
• "ATE! WHAT?!”
• “what did I just read???”
• “wow, really?”
• “Spotted: on the wall of toilet in [LOCATION] o.O”
• "how?!"
• “OH!!”
• "I got this from a textbook though!" on her own status.
• "me and 0B782249 too!!!!!!"

(C4) Uninterpretable: This category should ONLY be used for text that is not interpretable in
any way. Uninterpretable language includes non-English characters and gibberish.

EXAMPLES:
• å€§ä¸‰å–œ
• "æ–°å¹´å¿«æ¨‚ï¼ ç„¶å¾Œå¿«poå¹´å€œé£¯åœ–çµ¦æˆ‘çœ‹QQå¥½é€“å–”å–”å–”å–
”(è‡ªè¨Žè‹¦å ƒ" on FCBAC307's timeline.
• “dcineacljfvbisurb lsbvliubadvbdsckahfv.”
• plurbplurbplurb
• “hehhhhhhh”

(C5) N/A: Posts containing no text.

EXAMPLES:
• NULL [link]
• NULL
ONLINE SOCIAL COMPETENCE

78

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING DATA

*** indicates coders have manually replaced a word that was deidentifying and did not know
what the word meant. Use the other information in the post to determine coding.

Words contained within [SQUARE BRACKETS] indicate deidentified language.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Electronic interaction through Social Networking Sites (SNS) is central to the social landscape of today’s adolescents and young adults. Social science research methodology, however, has yet to catch up with more rapid advances in communication technology. In the current study, we examined associations between college students’ offline social functioning (i.e., social skills and social anxiety) and language obtained from their Facebook profiles via a customized Facebook application. Data were collected from 92 (female=54, male=38) first-year college students at the University of Southern California. A novel observational coding system was created for the current study to capture and systematically examine the nature of language used in participants’ Facebook posts. Results highlight reflections of individuals’ social skills and social anxiety in patterns of online language. Stronger social skills were related to the adoption of “Facebook norms” cited in previous literature. Specifically, social skills related to more frequent use of language referencing existing offline relationships, increased initiations of interactions specific to an online context, and higher levels of positivity across types of posts. Endorsement of greater social anxiety was associated with higher levels of content promoting interactions isolated to an online context as well as increased use of language praising and supporting other users. Study methodology highlights the feasibility of capitalizing on novel technology to obtain direct observations of electronic communication. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

Family environment as a moderator of the association between theory of mind and social functioning in people with schizophrenia

PDF

Adolescent conduct problems and substance use: an examination of the risk pathway across the transition to high school

PDF

Anthropomorphic sociality theory: how connections to nonhumans connect us to humans

PDF

The social groups approach to quitting smoking: An examination of smoking cessation online and offline through the influence of social norms, social identification, social capital and social support

PDF

Examining the associations of respiratory problems with psychological functioning and the moderating role of engagement in pleasurable activities during late adolescence

PDF

The relationship between dating status and academic and social functioning among Latinx and Asian-American middle adolescents

PDF

The relationship between social anxiety and verbal creativity in the context of induced mindfulness

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Using observed peer discussions to understand adolescent depressive symptoms and interpersonal interactions

PDF

Biological and behavioral correlates of emotional flexibility and associations with exposure to family aggression

PDF

The influences of anxiety, coping, and social support on physical functioning among heart failure patients

PDF

The spread of moral content in online social networks

PDF

A longitudinal study of sexual minority stress and behavioral health in sexual minority adolescents

PDF

A network analysis of online and offline social influence processes in relation to adolescent smoking and alcohol use

PDF

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

Utilizing context and structure of reward functions to improve online learning in wireless networks

PDF

Microbe to microbe: monthly microbial community dynamics and interactions at the San Pedro Ocean Time-series

PDF

Couples’ neuroendocrine activity in response to family conflict discussions: the role of self-reported anger and previous marital aggression

PDF

Understanding alliance building and communication across multiple technology platforms among California's immigrant-serving NGOs

Asset Metadata

Creator Ross, Alexandra Cram (author)

Core Title Offline social functioning and online communication: how social competence translates to an online context

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 08/04/2018

Defense Date 05/20/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,online behaviors,social anxiety,social networking sites,social skills,Young adults

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Schwartz, David (committee chair), John, Richard (committee member), Margolin, Gayla (committee member), Mennen, Ferol (committee member), Negriff, Sonya (committee member)

Creator Email acram@usc.edu,alexandra.cram.ross@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-299060

Unique identifier UC11280267

Identifier etd-RossAlexan-4748.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-299060 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RossAlexan-4748.pdf

Dmrecord 299060

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ross, Alexandra Cram

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA