You are on page 1of 350

College of Humanities and Social Sciences

The University of Edinburgh

Master of Science Thesis

What types of learning may occur through


casual use of a Social Network Site:

the case of Facebook

Angelos Konstantinidis

Msc in E-learning

University of Edinburgh, November 2010


Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................i

List of tables ............................................................................................................iv

List of figures ............................................................................................................v

Abstract ................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2

2. Literature review .................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Dominance and dynamic of technology-mediated social networks ................. 4

2.2 Background on SNSs..................................................................................... 6

2.3 Learning through SNS use............................................................................. 9

Sociopolitical engagement and socialization .................................................. 10

Identity performance ...................................................................................... 11

Development of technological skills................................................................ 12

2.4 Learning in online environments................................................................... 13

3. Conceptual Framework...................................................................................... 15

4. Methodology ...................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Instrument.................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Study group ................................................................................................. 19

4.3 Participant characteristics and data collection .............................................. 20

5. Data analysis and findings ................................................................................. 27

5.1 Facebook usage .......................................................................................... 28

Differences in Facebook usage related to gender .......................................... 28

Differences in Facebook usage related to age ............................................... 29

Differences in Facebook usage related to educational level ........................... 31

Differences in Facebook usage related to interests ........................................ 32

i
5.2 Facebook activities....................................................................................... 33

Differences in Facebook activities related to gender ...................................... 34

Differences in Facebook activities related to age ........................................... 35

Differences in Facebook activities related to educational level ....................... 37

Differences in Facebook activities related to interests .................................... 38

5.3 Learning through Facebook use................................................................... 47

5.3.1 Active social mediation of individual learning on Facebook ................... 48

5.3.2 Social mediation as participatory knowledge construction on Facebook 58

5.3.3 Social mediation by cultural scaffolding on Facebook............................ 61

5.3.4 Learning to be a social learner on Facebook......................................... 66

5.3.5 Learning of social content on Facebook ................................................ 70

6. Discussion and Conclusions .............................................................................. 72

References ............................................................................................................ 77

Appendix A ...........................................................................................................-1

Survey .............................................................................................................. -1

Survey (translated from Greek) .......................................................................-14

Appendix B ...........................................................................................................-1

5.1 Facebook usage ......................................................................................... -1

Differences in Facebook usage related to gender .........................................-1

Differences in Facebook usage related to age .............................................. -3

Differences in Facebook usage related to interests .......................................-7

5.2 Facebook activities.................................................................................... -13

Differences in Facebook activities related to gender ...................................-13

Differences in Facebook activities related to age ........................................-16

Differences in Facebook activities related to educational level .................... -19

Differences in Facebook activities related to interests .................................-21

5.3 Learning through Facebook use................................................................ -83

ii
5.3.1 Active social mediation of individual learning on Facebook ................ -83

5.3.2 Social mediation as participatory knowledge construction on Facebook


................................................................................................................ ..-157

5.3.3 Social mediation by cultural scaffolding on Facebook....................... -190

5.3.4 Learning to be a social learner on Facebook.................................... -219

5.3.5 Learning of social content on Facebook ........................................... -230

iii
List of tables

Table 1: Participants demographic profiles.........................................................................24

Table 2: Participants interests............................................................................................25

Table 3: Participants Facebook usage and activities. .........................................................26

Table 4: Participants responses to questions about active social mediation of individual


learning on Facebook.........................................................................................................49

Table 5: Participants responses to questions about social mediation as participatory


knowledge construction on Facebook. ................................................................................58

Table 6: Participants responses to questions about social mediation by cultural scaffolding


on Facebook. .....................................................................................................................62

Table 7: Participants responses to questions about learning to be a social learner on


Facebook. ..........................................................................................................................67

Table 8: Participants responses to questions about learning of social content on Facebook.


..........................................................................................................................................71

iv
List of figures

Figure 1: Participant characteristics categorized by age group and gender .........................22

Figure 2: Educational level of the respondents in the survey...............................................23

Figure 3: Frequency of Facebook usage among genders....................................................28

Figure 4: Time spent on Facebook among genders. ...........................................................29

Figure 5: Frequency of Facebook usage by age group categories. .....................................30

Figure 6: Time spent on Facebook by age group categories. ..............................................31

Figure 7: Frequency (a) and duration (b) of Facebook usage by educational level group
categories. .........................................................................................................................32

Figure 8: Time spent on Facebook by users with interest in: (a)


drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, (b) cosmetics, and (c) working problems compared with
the rest of the users............................................................................................................33

Figure 9: Differences between genders as regards Facebook activities: (a) listen to/find
music, (b) post video links, (c) look at others photos, (d) upload/tag photos, (e) create
groups about specific topics, (f) look for new friends, send friend requests, add friend
requests. ............................................................................................................................35

Figure 10: Differences between age groups as regards Facebook activities: (a) create events
and send invitations, (b) watch video links, (c) look at others photos, (d) browse friends
profiles/walls/pages. ...........................................................................................................37

Figure 11: Differences between educational level groups as regards watching video links on
Facebook. ..........................................................................................................................38

Figure 12: Reading comments/posts by users with interest in: (a) speaking pieces, (b)
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, (c) blogging, (d) online computer gaming, (d) bicycling
compared with the rest of the users. ...................................................................................39

Figure 13: Searching about events by users with interest in: (a) writing lyrics/poems, (b)
blogging compared with the rest of the users. .....................................................................40

Figure 14: Activities associated with developing new friendships on Facebook by users with
interest in speaking pieces compared with the rest of the users. .........................................40

Figure 15: Listening/finding music by users with interest in: (a) music, (b) photography, (c)
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, (d) handcraft, (e) fitness activities compared with the
rest of the users. ................................................................................................................42

Figure 16: Status updating by users with interest in writing compared with the rest of the
users..................................................................................................................................42

v
Figure 17: Posting video links by users with interest in: (a) music, (b)
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, (c) handcraft, (d) fitness activities compared with the
rest of the users. ................................................................................................................43

Figure 18: Uploading/tagging photos by users with interest in: (a) photography, (b) handcraft,
(c) online computer gaming compared with the rest of the users. ........................................44

Figure 19: Sending personal messages by users with interest in: (a) board games, (b)
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting compared with the rest of the users. ..........................45

Figure 20: Creating events by users with interest in: (a) blogging, (b) forum/group
participation, (c) bicycling compared with the rest of the users. ...........................................46

Figure 21: Creating groups (a) and visiting groups (b) from users with interest in forum/group
participation compared with the rest of the users. ...............................................................46

Figure 22: Watching videos by users with interest in: (a) music, (b) fitness activities
compared with the rest of the users. ...................................................................................47

Figure 23: Age group differences as regards perceptions about: (a) writing skills
development, and (b) foreign language knowledge acquisition through Facebook use. .......50

Figure 24: Educational level differences as regards perceptions about: (a) foreign language
knowledge acquisition and (b) writing skills development. ...................................................51

Figure 25: Differences on perception about information seeking by asking other people on
Facebook from users with interest in: (a) writing lyrics/poems, (b) movie making compared
with the rest of the users. ...................................................................................................52

Figure 26: Differences on perception about thoughts expression and getting feedback which
facilitate elaboration on, and development of, ideas from users with interest in: (a) writing
lyrics/poems, (b) writing, (c) forum/group participation compared with the rest of the users. 53

Figure 27: Differences on perception about getting guidance for issues of interest by asking
other people on Facebook from users with interest in natural remedies/nutrition/diets
compared with the rest of the users. ...................................................................................54

Figure 28: Differences on perception about getting tips and hints for issues of interest by
asking other people on Facebook from users with interest in: (a) board games (b) writing,
and (c) going to movies compared with the rest of the users. ..............................................55

Figure 29: Differences on perception about writing skills development from users with
interest in: (a) fashion, and (b) cosmetics............................................................................56

Figure 30: Differences on perception about foreign language knowledge acquisition from
users with interest in fashion compared with the rest of the users .......................................57

Figure 31: Differences on perception about using Facebook groups for updates on issues of
interest from users with interest in: (a) movie making, and (b) studying compared with the
rest of the users. ................................................................................................................57

Figure 32: Differences on perception about actively participating in Facebook groups related
to their interests from users with interest in: (a) blogging, (b) writing, (c) forum/group
participation, and (d) childcare compared with the rest of the users.....................................59

vi
Figure 33: Differences on perception about participating in wall discussions where people
exchange information and opinions for issues of interest from users with interest in: (a)
blogging, (b) writing, (c) forum/group participation, (d) childcare, and (e) writing lyrics/poems
compared with the rest of the users. ...................................................................................61

Figure 34: Gender differences on perception regarding Facebook as a software tool which
facilitate experience gain in computer related tasks. ...........................................................63

Figure 35: Differences on perception about Facebook as a software tool which facilitate
experience gain in computer related tasks from users with interest in: (a) going to movies,
and (b) cosmetics compared with the rest of the users........................................................64

Figure 36: Differences on perception about personal wall as a way to present ideas through
representative means from users with interest in: (a) writing lyrics/poems, (b) handcraft, and
(c) cosmetics compared with the rest of the users...............................................................65

Figure 37: Differences on perception about personal wall as a facilitator to directly present
ideas from users with interest in writing lyrics/poems compared with the rest of the users. ..66

Figure 38: Gender differences on perception regarding Facebook as a software tool which
facilitate experience gain in computer related tasks. ...........................................................68

Figure 39: Differences on perception about learning when and how to pose questions from
users with interest in online computer gaming compared with the rest of the users. ............69

Figure 40: Differences on perception about learning to accept different thoughts and
perspectives from users with interest in movie making compared with the rest of the users.70

Figure 41: Differences on perception about learning to get along with other people from
users with interest in movie making compared with the rest of the users. ............................71

vii
Abstract

Over the past decade, the World Wide Web has undergone a subtle but profound
shift to Web 2.0 to become more of a social web. Social network sites (SNSs) form
an integral part of everyday life for a plethora of people and represent a typical
paradigm of this web evolution. Yet little is known about how casual use of SNSs is
related to learning, while most studies on SNSs revolve around adolescents and
emerging adults. This study aims at casting light on the types of learning through
casual use of SNSs by adults who seek learning activities. For this purpose a
quantitative survey has been administered to the most active members of a Greek
Facebook group, whose main goal is to share announcements among members
regarding learning events. The results showed that most adult Greek Facebook users
integrate Facebook in their daily practice, with women and younger adults spending
slightly more time on the site. Participants reported that several distinctive
occurrences of learning emerge through casual Facebook use, while their interests
were found to be connected to a small degree to their perceptions about learning.
Nevertheless, it seems that Facebook is not perceived as a holistically effective
medium for learning by most of its users.

1
1. Introduction
Rapid development of information and communication technologies has brought
changes in various technological applications, which, in turn, have affected many
aspects of everyday life. The latest evolution of the Web, often dubbed Web 2.0,
enables individuals to take an interactive part in a website. Web 2.0 technologies
allow individuals to upload any type of content and to communicate with other
people. What is more, they allow flexibility in communication style, while users are
able to interact with one another across time and space barriers. The term Web 2.0 is
used in this paper simply as a device to refer to a cluster of new applications and
related online cultures (Beer and Burrows 2007) and includes social network sites
(SNSs), folksonomies (also known as collaborative tagging), photo and video sharing
sites, blogs, wikis, and mashups (web application hybrids).

The growth and public popularity of Web 2.0 applications have created a new world
of collaboration and communication. The implications of this have been significant
for the way that people form, and participate in, social networks. The nature of social
networks has changed and the Web has become a principal venue for social
interaction. This has resulted in the genesis of new, technology-mediated types of
social networks.

SNSs are perhaps the most socially significant Web 2.0 technology. During the past
seven years, SNSs have mushroomed alongside Web 2.0 technologies. Although all
Web 2.0 applications afford participation and interaction, in SNSs social interaction
and connection is the objective. SNSs bolster the social character of online
environments by supporting offline interaction patterns adapted to the online
environment. Hence, SNSs allow people to project their identity, articulate their
social networks, and maintain connections with others. Moreover, they afford
innovative and multiple ways of interaction such as sharing digital content and
conducting synchronous and asynchronous conversations. To sum up, SNSs provide
new venues for people to express themselves and to interact with one another. In this
paper the term social networking sites is eschewed, though it appears in public
discourse regularly and is often used interchangeably with the term social network

2
sites, because networking implies the active seeking and forging of new social
connections (Boyd and Ellison 2007). Surely, networking is possible on these sites,
as in real life, yet it is not the scope of this study to delve into that aspect of
technology-mediated networks.

Currently, SNSs such as Facebook, Bebo, and MySpace, are being adopted rapidly
by millions of users. The dramatic growth of SNSs that has been observed over
recent years is indicative of their entry into mainstream culture and their integration
into peoples daily lives. While numerous people use SNSs, it is uncertain whether
their potential has been realized. Scholars from diverse fields have examined SNSs in
order to understand the practices, implications, and culture of these sites, as well as
users engagement in them (e.g., Hargittai 2007, Manago et al. 2008, Papacharissi
2009, Smith and Kidder 2010, Stutzman 2006). Nevertheless, research questions
around SNS use continuously emerge. Not surprisingly perhaps, studies on SNSs
tend to revolve around teenagers or college students, leaving adult users aside. Also,
most studies on SNSs are on U.S. and U.K. populations; as far I am aware there are
no studies concerning Greek SNS users. What is more, empirical studies of how SNS
use relates to learning remain a sparse field of research. Given the popularity of
SNSs among adults there is surely a need for additional studies around this area. The
present empirical study is meant to help fill that gap.

The goal of this study is to investigate the link between learning and casual use of
SNSs by adults. In order to encompass how casual use of SNSs may facilitate
learning, we need to understand more about social networkers attitudes and
perceptions towards using these sites. The following questions guided this
investigation:
How do adults use SNSs?
What are their perceptions about learning through casual use of SNSs?
What types of learning may occur through the medium of a SNS, if any?
Is there a link between their interests and learning through casual use of
SNSs?
In order to address these questions, research was conducted within the most active
members of a Facebook group with peripheral-to-learning purposes using an online

3
survey. This group was considered appropriate for this study because its members
hold an individual interest in learning. Individual interest has been described as a
relatively stable motivational orientation or personal disposition that develops over
time in relation to a particular topic or domain (Hidi and Harachiewicz 2000, p.152).
Accordingly, the focus was on Facebook as it constitutes a rich site to study the
affordances of social networks due to its heavy usage patterns and technological
capacities. This study begins by investigating the relevant theoretical and empirical
literature related to technology-mediated social networks, SNSs and Facebook,
learning on SNSs and, more broadly, learning online. The study then postulates the
conceptual framework in which the research is grounded. A brief overview of the
methodology is provided before reporting the findings of the research. Finally, the
last section summarizes the research and discusses issues concerning the study.

2. Literature review
2.1 Dominance and dynamic of technology-
mediated social networks
Before entering the realm of online social networks it is helpful to define what a
social network is. The notion entails a description of the underlying patterns of social
structures (Rau et al. 2008). A social network is an organized set of people (or other
social entities) connected by a set of socially meaningful relationships who interact
with each other (Garton et al. 1997). From ancient times, social networks occurred
naturally within family, community, and tribe. Todays social networks are more
geographically remote, disparate, and tentative, partly because of technology. People
join school, hobby clubs and professional networks that are heterogeneous and
distributed; they also join in networks where interaction occurs via technology alone
and participants may be mere acquaintances, or even strangers.

The rise of technology-mediated social networks is heavily related to qualitative


changes in web technologies, often described as Web 2.0. Web 2.0 technologies offer
people innovative and varied ways to communicate, whether through their PC or

4
their mobile phone. What is more, these technologies are open to anyone (Beer and
Burrows 2007), affording the participation of a larger and more diverse set of people;
they thus make information sharing, communication, interaction, and collaboration
between users much easier than in the past (Curran-Smith et al. 2005, Kerawalla et
al. 2009, Trentin 2009, Wang and Fesenmaier 2004), while eliminating geographical
and time boundaries (Boyd 2008, DeSanctis et al. 2003). In fact, compared with
earlier uses of the World Wide Web, the active participation of individuals in Web
2.0 leads to a more social online world. Maness (2006) emphasizes that Web 2.0 is
not a web of textual publication, but a web of multi-sensory communication. It is a
matrix of dialogues, not a collection of monologues.

Web 2.0 applications are increasingly embedded in peoples daily routines (Clark et
al. 2009, Lenhart et al. 2010, Ofcom 2008), and users are increasingly engaged in
creating web content as well as consuming it (National School Boards Association
2007, Lange 2007, Lenhart and Madden 2005), regardless of their race, ethnicities,
beliefs and customs (Boyd and Ellison 2007, Fu et al. 2008). This phenomenon has
been described as a participatory culture, where members believe their
contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at
the least they care what other people think about what they have created) (Jenkins et
al. 2006, p.3).

The need for online participation, or else the new rhetoric of democratisation (Beer
and Burrows 2007) of the internet, has pushed many sites to integrate Web 2.0
idiosyncrasies. This trend is currently flourishing online, where successful sites tend
to develop and nurture their web communities, while others without participatory
characteristics seem to be dated. OReilly (2007) goes further to report that only
those internet companies that offered participatory, collaborative, and interactive
services managed to survive the end of dot-com boom in 2001. Finally, greater
access to broadband connectivity (Ofcom 2008) and increase of internet users in the
last decade (Internet World Stats 2010) both confirm the growth in use of Web 2.0
technologies, as more people want to have easy and fast internet access, and underlie
the Web 2.0 phenomenon, as there is a huge community connected through the
internet.

5
Not surprisingly, this level of user engagement has been accompanied by both
enthusiasm and skepticism from scholars as regards learning in digital environments.
Green and Hannon (2007, p.35) challenge the myth that no learning happens
when using digital technologies and highlight that children do learn a whole range
of skills, such as communication, general knowledge, multitasking, technical
confidence, creativity, collaboration, peer-to-peer learning, and so forth. By contrast,
Buckingham suggests that few youngsters are developing new skill sets in their
interactions with Web 2.0 technologies, since their casual use of the internet is
characterized by relatively mundane forms of communication and information
retrieval (Buckingham 2007, p.14). Yet, as Beer and Burrows (2007) suggest the
idea of Web 2.0 as a process of cultural digitization is moving faster than our
ability to analyse it. In the same vein, Clark et al. signal the need to understand more
about the acquisition and the transferability of Web 2.0 skills, since, as they have
shown, very few learners are using these [technologies] with a high level of
sophistication (2009, p.68). To conclude, as Beer and Burrows (2007) note, the
potential offered by Web 2.0 technologies for reworking hierarchies, changing
social divisions, creating possibilities and opportunities, informing us and
reconfiguring our relations with objects, spaces and each other needs to be further
explored.

2.2 Background on SNSs


Perhaps the most promising typical paradigm of online networks is SNSs. It is not
incidental that many widely used Web 2.0 applications (e.g. YouTube, Blogspot,
Delicious, Flickr, etc.) integrate SNS features and structure. Not all SNSs began as
such; instead they were initiated as online applications and progressively developed
to SNSs (e.g., QQ, LunarStorm, Cyworld, Skyrock, Classmates.com) (Boyd and
Ellison 2007). Applications like online multiplayer games, bulletin boards, news
groups, mailing lists, and dating services were the forerunner to SNSs (Mitrano
2006), while todays SNSs began in 1997 with the launch of SixDegrees.com (Boyd
and Ellison 2007). Facebook launched in 2004 as a SNS for college students and
opened its doors to the wide public in 2005.

6
Since their introduction SNSs have attracted millions of users while their worldwide
prevalence and popularity have grown rapidly in recent years (ComScore 2007,
Nielsen//NetRatings 2006). Several surveys published by the PEW Internet &
American Life Project have shown the dominance of SNSs in online activities and
that the number of SNS users is continuously escalating (Lenhart 2009, Lenhart and
Madden 2007a, Lenhart et al. 2010). According to the most recent survey, 73% of
US adolescent and 47% of US adult internet users have a profile on a SNS (Lenhart
et al. 2010), while race and social class have merely a slight impact in terms of
access (Boyd 2008). A nationwide UK report has shown that adult social networkers
use several SNSs, chiefly Facebook, Bebo, and MySpace, and it is common to have a
profile on more than one SNS, while half of adult users access their profiles at least
every other day (Ofcom 2008). The rapid growth of online social networking
observed over recent years is indicative of its entry into mainstream culture and its
integration into the daily practices of numerous people of all ages.

There is a plethora of SNSs, most of them open to anyone and free to use, with
various technological applications (Boyd and Ellison 2007) serving a wide range of
interests and purposes (Boyd and Ellison 2007, OMurchu et al. 2004, Valkenburg et
al. 2005). Most importantly, SNSs build and verify social networks for the
individuals and communities who share interests and activities with one another, or
who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others (Kwon and Wen
2010, p.255). Although most SNSs primarily support the maintenance of pre-existing
social networks (Boyd 2008, Boyd and Ellison 2007, Ellison et al. 2007, Kim and
Yun 2007, Lenhart and Madden 2007b, Pempek et al. 2009, Subrahmanyam et al.
2008), as people use SNSs to discuss daily episodes and to organise physical
meetings (Beer and Burrows 2007, Kim and Yun 2007, Pempek et al. 2009), the
connection of individuals based on shared interests, activities, or ideas is also
supported (Beer and Burrows 2007, Boyd and Ellison 2007), either by SNSs which
target specific demographics, contexts, or interests (e.g., Dogster, MyChurch,
Linkedln.com) (Boyd and Ellison 2007, Ellison et al. 2007), or by user-formed
theme-specific internal groups (Beer and Burrows 2007), or even by niche user-
created online networks (as in the case of Ning) (Boyd and Ellison 2007).

7
SNSs allow individuals to create their profile, articulate their online network, and
establish or maintain connections with others. Like other Web 2.0 applications, SNSs
provide an easy, accessible way to interact with other people and gather feedback.
Nevertheless, unlike other Web 2.0 applications, SNSs allow people to explicitly
articulate their social networks and define their community egocentrically (Rau et al.
2008), therefore reflecting more authentically real-life relationships of people than
traditional online communities (Kiehne 2004 cited in Rau et al. 2008). Boyd and
Ellison define SNSs as

web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct


a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,
(2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a
connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of
connections and those made by others within the system.
The nature and nomenclature of these connections may
vary from site to site. (2007)

The SNS examined in this study, Facebook, lets its users present themselves through
their profile (with personal photos and information ranging from date of birth and
gender to interests, hobbies and favourite quotes), view others profiles, build a
network of connections that is displayed as a list of friends, create or join events that
usually refer to offline occurrences, post comments on pages, send personal
messages, chat with friends, and add content such as photos, video clips and music
files. Facebook members can also join or create groups so that they can share ideas,
information and resources with others who have similar interests. Facebook,
therefore, allows individuals to network for a variety of purposes including romance,
socializing, sharing information, and so forth.

The focus of this study is on Facebook as this SNS has become the most popular
online social network for adults, according to nationwide reports, in the UK (Ofcom
2008) and USA (Lenhart et al. 2010), while it is at least one of the dominant SNSs in
Greece. Numerous empirical studies focusing on Facebook in particular, though
referring to teenagers or emerging adults only, confirm that it is a commonly used
SNS and that it has become integrated into peoples daily routine (e.g., Bumgarner

8
2007, Cain et al. 2009, Cheung and Lee 2010, Debatin et al. 2009, Lampe et al. 2008,
Lewis et al. 2008, Mendez et al. 2009, Pempek et al. 2009, Raacke and Bonds-
Raacke 2008, Ross et al. 2009, Selwyn 2009, among others). Unfortunately, there are
no reliable data to date regarding how many people use SNSs, or Facebook in
particular; therefore the study here relies on marketing research and on statistics
provided from the site itself. It is estimated that Facebook has over 500 million active
users worldwide, with half of users logging in on any given day, while the average
Facebook user is connected to 80 community pages, groups and events, and creates
90 pieces of content each month (Facebook Statistics 2010). Two-thirds of
ComScores US Top 100 websites and half of ComScores Global Top 100 websites
have integrated with Facebook (Facebook Statistics 2010), making it explicit that
Facebook acts both as an important social domain and a powerful communication
tool. In Greece, Facebook has nearly 2.9 million users, which is more than 25% of
the countrys population, while online penetration is close to 60% (Facebakers
Statistics 2010). Facebook has captured the interest of Greek people from both
genders; 56% of Greek Facebook users are male and 43% are female (Facebakers
Statistics 2010). The majority of Greek Facebook users are adults; 84% of Greek
members are over 18 years old, while 55% of adult users are older than 25
(Facebakers Statistics 2010), meaning that more than half of Greek Facebook
members are mature adults. The term mature is loosely used here only in
antithesis to emerging adults, where emerging adulthood is a transitory period
between adolescence and adulthood occurring from the age of 18 to the mid
twenties (Bumgarner 2007). Finally, the Facebook platform is also translated into
Greek, which facilitates its use by Greek people. Therefore, not only is Facebook a
dominant SNS worldwide but it is also highly popular in Greece, while the majority
of Greek Facebook members are adults who participate and incorporate online social
networks into their daily lives.

2.3 Learning through SNS use


Research concerning SNSs emerges from diverse disciplines and addresses a broad
range of themes (see Boyd and Ellison 2007 for a review of prior research), yet only

9
a few empirical or theoretical studies explore the link between SNS use and learning,
while, as aforementioned, the bulk of SNS research tend to revolve around teens and
emerging adults. The handful of published studies that exist, as regards learning
through SNS use, delves into sociopolitical engagement and socialization, identity
performance, and technological skills development. Some studies explore the
acceptance or usage of Facebook in educational contexts (Lockyer and Patterson
2008, Mazman and Usluel 2010, Roblyer et al. 2010), however this is somewhat
tangential to the focus of the present study. What is missing from this research is a
study about learning through casual use of a SNS as that is perceived by social
networkers.

Sociopolitical engagement and socialization

To begin with a purely theoretical perspective, Maranto and Barton (2010) esteem
the opportunities for sociopolitical engagement that SNSs afford. There is anecdotal
evidence (Maranto and Barton 2010, Shapiro 2009) that more and more people form
and join Facebook groups for overt political and social reasons; hence, educators are
encouraged to embrace the SNS realm that promises to have impacts on the
workplace and the polis (Maranto and Barton 2010, p.44). In that sense, even
individuals who feel that they are unheard by authorities can channel their voices
through online networks (Shapiro 2009). On the other hand, Boyd (2007) suggests
that SNSs are an extra form of public space where adolescents gather and, through
peer interaction, learn social norms, status structures, and how to negotiate
relationships of all types. Along the same lines, Greenhow and Robelia (2009), on
investigating whether participation in a SNS can prepare adolescents for future
citizenship, found that adolescents who use a SNS demonstrate a partial
understanding, at least, of their forthcoming roles and responsibilities as citizens.
Finally, Pempek et al. (2009) found that more than 95% of students prize the role of
Facebook in their social lives. Similarly, Madge et al. (2009) revealed that Facebook
facilitated students settlement into university life and created a sense of community.
To conclude, it can be suggested that participation in a SNS has at least some

10
positive effect on the lifelong process of socialization and citizenship of an
individual.

Identity performance

Academic interest has also been stimulated by identity issues originating through
SNS use. Indeed, from the very beginning of online networking, individuals have to
create profiles in order to register in a SNS, and although profiles are constructed
through a series of generic forms, users can still manipulate them in order to express
themselves (Boyd 2008, Pempek et al. 2009). The choice of the profile photo and
personalized answers in questions, such as political or religious views, as well as
favorite books, music, movies, or quotations, allow individuals to make an implicit
identity statement (Zhao et al. 2008, p.1820), and, in that sense, a profile can be
seen as a form of digital body where individuals must write themselves (Boyd 2008,
p.129). To further complicate things, it is not only in profile construction that people
must learn to write themselves, but rather in all types of online social interaction.
Whereas identity performance in a physical milieu is both served and constrained by
our body (that is through our appearance, speech, and facial expressions) (Boyd
2008, Zhao et al. 2008), in the online environment we must learn how to convey
identity cues without somatic facilitators. In line with the axiom people learn from
observing other people (Merriam and Caffarella 1991 quoted in Smith 1999b) of
social learning theory, an effective way to achieve that kind of learning is through
looking at others profiles (Boyd 2008) and online behavior in general. What is more,
through our online social interactions we can assess how well we have conveyed
what we intended to, and subsequently adjust our performance (Boyd 2008). Boyd
(2008), elaborating on Goffmans theory of impression management, suggests that
since people have more control online (because the physical communication cues are
dramatically reduced), they can strategically choose what information to put forward.
In that way they (consciously or subconsciously) alter their behavior, so as to shape
the impression other people have of them (Goffman 1959 cited in Greenhow and
Robelia 2009). Along the same lines, Wang et al. claim that on SNSs photographs

11
are selectively displayed to create positive self-presentations (2010, p.227), while
Walther (1992 cited in Rau et al. 2008) suggests that people may prefer computer
mediated communication because of selective self-presentation. Accordingly,
Pempek et al. (2009) found that approximately 13% of college students Facebook
users are intrigued by the ability to control identity presentation through their profile.
Boyd (2008) goes on to explain, however, that this process is not so straightforward,
as it is easier to misinterpret (again, because of the reduced physical communication
cues) what someone is trying to express. On the same account, Hewitt and Forte
(2006), based on their findings, hypothesize that users experience a loss of control
over performance because they address broad and diverse audiences. Yet, learning
how to manage impressions is a critical social skill (Boyd 2008, Dwyer 2007), and
SNS offer people an additional environment to practice and reevaluate their outward
communication cues (Boyd 2008).

Development of technological skills

Not surprisingly, development of technological skills through SNS use was also
explored by researchers. Besides, we have previously discussed some perspectives
concerning technological skills development and use of Web 2.0 technologies.
Participation in a SNS requires, and thus develops, a range of skills such as posting
messages, audio and video file sharing, uploading and downloading files, and so on
(Greenhow and Robelia 2009, National School Boards Association 2007).
Buckingham (2007) suggests that these skills are mundane, yet, even if this is true,
it does not diminish their value since it underlines that they constitute basic skills in
the digital world. Moreover, since there are individuals that are more technological
competent than others (Greenhow and Robelia 2009, National School Boards
Association 2007), we can safely hypothesize that there are also less technological
competent individuals who struggle to master even these basic skills. Murphy and
Cifuentes (2001) for example, in an early study about students experiences on using
communication tools (a discussion board, a chat room, and a shared workspace) in an
online course, observed that telecommunication novices not only spent more time

12
than their expert peers to learn the technical process, but they also needed close
guidance and a prescribed structure. Hence, SNSs afford practice of basic, and thus
vital, technological skills in a social context.

2.4 Learning in online environments


Online environments such as blogs, wikis, and forums, have recently been
emphasised as means to enhance the learning process in educational contexts
(George and Labas 2008, Kerawalla et al. 2009, McLoughlin and Lee 2007, Trentin
2009). Web 2.0 tools support and encourage desirable qualities of learning such as
active participation, collaboration, interaction, and peer feedback (Murphy and
Cifuentes 2001). Additionally, individuals learn how to develop several strategies in
order to overcome technological and interpersonal relationship problems (Murphy
and Cifuentes 2001). What is more, learning with Web 2.0 tools stimulates adults
interest, as it supports self-directed approach to learning and it facilitates choice and
use of a wide range of resources (Mason 2006). Finally, due to the global character
of the internet, people from different cultural backgrounds join groups and online
communities expanding their size and diversity. Hence, online environments bear a
more diverse set of information resources and provide increased opportunities for
information sharing and idea genesis. Similarly, McLoughlin and Lee assert that
Web 2.0 is about linking minds, communities and ideas, while promoting
personalisation, collaboration and creativity leading to joint knowledge creation
(2007, p.668).

A blog is a simple webpage in a journal format and can be run either by individuals
or groups. Learners can use blogs as a convenient tool for making notes, storing and
retrieving materials (Kerawalla et al. 2009). Blogging can help learners shape and
make their knowledge explicit (Hemmi et al. 2009, Pachler and Daly 2009).
However, blogs can also provide a public space where learners can express their
opinions and seek others feedback (Nardi et al. 2004). What is more, they have the
potential to engage authors and audience in social communication through writing
and reading the blog (Nardi et al. 2004).

13
A Wiki is a website that allows dynamic creation and editing of its webpages. Wikis
establish a public place and afford collaborative writing (Meishar-Tal and Gorsky
2010, Trentin 2009). In that way, learners have the opportunity to develop their
academic writing skills (Wheeler and Wheeler 2009) as they participate in
collaboratively building resources (Parker and Chao 2007), and engage in individual
(Lund and Smordal 2006), as well as collaborative, knowledge construction (Forte
and Bruckman 2007). Learners can interact with each other to clarify and share ideas
as they engage in individual and collaborative reflection (Parker and Chao 2007).

An online forum is basically a meeting place for asynchronous discussion, where


learners have the opportunity to reflect on the discussion and respond to feedback
from peers (Bye et al. 2009). This practice involves the risk of being challenged, as
well as allowing one to challenge others stance, which promotes cognitive
engagement and critical thinking (Thomas 2002). Additionally, forums enable
learners to choose between topics and engage with those they feel better informed or
motivated (Coffin et al. 2009).

Learning in online environments becomes even more effective when it takes place in
the context of a community of practice. Wenger (2006) tersely describes
communities of practice as groups of people who share a concern or a passion for
something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. In a
community of practice members engage in joint activities and discussions, they help
each other, and they share information about a shared domain of human endeavor
(Wenger 2006). In that way they are involved in a process of collective learning
(Wenger 2006) and of learning by participating (Johnson 2001). Moreover, in a
community of practice, experts-apprentices relationships are supported and
facilitated (Johnson 2001) aiding newcomers to acquire knowledge and skills, while
moving from the periphery (low participation-novices) to the center of the
community (full participation-experts) (Lave and Wenger 1991 quoted in Smith
1999b). Web 2.0 tools can serve as online platforms for a community of practice as
they provide a public space where users can discuss issues, share their knowledge
with the group, communicate ideas, and upload interesting pieces of information,
while explicit relationship between members is also promoted.

14
3. Conceptual Framework
Essential for the study was to articulate a robust conceptual framework to compare
and contrast users perceptions of learning through casual use of Facebook. There is
a plethora of learning theories to base the framework upon, however it was crucial
that the key features of the selected theory were centering upon both the individual
and the sociocultural dimension of learning, for such a perspective posits that
learning can be seen as a cognitive process taking place in the individuals mind and,
at the same time, as a process that is socially and culturally embedded in practices
brought about by technologies.

The individual conception of learning is oriented towards the individual and


emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge and skills. In the sociocultural conception,
learning is regarded as an inherently social and participatory process situated in the
sociocultural milieu. In similar with Smiths (1999a) conception of learning, where
learning is dichotomous with the categories process and the end product of process
(outcome), this study endeavors to explore both these learning conceptions in the
pragmatic use of a SNS, Facebook.

Salomon and Perkins (1998) unfold the interplay between sociocultural and
individual learning, providing an appropriate theoretical perspective from which to
approach learning through SNS use. Hence, the conceptual framework of this study
consists of the following distinctive occurrences of learning:

Active social mediation of individual learning. When a person or a group


of people help an individual to learn (Salomon and Perkins 1998, p.3).

Social mediation as participatory knowledge construction. This should not


be seen as mere participation in a social process of knowledge construction,
for it would resemble the previous category. Rather, it recognizes individual
and the social mediation of learning as an integrated and situated system, in
which the interaction conveys the shared thoughts. Accordingly, the learning

15
products are distributed over the entire system, rather than owned by the
individual (Salomon and Perkins 1998, p.4).

Social mediation by cultural scaffolding. When individuals learning is


supported by cultural artifacts, such as books or tools. Artifacts, being
culturally and historically situated per se, convey the wisdom that directed
their design (Salomon and Perkins 1998, p.5). In that way, the learner and the
artifacts form a learning system, which reorganizes action and determines
what can be carried out (along with when, where, in what form and for what
purpose) (Cole 1995 cited in Salomon and Perkins 1998, p.5).

Learning to be a social learner. A social dimension of learning to learn. In


other words, learning to learn by participating in and capitalizing on the
social milieu, such as learning where, when, and how to ask questions
(Salomon and Perkins 1998, p.5).

Learning of social content. This includes matters such as how to get along
with other people, how to collaborate harmoniously, and so on (Salomon and
Perkins 1998, p.6).

Thereby, this conceptual framework was employed for interpreting and coding the
examples of learning that users observe on Facebook.

4. Methodology
The study aims at casting light on the types of learning through casual use of SNSs
by adults who pursue learning activities. As mentioned, Facebook is the SNS used in
this study as it surged in global popularity in recent years and because its features
encourage users to interact and participate in online social groups.

A quantitative survey method has been selected, as it is a simple and straightforward


way to study attitudes, beliefs and motives (Robson 2002, p.233), while it is a
time/cost saving method and affords access to unique populations (Wright 2005).

16
The survey instrument was administered to the most active members of a Greek
Facebook group, whose main goal is to share announcements about learning events
among its members. The study focused on this particular group for a number of
reasons. Not only has it seemed to constitute an appropriate study population as it
will be explained below, but it is also a purely Greek group, providing therefore a
good opportunity to study attitudes and perceptions of Greek Facebook users.
Additionally, it is a group to which I belong and one from which I have gained
valuable information about learning events in Greece.

4.1 Instrument
Data was collected by means of an online survey developed on the Bristol Online
Surveys service. The survey comprised four sections and is presented in Appendix A.

In the first section, demographic characteristics of participants were collected


through four questions. Additionally, participants interests were collected within this
section through four multiple-answers questions. Interests were categorized
according to a study on leisure patterns by Scott and Willits (1998), so as to aid
participants in the process of searching and selecting their interests. Efforts were
made to keep the list of possible interests concise by mixing and grouping similar
interests. Hence, for example, hunting, fishing, and spear-fishing were combined in
one item. Thereby, the total number of items was reduced to forty-two and the final
list of interests comprised four categories, that is: (a) creative/artistic interests (15
items), (b) study/work-related interests (5 items), (c) entertainment/social interests (5
items), and (d) sport/lifestyle interests (17 items).

In the second section, data referring to participants Facebook usage frequency and
time length spent on Facebook on a daily basis were collected through two rating
scale questions. Additionally, a 4-point Likert scale with seventeen questions, largely
derived from Subrahmanyam et al.s questionnaire (2008, p.427), inquired about
participants frequency of performing several Facebook activities.

17
The third section consisted of four 6-point Likert scales with twenty-seven questions
in total, aimed at gathering participants perceptions about learning through casual
Facebook use. The response scale for each item ranged from strongly disagree (1)
to strongly agree (5), with middle-point (3) of the scale anchored by neither agree
nor disagree, while, consistent with Ryan and Garland (1999) suggestion, an
additional not applicable option allowed respondents to provide an answer that is
true to their experience.

In the second and third section there was an optional open-ended question so
participants could provide examples and other qualitative feedback.

This self-reported questionnaire was grounded on the above presented conceptual


framework. The formulation of the questionnaire was facilitated by several
unstructured short informal interviews which were conducted through the
Facebook chat tool. This approach was chosen for its relevance to the research
context. As Robson proposes (2002, p.282), seizing opportunities for short
informal chats in the research setting is likely to provide authentic perceptions
about anything concerning the research. Along the same lines, synchronicity
embedded in the medium accelerated interaction, stimulated memories, and helped
participants comment more freely about their experiences.

The instruments validity was tested by three educators who are experienced
Facebook users and who engage with learning in both their professional and personal
life. By virtue of their profession they could reasonably be considered experts on
what learning is possible in a given context, despite that the study is on a novel
research field. Additionally, their experience on Facebook helped refine their
understanding of the learning potentials afforded by the specific SNS. Therefore,
their opinion was requested to check whether the questionnaire was conceptually on
the right lines and whether the statements were understandable. Based on the
received feedback, ambiguous items were revised and the instrument was modified
prior to administration.

18
4.2 Study group
The study focused on a Greek Facebook group, whose members post announcements
on the group wall about impending learning events. When this group launched in
January 2010 it attracted great numbers of Greek Facebook users in a short span of
time; the group listed more than 36,750 members nine months after launching. The
group has no particular thematic focus, rather it embraces all disciplines and interests
from astronomy to mathematics to history to poetry to dance. Interaction on the
group wall among members is low as it is used mostly for posting and reading
announcements about learning events. It is indicative that while 764 announcements
were posted from group launch till 5th of September 2010, only 164 comments were
made and 352 I like it during the same period. All members are invited and
welcome to post information on the wall about upcoming seminars, conferences,
lecture talks, and so on, so as the rest of the group members can be informed about
impending events.

However, the vast majority (more than 98%) of members do not contribute to the
wall with any kind of information (i.e., post, comment, or even I like it on others
posts). This is consistent with a study on online bulletin boards which revealed that
many visitors spend considerable time reading others posts without posting any
reply (Suziki and Calzo 2004). Undeniably, Facebook group walls share typical
characteristics with bulletin boards; both allow members to read others posts
without requiring any response. A similar study on Facebook revealed that many
users spend much of their time reading and viewing information without interacting
in any way, while over half of users only rarely interact with groups (Pempek et al.
2009). This tendency of no contribution by the majority of group members can be
explained by means of a study about reasons of not contributing in online
communities, which revealed that the most popular reason among users for not
posting is that they feel that their information needs can be satisfied without posting
(Preece et al. 2004). Hence, it can be hypothesized that most members of this group
do not contribute to the group wall because they can satisfy their informational needs
without explicitly posting.

19
This group was chosen as the study population mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the
members of the group explicitly look for learning activities. Hence, it can be safely
hypothesized that they have a predisposition to attend to events which are directly
related to their specific domains of interest, or to put it in other words, they hold an
individual interest in relation to a particular topic or domain (Ainley et al. 2002).
Individual interest is personal, robust, and often wide-ranging (Trend 2005, p.276),
therefore it is expected that members of the group will seek any kind of learning
opportunity on Facebook which is related to their interests. It is also anticipated that
they will engage in activities related to their interests while using Facebook, for
example they will follow relevant links, read discussions, chat with people who share
the same interests, and so on. Additionally, it is hoped that they will be competent to
identify any beneficial effect on their learning due to casual use of Facebook.
Secondly, this group does not constitute an online community of practice neither
purports to establish one. If this group had formed a community of practice then,
inevitably, its members would have been involved in a learning process by engaging
with the communitys ethos and by participating in day-to-day interactions. It is
beyond the scope of the present study to explore what types of learning may occur in
a community of practice on Facebook, or whether Facebook affords or empowers the
development of a community of practice; rather this study aims to explore what types
of learning may occur through casual use of Facebook. Surely, members of this
group may participate in other Facebook groups whose members form a community
of practice, still participation in communities of practice can be reasonably
considered as part of their casual use of Facebook.

4.3 Participant characteristics and data


collection
Research was conducted with the most active members of the announcements about
learning events Facebook group using an online survey, which was carried out over
an eight-week period in July-September 2010. In this paper, active members are
defined as those who have posted information about a learning event, or have given

20
feedback on posts from the group launch. Most active members were purposively
selected as the focus group, based on the premise that they are pursuing learning
activities more energetically than the rest of the group members.

Sampling strategy

The sampling strategy involved a twofold approach. A personal invitation message


with a short description of the study, information about confidentiality, and a link to
the survey was sent to the 554 most active members twice during the research period.
Unfortunately, Facebook does not offer a mass mailing feature, therefore individual
messages had to be sent to each member. A further obstacle turned up due to the
spam preventing policy of Facebook, which allows 9 messages per 5 hours, more or
less. Hence, it took about two weeks to send the first batch of messages, and another
two weeks to send the iterative messages. Some people who were invited and took
the survey forwarded the surveys link to their friends voluntarily. Additionally, the
surveys link with information about the research study was also publicised on the
group wall twice and members were openly invited to participate. These mixed
recruitment methods elicited a total of 250 responses, yielding a response rate of
45.1% of the total members invited. However, the number of respondents was very
low (less than 2%) compared with the number of group members. Therefore it is
impossible to know how well they represent the group as a whole (Wright 2005).
Finally, at the end of the survey questionnaire the respondents were informed that
they could receive by email a copy of the research result if they were interested.

Of the 250 participants, forty-nine failed to answer at least one survey question, thus
the actual number of responses included in a particular analysis is indicated as AN
(e.g., AN=217).

Demographic characteristics

In contrast to statistics about Greek Facebook users, from the total 554 most active
members, 387 (69.8%) were female and only 155 (28%) were male. The gender of
the members was inferred from photos and names whenever absent; still, in 12
members (2.2%) the gender could not be identified. Additionally, most
announcements (303, 39.7%) were posted from female members; male posted 193

21
announcements (25.3%), while the three group administrators (two male and a
female) posted 232 announcements (30.4%). Females made approximately double
(110) comments than males (54). Similarly, the overwhelming majority of the
respondents to the survey were female (201 respondents, 80.4%). These observations
are consistent with Lewis et al.s (2008) findings that women are significantly more
socially active on Facebook and have a greater diversity of network resources at their
disposal than men. Therefore, any results must be seen in the light of these biases
towards female participants.

In terms of age, respondents ranged from under 20 (9 participants, 3.6%) to over 50


category (1 participant, 0.4%), with approximately 70% of the participants being
older than 26 years old. Hence, as it was expected, mature adults dominate this
group.

Figure 1: Participant characteristics categorized by age group and gender

Respondents were highly educated; over 90% had a graduate degree or higher. This
is consistent with Lenhart et al.s (2010) findings that adults with at least some
college experience are more likely to use SNSs than other users. Moreover, it
supports the initial hypothesis that respondents were interested in learning, while
amplifies the assumption that they may be competent to reflect on their experiences

22
on Facebook, unearth their perceptions as regards learning through Facebook use,
and respond as accurately as possible to the survey questionnaire.

Figure 2: Educational level of the respondents in the survey

Nearly one-third of the participants were working on education/librarian sector,


approximately 10% on government/social/non-profit organizations, 9% on scientific
sector, and 8% on healthcare/medical sector. The rest of the participants (99
participants, 39.6%) were distributed across thirty profession sectors. It should be
noted here that participants probably confused from the drop down list (it was
comprised of 28 profession sectors) which employed for profession selection, as one
in five participants selected other in order to write their profession. Because of the
high heterogeneity in the profession of participants in the study, it was not feasible to
examine profession differences in terms of Facebook usage or perceptions about
learning through Facebook use.

Table 1 summarizes the demographic profile of the participants including their age,
gender, educational level, and profession sector.

23
Table 1: Participants demographic profiles.

Interests of participants

Participants reported varied and balanced in quantity interests across the four interest
categories. Nearly nine out of ten participants selected at least one interest from
every category. Each of the forty-two interest items was selected at least two times,
while most popular were reading (N=202), travelling (N=196), going to movies
(N=182), music (N=178), and studying (N=177). Interest items selected by less than
5% of the participants were grouped into the other interests category.

Despite that each of the creative/artistic and sport/lifestyle interest categories had at
least ten more items than the rest two categories, most participants selected two to

24
three items from each of the four categories. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive
statistics of participants interests.

Table 2: Participants interests.

Patterns of Facebook usage

The majority of the participants reported that they spent 30 min to 2 hours a day on
Facebook (148 participants, 59.9%), and almost equal number of participants

25
reported checking their account 1-5 times a day (136 participants, 55.1%). The most
common activities among participants were read comments/posts, listen to/find
music, and post links to YouTube.com. Table 3 summarizes the descriptive statistics
of participants frequency of Facebook usage, time spent on Facebook, and Facebook
activities.

Table 3: Participants Facebook usage and activities.

26
5. Data analysis and findings
This study follows both exploratory and confirmatory data analysis philosophies for
data analysis, in order to maximize insight into the data set (Bell 1999, Robson 2002,
p.399). SPSS (2008) was employed for data analysis and graphical display. Non-
parametric methods were utilized, since only nominal (e.g., male/female) and ordinal
data (e.g., never/rarely/sometimes/often) were used. However, in analysing
participants perceptions about learning on Facebook parametric methods were also
employed, for they are more efficient and more sophisticated than non-parametric
methods (Carifio and Perla 2008, Pell 2005, Robson 2002, p.440). Although data
were once more ordinal in character, scholars have long argued for treating Likert
scale data as interval in nature (Carifio and Perla 2008, Pell 2005); many studies use
parametric methods to analyze attitude data (Gb et al. 2007), while a variety of
studies have revealed that the Likert response format produces empirically interval
data (Carifio and Perla 2008, p.1150).

The technique implemented in this section is carried out in two phases. In the first
phase, a graph is presented in order to immediately compare data across independent
variables (gender, educational level, age, interests) and examine possible relations.
When the independent variable had only two values (as in the case of gender),
percentage bar charts were preferred, firstly because it would be difficult to compare
unbalanced samples otherwise (e.g., bar charts), and secondly because percentage bar
charts facilitate data comparison over different samples. Additionally, error bars
(though most samples were not normally distributed) with 95% confidence interval
are depicted on bar charts to indicate the uncertainty in a reported measurement.

In the second phase, several tests statistically validate, or invalidate, visual


observations. Significance testing at the 95% confidence level was carried out on the
quantitative results reported here. This means that where findings are reported as
statistically significant, there is only 5% or less probability that the difference
between the samples is by chance, and is different from the main population.
Additional details about the statistical tests are provided in Appendix B.

27
5.1 Facebook usage
This section investigates whether gender, age, educational level, and interests affect
frequency and duration of Facebook usage.

Differences in Facebook usage related to gender

Bars in Figure 3 have similar shape, suggesting that there is no important difference
in frequency of Facebook usage among genders. Error bars are quite wide, especially
for male group, due to the small sample size.

Figure 3: Frequency of Facebook usage among genders.

Indeed, Mann-Whitney U and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests confirm that the


relationship between gender and frequency of Facebook usage is not statistically
significant. In both tests, the probability of getting data as those observed in this
study is rather high (23,9% and 85,5% accordingly).

28
Figure 4: Time spent on Facebook among genders.

By contrast, as can be seen in Figure 4, female users tend to spend more time on
Facebook than male. This finding was statistically significant according to Mann-
Whitney U test.

Differences in Facebook usage related to age

The next pie chart series present frequency and duration of Facebook usage by age
group categories. Gradation of colour from the fair to the dark represents increase in
frequency and duration of Facebook usage. In order to facilitate chart interpretation,
adjacent categories with few responses were grouped together. Robson (2002, p.403)
implies that sacrificing detailed information is often acceptable in return of
complexity decrease of the results. Therefore, age, frequency and duration of
Facebook usage categories were reduced to five, four, and four respectively.
From the pie charts below it can be inferred that younger users compared to older
check their Facebook accounts more frequently.

29
Figure 5: Frequency of Facebook usage by age group categories.

This finding was supported by Sommersd, Kendalls tau-b, Kendalls tau-c,


Gamma, and JonckheereTerpstra test results as statistically significant. Similarly,
there seems to be a relation between time spent on Facebook and age, as can be seen
in Figure 6. More specifically, users aged between 21 and 25 spent more time on
Facebook everyday than users from other age group categories. JonckheereTerpstra,
KruskalWallis, Median, Sommersd, Kendalls tau-b, Kendalls tau-c, and Gamma
test results mark this finding statistically significant.

30
Figure 6: Time spent on Facebook by age group categories.

Since both age and gender are related to Facebook usage, partial correlation tests
were carried out to evaluate this association, with the effect of gender and age in
turn, removed. From the partial correlation tests it was confirmed that frequency and
duration of Facebook usage and age are reversely associated, when controlling
gender effect. Similarly, duration of Facebook usage is associated with gender
differences, when controlling age effect. However, the strength of the relationship
was low (close to 0.150) in all cases.

Differences in Facebook usage related to educational level

As shown from Figure 7, there is no relation between users educational level and
Facebook usage. This result is logical, considering that Facebook does not target
users by their educational level. Hence, there is no need to further investigate this
association.

31
Figure 7: Frequency (a) and duration (b) of Facebook usage by educational level group categories.

Differences in Facebook usage related to interests

Finally, it was investigated whether each of the interests is associated with Facebook
usage. As can be seen from the percentage bar charts below, interest in
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting or cosmetics is positively related with time
spent on Facebook, whereas interest in working problems is negatively related.

32
Figure 8: Time spent on Facebook by users with interest in: (a) drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, (b)
cosmetics, and (c) working problems compared with the rest of the users.

All other interests do not seem to relate to Facebook usage and, thus, were excluded
from further analysis. Mann-Whitney test confirmed that the above relations are
statistically significant, yet Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Goodman and Kruskal tau
tests found no statistically significant relationship between those interests and time
spent in Facebook.

5.2 Facebook activities


In this section it is explored whether gender, age, educational level, and interests
affect users activities on Facebook.

33
Differences in Facebook activities related to gender

As shown in Figure 10, female users more often listen to/find music, post video
links, upload/tag and look at others photos than male users on Facebook. On the
other hand, as shown in Figure 11, male users operate activities related with
developing friendships on Facebook and create groups about specific topics more
often than female users.

34
Figure 9: Differences between genders as regards Facebook activities: (a) listen to/find music, (b) post video
links, (c) look at others photos, (d) upload/tag photos, (e) create groups about specific topics, (f) look for new
friends, send friend requests, add friend requests.

The rest of Facebook activities did not seem to relate to gender differences and, thus,
were excluded from further analysis. Mann-Whitney test confirmed that the above
relations are statistically significant, except the relation between gender and
upload/tag photos activity. Additionally, a partial correlation test with the effect of
age controlled, indicated that the remaining five relations are statistically significant.
However, age may not be the only intervening variable that affects frequency of
operating specific Facebook activities. Another possible intervening variable is
probably time spent on Facebook, since users respond to the question regarding
frequency of operating Facebook activities based on their overall experience on
Facebook. Thus, an additional partial correlation analysis was carried out with the
effect of time spent on Facebook controlled, which indicated that the relation
between gender and listen to/find music (p=0.000, Correlation=-0.280), create
groups about specific topics (p=0.000, Correlation=0.230), look for new friends,
send friend requests, add friend requests (p=0.10, Correlation=0.169) activities are
the only statistically significant.

Differences in Facebook activities related to age

As can be observed from the pie chart series below, older users create events more
often than younger ones; under 25 years old users tend to look at others photos and

35
watch video links more often than the rest of the users; users over 40 years old look
at others' photos less often compared with all age group categories; under 25 years
old users as well as users between 31-40 years old, tend to browse their friends
profiles/walls/pages more often than the rest of the users.

36
Figure 10: Differences between age groups as regards Facebook activities: (a) create events and send
invitations, (b) watch video links, (c) look at others photos, (d) browse friends profiles/walls/pages.

The rest of Facebook activities examined through the survey did not seem to relate to
age differences and, thus, were excluded from further analysis. Sommersd,
Kendalls tau-b, Kendalls tau-c, and Gamma test results mark the above
relationships statistically significant. However, a partial correlation analysis with the
effect of time spend on Facebook controlled revealed that only create events and
send invitations (p=0.001, Correlation=0.207) and look at others photos (p=0.028,
Correlation=-0.143) activities are statistically correlated with age.

Differences in Facebook activities related to educational level

It can be viewed in the pie chart below that post-graduate users tend to watch less
often video links. Hence, educational level seems to be correlated with frequency and
time spent in watching video links on Facebook.

37
Figure 11: Differences between educational level groups as regards watching video links on Facebook.

This finding is statistically significant according to Sommersd, Kendalls tau-b,


Kendalls tau-c, and Gamma tests. However, partial correlation analyses with the
effect of age or time spent on Facebook controlled, revealed that watching video
links activity is not statistically correlated with educational level.

Differences in Facebook activities related to interests

In this paragraph it is investigated whether there were differences in populations, as


regards their Facebook activities, between those who have selected each one of the
interests and those who have not selected them. Several interests were found to be
related to specific Facebook activities. Below, relations that were found to be both
positively related (according to the percentage bar chart) and statistically significant
(according to a nominal by nominal test), are presented. Additionally, first-order,
second-order, and third-order partial correlation analyses with the effect of gender,
age, and time spent on Facebook by turns or grouped controlled, were utilised in all
relations found.

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in speaking pieces,
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, blogging, online computer gaming, or
bicycling read comments/posts more frequently than the rest of the users.

38
Figure 12: Reading comments/posts by users with interest in: (a) speaking pieces, (b)
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, (c) blogging, (d) online computer gaming, (d) bicycling compared with the
rest of the users.

Partial correlation analyses with the effect of time spent on Facebook or gender or
age controlled revealed that only the relation between reading comments/posts and

39
interest in drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting is statistically significant (p=0.020,
Correlation=0.147).

It can be seen in the bar charts below that users who are interested in writing
lyrics/poems (p=0.037, Phis Value=0.185) or blogging (p=0.041, Phis
Value=0.183) search for events more frequently than the rest of the users.

Figure 13: Searching about events by users with interest in: (a) writing lyrics/poems, (b) blogging compared with
the rest of the users.

In the bar chart below, it can be seen that users who are interested in speaking pieces
(p=0.003, Phis Value=0.238) operate activities related to developing friendships on
Facebook more frequently than the rest of the users.

Figure 14: Activities associated with developing new friendships on Facebook by users with interest in speaking
pieces compared with the rest of the users.

40
As shown in Figure 15, users who are interested in music (p=0.000, Phis
Value=0.340), photography (p=0.031, Phis Value=0.190),
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting (p=0.004, Phis Value=0.231), handcraft
(p=0.011, Phis Value=0.213), or fitness activities (p=0.008, Phis Value=0.218)
listen to/find music on Facebook more frequently than the rest of the users.

41
Figure 15: Listening/finding music by users with interest in: (a) music, (b) photography, (c)
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, (d) handcraft, (e) fitness activities compared with the rest of the users.

However, a partial correlation analysis with the effect of gender controlled revealed
that the relation between listening to/finding music on Facebook and fitness activities
is not statistically significant.

As can be seen from the chart below, users who are interested in writing (p=0.018,
Phis Value=0.202) update their status more frequently than the rest of the users.

Figure 16: Status updating by users with interest in writing compared with the rest of the users.

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in music (p=0.001, Phis
Value=0.254), drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting (p=0.038, Phis Value=0.184),
handcraft (p=0.046, Phis Value=0.180), or fitness activities (p=0.034, Uncertainty
Coefficients Value=0.014) post video links more frequently than the rest of the
users.

42
Figure 17: Posting video links by users with interest in: (a) music, (b) drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting, (c)
handcraft, (d) fitness activities compared with the rest of the users.

However, a partial correlation analysis with the effect of time spent on Facebook
controlled revealed that the relation between posting video links and
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting is not statistically significant.

As it is shown in the charts below, users who are interested in photography (p=0.002,
Phis Value=0.242), handcraft (p=0.012, Phis Value=0.210), or online gaming
(p=0.023, Phis Value=0.196) upload/tag photos more frequently than the rest of the
users.

43
Figure 18: Uploading/tagging photos by users with interest in: (a) photography, (b) handcraft, (c) online computer
gaming compared with the rest of the users.

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in board games (p=0.009,
Phis Value=0.217) or drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting (p=0.022, Phis
Value=0.198) send personal messages more frequently than the rest of the users.

44
Figure 19: Sending personal messages by users with interest in: (a) board games, (b)
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting compared with the rest of the users.

However, a partial correlation analysis with the effect of time spent on Facebook
controlled revealed that the relation between sending personal messages and
drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting is not statistically significant.

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in blogging (p=0.005, Phis
Value=0.231), forum/group participation (p=0.001, Phis Value=0.261), or bicycling
(p=0.022, Phis Value=0.199) create events more frequently than the rest of the
users.

45
Figure 20: Creating events by users with interest in: (a) blogging, (b) forum/group participation, (c) bicycling
compared with the rest of the users.

Users who are interested in forum/group participation create groups about specific
topics (p=0.022, Phis Value=0.199) and visit/join groups to talk about specific
topics (p=0.019, Phis Value=0.203) more frequently than the rest of the users, as
shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Creating groups (a) and visiting groups (b) from users with interest in forum/group participation
compared with the rest of the users.

As shown in Figure below, users who are interested in music (p=0.035, Phis
Value=0.186) or fitness activities (p=0.008, Phis Value=0.218) watch video links
more frequently than the rest of the users.

46
Figure 22: Watching videos by users with interest in: (a) music, (b) fitness activities compared with the rest of the
users.

5.3 Learning through Facebook use


This section presents summarized results of the perceptions of adult users with
respect to learning through Facebook and explores whether gender, age, educational
level, and interests influence these perceptions.

Only relationships that were found to be statistically significant are presented below,
while relationships between users interests and their perceptions are presented only
when were found to be both positively related (according to the percentage bar chart)
and statistically significant (according to independent samples t-test or analysis of
variance test). Additionally, backward regression analyses using gender, age,
educational level, time spent on Facebook, and the interest in question as
independent variables were utilised in all relationships found in order to measure the
degree of association between the interest in question and perception of learning.

Participants had the chance to opt for not applicable regarding their perceptions
and pragmatic experiences to each questionnaire item of this section, yet less than
4% of the total responses, almost equally distributed over the twenty-seven
questions, belonged to this category. Thus, since not applicable responses were not
meaningful for the study, they were grouped with missing responses, and, as before,
the actual number of responses in a particular analysis is indicated as AN.

47
This section is comprised of five subsections, each devoted to a distinctive
occurrence of learning according to the conceptual framework.

5.3.1 Active social mediation of individual learning on Facebook

Users perceptions with respect to active social mediation of individual learning on


Facebook were gathered through nine questions (see table 4 for descriptive
statistics). Most participants (80.9%) did not perceive that they had gained
knowledge concerning native language use through Facebook usage. Similarly, over
60% did not identify favorable outcomes to their writing skills, while only 26%
concurred that they get guidance about issues of interest by asking other people on
Facebook. Participants perceptions were almost level concerning knowledge
benefits on foreign language use due to Facebook usage, where one-third of
participants held that they had gained knowledge. However, approximately half of
the participants agreed that they: (a) seek information about issues of interest by
asking other people on Facebook, (b) gain knowledge about issues of interest by
asking other people on Facebook, (c) express their thoughts/ideas on their wall and
get feedback which help them to develop their thoughts/ideas further, and (d) get
ideas/tips about issues of interest by asking other people on Facebook. Finally,
70.8% of users agreed that they use Facebook groups to keep updated about issues of
interest.

48
Table 4: Participants responses to questions about active social mediation of individual learning on Facebook.

Differences in perceptions related to demographic characteristics

As can be observed from the pie chart series below, users under 25 years old
perceive more than other age group categories that they have developed their writing
skills and gained knowledge concerning foreign language use through Facebook.

49
Figure 23: Age group differences as regards perceptions about: (a) writing skills development, and (b) foreign
language knowledge acquisition through Facebook use.

An analysis of variance test was conducted using age as the independent variable.
With respect to the foreign language knowledge acquisition perception, the Levenes
test did not find any evidence for a departure from the homogeneity assumption
(p=0.590), while the analysis confirmed that there is statistical significant effect of
age (F=4.453, p=0.002) on users perception. With respect to the writing skills
development perception, the variances of the groups were significantly different
(p=0.008), while Welch and Brown-Forsythe tests confirmed that there is statistical
significant effect of age on users perception (p=0.008). For both findings,
Bonferroni and Tukey tests confirmed that there is statistically significant difference
in perception between the 21-25 and 26-30 age groups, as well as between 21-25 and
31-40 age groups.

As can be observed from the pie chart series below, lower educational level users
tend to perceive more that they have developed their writing skills and that they have
gained knowledge concerning foreign language use than higher educational level
users.

50
Figure 24: Educational level differences as regards perceptions about: (a) foreign language knowledge
acquisition and (b) writing skills development.

An analysis of variance test was conducted using educational level as the


independent variable. Same as before, with respect to the foreign language
knowledge acquisition perception, the variances of the groups were found not to be
significantly different (p=0.410), while the analysis confirmed that there is statistical
significant effect of educational level (F=6.457, p=0.002) on users perceptions. With
respect to the writing skills development perception, the variances of the groups were
significantly different (p=0.022), while Welch and Brown-Forsythe tests confirmed
that there is a statistically significant effect of educational level on users
perceptions. For both findings, Bonferroni and Tukey tests confirmed that there is
statistically significant difference in perception between users with postgraduate
educational level and the rest of the users.

Two multiple linear regression analyses were conducted using foreign language
knowledge acquisition perception as the dependent variable in the first analysis, and
writing skills development perception as the dependent variable in the second
analysis, while age, educational level, and time spent on Facebook were independent
variables. In both analyses the coefficient of determination was low (Ra2=0.120 and

51
Rb2=0.095 respectively). Age was not statistically associated with their perceptions,
while educational level and time spent on Facebook were jointly significant in
predicting users perceptions (Fa=10,643, pa=0.000, Fb=8.259, pb=0.000). Finally,
standardized coefficients indicated that educational level was reversely related with
users perception while time spent on Facebook had a greater effect on the result.

Differences in perceptions related to interests

As can be seen in the charts below, users who are interested in writing lyrics/poems
or movie making perceive more that they seek information about issues of interest by
asking other people on Facebook than the rest of the users.

Figure 25: Differences on perception about information seeking by asking other people on Facebook from users
with interest in: (a) writing lyrics/poems, (b) movie making compared with the rest of the users.

Backward regression analyses confirmed that interest in writing lyrics/poems or in


movie making are statistically significantly related to users perception. Additionally,
gender, age, educational level, and time spent on Facebook did not meet the removal
criterion at 0.05, while the prediction power of the model was weak in both cases
(Ra2=0.019, Rb2=0.015).

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in writing lyrics/poems,
writing, or forum/group participation perceive more that they express their thoughts

52
on their wall and get feedback which helps them elaborate their ideas and develop
them further than the rest of the users.

Figure 26: Differences on perception about thoughts expression and getting feedback which facilitate elaboration
on, and development of, ideas from users with interest in: (a) writing lyrics/poems, (b) writing, (c) forum/group
participation compared with the rest of the users.

Backward regression analyses confirmed that the aforementioned interests are


statistically significantly related to users perception. However, time spent on
Facebook had a stronger effect on their perception compared with age, gender and
writing lyrics/poems or writing. Only forum/group participation had a stronger effect
compared with the rest of the predictor variables, while educational level was
removed from all analyses as it did not meet the removal criterion at 0.05. Hence,
age gender, time spent on Facebook and writing lyrics/poems or writing were jointly
significant in predicting users perception (Ra2=0.085, Rb2=0.088). Likewise, time

53
spent on Facebook and forum/group participation were jointly significant in
predicting users perception (Rc2=0.058).

As shown in the chart below, users who are interested in natural


remedies/nutrition/diets perceive more that they get guidance about issues of interest
by asking other people on Facebook than the rest of the users.

Figure 27: Differences on perception about getting guidance for issues of interest by asking other people on
Facebook from users with interest in natural remedies/nutrition/diets compared with the rest of the users.

Backward regression analysis confirmed that interest in natural


remedies/nutrition/diets is statistically significantly related to users perception
(R2=0.026).

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in board games, writing, or
going to movies perceive more that they get guidance about issues of interest by
asking other people on Facebook than the rest of the users.

54
Figure 28: Differences on perception about getting tips and hints for issues of interest by asking other people on
Facebook from users with interest in: (a) board games (b) writing, and (c) going to movies compared with the rest
of the users.

Backward regression analyses revealed that interest in writing or in board games are
statistically significantly related to users perception; in contrast there is no
statistically significant relationship between their perception and interest in going to
movies. Moreover, gender, age, educational level did not meet the removal criterion
at 0.05. Thus, time spent on Facebook and interest in writing or in board games were
jointly significant in predicting users perception (Ra2=0.036, Rb2=0.041), while time
spent on Facebook had a stronger effect on their perception than interest in board
games.

55
As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in fashion or cosmetics
perceive more that they have developed their writing skills through Facebook use
than the rest of the users.

Figure 29: Differences on perception about writing skills development from users with interest in: (a) fashion, and
(b) cosmetics.

These relationships are probably spurious since there is no working reason that
explains their relation, even though backward regression analyses confirmed that the
aforementioned interests are statistically significantly related to users perception.

As shown in the chart below, users who are interested in fashion perceive more that
they have acquired knowledge concerning foreign language use than the rest of the
users.

56
Figure 30: Differences on perception about foreign language knowledge acquisition from users with interest in
fashion compared with the rest of the users

However, backward regression analysis revealed that only time spent on Facebook
and educational level were statistically significantly related to users perception,
while interest in fashion was not. As expected, educational level was reversely
related to their perception.

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in movie making or studying
perceive more that they use Facebook groups for updates on issues of interest than
the rest of the users.

Figure 31: Differences on perception about using Facebook groups for updates on issues of interest from users
with interest in: (a) movie making, and (b) studying compared with the rest of the users.

57
Backward regression analyses revealed no statistically significant relationship
between interest in movie making and users perception; by contrast, interest in
studying was statistically significantly related to users perception, though the
prediction power of the model was low (R2=0.020).

5.3.2 Social mediation as participatory knowledge construction


on Facebook

Users perceptions with regard to social mediation as participatory knowledge


construction on Facebook were collected through three questions (see table 5 for
descriptive statistics). More than half of the participants agreed that they chat on
Facebook with people about issues related to their interests. Over 60% of the
participants concurred that they participate in wall discussions where people
exchange information and opinions about issues related to their interests, while more
than two-thirds of the participants agreed that they actively participate in groups
thematically related to their interests.

Table 5: Participants responses to questions about social mediation as participatory knowledge construction on
Facebook.

58
Differences in perceptions related to interests

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in blogging, writing,
forum/group participation, or childcare perceive more that they actively participate in
groups which are related to their interests than the rest of the users.

Figure 32: Differences on perception about actively participating in Facebook groups related to their interests
from users with interest in: (a) blogging, (b) writing, (c) forum/group participation, and (d) childcare compared with
the rest of the users.

Backward regression analyses revealed no statistically significant relationship


between interest in childcare and users perceptions. Additionally, age and gender
did not meet the removal criterion at 0.1 in all cases. Educational level, time spent on
Facebook and interest in blogging were jointly statistically significantly related to

59
users perception (Ra2=0.032), while time spent on Facebook and interest in
forum/group participation or writing were jointly statistically significantly related to
users perception (Rb2=0.032, Rc2=0.047). Finally, the interest in question had
stronger effect on their perceptions compared with educational level and time spent
on Facebook.

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in blogging, writing,
forum/group participation, childcare, or writing lyrics/poems perceive more that they
participate in wall discussions where everyone exchange information and opinions
for issues of interest than the rest of the users.

60
Figure 33: Differences on perception about participating in wall discussions where people exchange information
and opinions for issues of interest from users with interest in: (a) blogging, (b) writing, (c) forum/group
participation, (d) childcare, and (e) writing lyrics/poems compared with the rest of the users.

Backward regression analyses revealed no statistically significant relationship


between interest in childcare or writing lyrics/poems and users perceptions.
Additionally, age and educational level did not met the removal criterion at 0.05 in
all cases, while time spent on Facebook and the interest in question were jointly
statistically significantly related to users perception (Ra2=0.071, Rb2=0.050,
Rc2=0.061). Finally, time spent on Facebook had a stronger effect on their perception
compared with interest in writing and an approximately equal effect with interest in
forum/group participation; conversely, interest in blogging had a stronger effect on
their perception compared with time spent on Facebook.

5.3.3 Social mediation by cultural scaffolding on Facebook

Users perceptions with regard to social mediation by cultural scaffolding on


Facebook were gathered through seven questions (see table 6 for descriptive
statistics). Nearly one-third of the participants signified that Facebook help them to
become more self-regulated in learning how to use ICT, to gain experience in
computer related tasks, and to find new/better ways to accomplish computer related
tasks. Over 40% of the participants credited Facebook for facilitating their
understanding of several ICT issues. More than half of the participants asserted that

61
posted videos/images on walls helped them to reflect on or gain new knowledge.
Finally, 66.1% of the participants acknowledged that their personal wall facilitates
their effort to directly present or express their ideas, while 75.9% recognise their
personal wall as a way to present their ideas or express them through representative
means.

Table 6: Participants responses to questions about social mediation by cultural scaffolding on Facebook.

Differences in perceptions related to demographic characteristics

As can be observed from the chart below, female perceive more that Facebook help
them to gain experience in computer-related tasks than male users.

62
Figure 34: Gender differences on perception regarding Facebook as a software tool which facilitate experience
gain in computer related tasks.

A regression analysis was conducted with users perception as a dependent variable


and age, gender, educational level, and time spent on Facebook as independent
variables. The analysis revealed that only time spent on Facebook was statistically
significantly related to users perception.

Differences in perceptions related to interests

The first four items of social mediation by cultural scaffolding on the Facebook
questionnaire were directly related to ICT skills. Hence, it is not expected that
meaningful associations between interests and those perceptions would be revealed,
except perhaps with computer-related interests (e.g., blogging, online gaming).
Indeed, only interest in childcare and in cosmetics were found to be statistically
significantly related to those perceptions, yet their association is most probably
spurious since another factor, such as ICT competency, is antecedent. Thus, there is
no need to further investigate those relationships.

63
As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in going to movies or
cosmetics perceive more that posted videos/images on Facebook walls facilitate
reflection or gaining knowledge than the rest of the users.

Figure 35: Differences on perception about Facebook as a software tool which facilitate experience gain in
computer related tasks from users with interest in: (a) going to movies, and (b) cosmetics compared with the rest
of the users.

Backward regression analyses confirmed that there is a statistically significant


relationship between interest in going to movies or cosmetics and users perceptions.
Additionally, gender, age, and educational level did not meet the removal criterion at
0.1 in both cases, while time spent on Facebook and the interest in question were
jointly statistically significantly related to users perception (Ra2=0.044, Rb2=0.045).
However, time spent on Facebook had a stronger effect on their perception compared
with their interest.

As shown in the charts below, users who are interested in writing lyrics/poems,
handcraft, or cosmetics perceive more that their personal wall is a way to present
their ideas through representative means than the rest of the users.

64
Figure 36: Differences on perception about personal wall as a way to present ideas through representative
means from users with interest in: (a) writing lyrics/poems, (b) handcraft, and (c) cosmetics compared with the
rest of the users.

Backward regression analyses revealed no statistically significant relationship


between interest in cosmetics and users perceptions. Additionally, gender, age, and
educational level did not meet the removal criterion at 0.05 in all cases, while time
spent on Facebook and the interest in question were jointly statistically significantly
related to users perception (Ra2=0.069, Rb2=0.078). However, time spent on
Facebook had a stronger effect on their perception compared with interest in writing
lyrics/poems or handcraft.

65
As shown in the chart below, users who are interested in writing lyrics/poems
perceive more that their personal wall facilitates their effort to directly present their
ideas than the rest of the users.

Figure 37: Differences on perception about personal wall as a facilitator to directly present ideas from users with
interest in writing lyrics/poems compared with the rest of the users.

Backward regression analysis confirmed that there is a statistically significant


relationship between interest in writing lyrics/poems and users perceptions.
Additionally, gender, age, and educational level did not meet the removal criterion at
0.05, while time spent on Facebook and the interest in question were jointly
statistically significantly related to users perception (R2=0.086). However, time
spent on Facebook had a stronger effect on their perception compared with interest in
writing lyrics/poems.

5.3.4 Learning to be a social learner on Facebook

Users perceptions with respect to learning to be a social learner on Facebook were


gathered through five questions (see table 7 for descriptive statistics). Approximately
half of the participants disputed that they have learned how to seek help or when and
how to pose questions due to Facebook use. Only 28.3% of the participants claimed
that, due to Facebook use, they have learned to accept different thoughts and
perspectives, while 38.2% state that they can more easily start a conversation with an

66
unknown/little known person. Finally, approximately 60% of the participants
affirmed that they observe other peoples behavior on Facebook and the
consequences of those behaviors.

Table 7: Participants responses to questions about learning to be a social learner on Facebook.

Differences in perceptions related to demographic characteristics

As can be observed from the chart below, male perceive more that they can more
easily start a conversation with an unknown/little known person on Facebook than
female users.

67
Figure 38: Gender differences on perception regarding Facebook as a software tool which facilitate experience
gain in computer related tasks.

A regression analysis was conducted with users perception as dependent variable


and gender, age, educational level, and time spent on Facebook as independent
variables. The analysis revealed that all independent variables were jointly
statistically significantly related to users perception (R2=0.082).

Differences in perceptions related to interests

As shown in the chart below, users who are interested in online gaming perceive
more that they have learned when and how to pose questions than the rest of the
users.

68
Figure 39: Differences on perception about learning when and how to pose questions from users with interest in
online computer gaming compared with the rest of the users.

Backward regression analysis confirmed that there is a statistically significant


relationship between interest in online computer gaming and users perception.
Additionally, gender and educational level did not met the removal criterion at 0.05,
while age, time spent on Facebook, and online computer gaming were jointly
statistically significantly related with users perception (R2=0.064). However, time
spent on Facebook had a stronger effect on their perception compared with interest in
online computer gaming.

As shown in the chart below, users who are interested in movie making perceive
more that they have learned to accept different thoughts and perspectives than the
rest of the users.

69
Figure 40: Differences on perception about learning to accept different thoughts and perspectives from users with
interest in movie making compared with the rest of the users.

Backward regression analysis confirmed that time spent on Facebook and movie
making were jointly statistically significantly related to users perception (R2=0.070).

5.3.5 Learning of social content on Facebook

Users perceptions with reference to learning of social content on Facebook were


gathered through three questions (see table 8 for descriptive statistics). Most
participants opposed the statement that they present a different personality either in
their profile or in chat discussions so as to promote themselves better, while less than
20% of the participants perceived that they have learned how to get along with other
people due to Facebook use.

70
Table 8: Participants responses to questions about learning of social content on Facebook.

Differences in perceptions related to interests

As shown in the chart below, users who are interested in movie making perceive
more that they have learned how to get along with other people than the rest of the
users.

Figure 41: Differences on perception about learning to get along with other people from users with interest in
movie making compared with the rest of the users.

Backward regression analysis confirmed that time spent on Facebook and movie
making were jointly statistically significantly related to users perception.
(R2=0.068).

71
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Facebook usage

Three out of four participants login to Facebook at least once a day and use it for at
least 30 minutes. Hence, compared with adult social networkers from USA (Lenhart
et al. 2010) and UK (Ofcom 2008), participants in this study exhibit significantly
increased SNS usage. In parallel with Lenhart et al.s findings (2010), younger adults
use Facebook more frequently than older ones, while this study revealed that they
spent more time on Facebook too. Women tend to stay on Facebook slightly more
than men, whereas taking into account the striking gender differences around activity
in the study group they are also more energetic users. Consistent with Ofcoms report
concerning mens attitudes on SNSs (2008), men reported looking for new friends
more frequently than women, which is in harmony with their feeling that they can
more easily start a conversation with an unknown/little known person on Facebook.
Additionally, it was found that men are likely to create groups more frequently than
women, whereas women tend to listen to/find music on Facebook more often.

In agreement to some extent with both Subrahmanyam et al.s (2008) and Pempek et
al.s (2009) findings regarding activities on Facebook, the most frequent activities
among participants were found to be reading comments/posts, listening to/finding
music, and posting video links, whereas creating groups and events were the most
uncommon activities. Boyd argued that adolescents use SNSs for entertainment and
social voyeurism (2008, p.127); it seems that this disposition only gradually fades
away since watching video links and looking at others photos were more common
activities among participants under 25 years old. Conversely, creating events was
more frequently operated among older participants. This might be explained by
qualitative feedback, as two participants over 41 noted that they use Facebook for
profession-related matters or for advertising their activities, hence it can be
hypothesized that creating events is an efficient way to achieve that.

72
Learning on Facebook

Current social learning theories posit that knowledge and learning are inherently
social, while cultural activities and artefacts are regarded as integral to conceptual
development (e.g., John-Steiner and Mahn 1996, Palinscar 1998, Prawat 1996).
Given the recent worldwide proliferation of SNSs, these sites presumably play a role
in peoples learning.

This study brought to light that half of adult users perceive that socially mediated
individual learning is facilitated on Facebook either by getting feedback on ideas
expressed on their wall or by gaining knowledge, getting ideas, and seeking
information by asking other users, while most of them perceive that through groups
they keep updated on issues of interest. Over half of users perceive that participatory
knowledge construction takes place on Facebook by actively participating in groups,
in wall discussions, and in chats. Social mediation by cultural scaffolding emerges on
Facebook as well; most users recognise their personal wall as both a medium and a
facilitator to express their ideas through representative means. Finally, most users
realise that they engage in a learning-to-learn process on Facebook by observing
other peoples behavior and its consequences.

Additionally, there are some promising relationships between users interests and
distinctive occurrences of learning through Facebook use. Hence, users interested in
writing lyrics/poems, writing, or forum group participation consciously express their
thoughts on their wall, while users interested in forum/group participation
acknowledge participating in groups and in wall discussions. Users interested in
going to movies appreciate that posted videos/images on walls facilitate reflection or
gaining knowledge, whereas users interested in writing lyrics/poems esteem their
personal wall as a facilitator and a way to present their ideas through representative
means.

Similarly, some users interests were linked to specific Facebook activities.


Consistent with expectations, users with an interest in forum/group participation
create and visit/join groups more often than others; users with an interest in music
more frequently perform activities which are directly related to music (listen to/find

73
music, post and watch video links) than others; and users with an interest in writing
update their status more often than the rest of the users.

Nevertheless, there is another side of the coin. Firstly, the above listed relationships
between users with specific interests and distinctive occurrences of learning were
found to be weak; that is, approximately 2-4% of the variation in the outcome was
determined by the interest in question. Secondly, several other relationships emerged
through the study, yet most of them were counterintuitive, and consequently
probably spurious.

What is more, users disputed that several distinctive occurrences of learning take
place on Facebook. Thus, most adult users do not acknowledge getting guidance by
asking other people on Facebook or developing their writing skills or gaining
knowledge concerning native language use, while over half of them do not agree that
they have gained knowledge concerning foreign language use. These findings add to
the view that using Web 2.0 tools does not help to develop abilities in terms of basic
writing skills (Wheeler and Wheeler 2009). Similarly, over half of users do not
distinguish gaining experience or finding better ways to accomplish computer-related
tasks or becoming more self-regulated in learning how to use ICT. Moreover, users
in general disagree that they are learning to be social learners on Facebook, since
most of them do not feel that they have learned when and how to pose questions or
how to seek for help or to accept different perspectives, while over half of them do
not agree that they can more easily start a conversation with an unknown/little known
person. Finally, the vast majority of users do not notice learning of social content on
Facebook, such as learning how to get along with other people or presenting a
different personality in their profile and in chat discussions in order to better promote
themselves.

Limitations

This study has limitations in its methodology and results interpretation; these
limitations indicate avenues for further research. As with any questionnaire-based
survey, one concern is that participants responses may have been subject to incorrect
estimates, biases, faulty memories, and other similar problems (Robson 2002, p.233).

74
Furthermore, the study has not examined how strong participants interests were,
which probably skewed the results and contributed to an increase in spurious
relationships. Another thorny issue is that several questions in the questionnaire were
complex or double-barrelled, which is against good practices in question wording
(Robson 2002, p.245). Nevertheless, survey questions were well-linked to the
learning framework, while it was not feasible to examine their perceptions about
learning through short questions. Those issues indicate that much could be gained by
using flexible design research strategies to study users perceptions concerning
learning on Facebook. Additionally, the sample used consisted of participants from a
single Greek Facebook group; most of them were highly educated, and the sample
was severely biased towards women. Boyd (2006) argues that the meanings of SNS
practices and features differ across sites and individuals, therefore we have to be
careful in applying these findings to explain actual use and perceptions of learning on
SNSs other than Facebook or on populations from a different educational level,
culture, or ethnicity.

Conclusions

The results of this study show that most adult Greek Facebook users integrate
Facebook in their daily practices spending at least half hour every day on site. There
is some variation in Facebook usage related to gender and age, as women and
younger adults tend to stay more time on site. Greek adults pragmatic use of the
platform resembles its use by college students in the USA (Pempek et al. 2009,
Subrahmanyam et al. 2008), while it is affected by their gender, age, and interests to
a small degree.

Several distinctive occurrences of learning were found to emerge through casual


Facebook use. Most users perceive getting feedback, gaining knowledge, getting
ideas, and seeking information on Facebook, while they use groups to keep
themselves updated; they recognise their personal wall as both a medium and a
facilitator to express their ideas; they are participating in groups, in wall discussions
and in chats, and they are observing other peoples behavior. Additionally, some
participants interests were found to be connected to a small degree to their
perceptions about learning through Facebook use. On the other hand, users do not

75
acknowledge getting guidance, or developing their writing skills, or gaining
knowledge concerning native language use; they do not distinguish gaining
experience, or finding better ways to accomplish computer-related tasks, or
becoming more self-regulated in ICT learning-to-use; they do not feel that they are
learning to ask questions, or to seek for help, or to accept different perspectives, or
how to get along with other people, or to present a different personality in their
profile and in chat discussions.

The synopsis of the above outcomes is that although several distinctive occurrences
of learning may emerge through casual Facebook use, Facebook is not perceived as a
holistically effective medium for learning by most of its users. However, more
research is needed to examine the generalisability and implications of these findings.

76
References

Ainley, M., Hidi, S. & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning and the psychological processes that
mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, pp. 545-561.
Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2007). Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some initial considerations.
Sociological Research Online 12, 5(17). Retrieved 4 July 2010,
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html
Bell, J. (1999). Doing your research project: a guide for first-time researchers in education and
social science. London: Open University Press, pp. 127-150.
Boyd, D. (2006). Friends, Friendsters, and Top 8: Writing community into being on social network
sites. First Monday, 11(12). Retrieved 4 July 2010,
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/
Boyd, D. (2007). Social network sites: Public, private, or what? Knowledge Tree, 13. Retrieved 22
August 2010, http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/edition-13/social-network-sites-public-private-
or-what/
Boyd, D. (2008). Why Youth Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage
Social Life. In Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Edited by David Buckingham. The John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press, pp. 119-142. Retrieved 14 August 2010,
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119
Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved 4 July 2010,
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
Buckingham, D. (2007). Introducing identity. In Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Edited by David
Buckingham. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and
Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 1-24. Retrieved 14 August 2010,
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.001
Bumgarner, B.A. (2007). You have been poked: exploring the uses and gratifications of Facebook
among emerging adults. First Monday, 22(11). Retrieved 14 August 2010,
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2026/1897
Bye, L., Smith, S. & Rallis, H.M. (2009). Reflection Using an Online Discussion Forum: Impact on
Student Learning and Satisfaction. Social Work Education, 28(8), pp. 841-855.
Cain, J., Scott, D.R. & Akers, P. (2009). Pharmacy Students Facebook Activity and Opinions
Regarding Accountability and E-Professionalism. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73
(6), Article 104.
Carifio, J. and Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales.
Medical Education, 42, pp. 1150-1152.
Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2010). A theoretical model of intentional social action in online
social networks. Decision Support Systems, 49, pp. 24-30.
Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A. & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the
technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, pp. 56-69.
Coffin, C., North, S. & Martin, D. (2009). Exchanging and countering points of view: a linguistic
perspective on school students use of electronic conferencing. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 25, pp. 85-98.
ComScore (2007), Social Networking Goes Global. Retrieved 4 August 2010,
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2007/07/Social_Networking_Goes_Global

77
Curran-Smith, J., Abidi, S.S.R. & Forgeron, P. (2005). Towards a collaborative learning environment
for childrens pain management: leveraging an online discussion forum. Health Informatics Journal,
11(1), pp. 19-31.
Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J.P., Horn, A.K. & Hughes, B.N. (2009). Facebook and Online Privacy:
Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
15, pp. 83 - 108.
DeSanctis, G., Fayard, AL., Roach, M. & Jiang, L. (2003). Learning in Online Forums. European
Management Journal, 21(5), pp. 565-577.
Dwyer, C. (2007). Digital Relationships in the MySpace Generation: Results From a Qualitative
Study. Pre-publication draft. 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
Retrieved 14 August 2010,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.3398&rep=rep1&type=pdf
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), pp. 11431168.
Facebakers Statistics (2010). Facebook Statistics Greece. Retrieved 12 August 2010,
http://www.facebakers.com/countries-with-facebook/GR/
Facebook Statistics (2010). Statistics. Retrieved 12 August 2010,
http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
Forte, A. and Bruckman, A. (2007). Constructing text: Wiki as a toolkit for learning. In Proceedings
of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis (wikisym), Montral, Qubec, Canada, October 2123.
Retrieved 14 August 2010
http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Forte_WikiSym2007_ConstructingText.pdf
Fu, F., Liu, L. and Wang, L. (2008). Empirical analysis of online social networks in the age of Web.
2.0. Physica A, 387, pp. 675684.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C. & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). Retrieved 14 August 2010,
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html
George, S. and Labas, H. (2008). E-learning standards as a basis for contextual forums design.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24, pp. 138-152.
Gb, R., McCollin, C. & Ramalhoto, M.F. (2007). Ordinal Methodology in the Analysis of Likert
Scales. Quality & Quantity, 41, pp. 601-626.
Green, H. and Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a Digital Generation. Demos, London.
Retrieved 11 August 2010, http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/theirspace
Greenhow, C. and Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social
networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), pp. 119-140.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 14. Retrieved 14 October 2010,
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S. & Land R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in
higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), pp. 19-30.
Hewitt, A. and Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty
relationships on the Facebook. Paper presented at the CSCW Conference, November, in Canada.
Retrieved 4 August 2010, http://www.andreaforte.net/HewittForteCSCWPoster2006.pdf
Hidi, S. and Harachiewicz, J.M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: a critical issue for
the twenty-first century. Review of Educational Research, 70, pp. 151-179.
Internet World Stats (2010). INTERNET USAGE STATISTICS. Retrieved 21 August 2010,
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

78
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J. & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MacArthur Foundation.
Retrieved 11 August 2010, http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-
AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF
John-Steiner, V. and Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3), pp. 191-206.
Johnson, C.M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and
Higher Education, 4, pp. 45-60.
Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S., Kirkup, G. & Conole, G. (2009). An empirically grounded framework to
guide blogging in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), pp. 3142.
Kim, K.H. and Yun, H. (2007). Cying for me, Cying for us: Relational dialectics in a Korean social
network site. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 15. Retrieved 21 August
2010, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/kim.yun.html
Kwon, O. and Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, pp. 254-263.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N. & Steinfield, C. (2008). Changes in use and perception of facebook. In CSCW
'08: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp. 721-730,
New York, NY, USA. ACM. Retrieved 21 August 2010,
http://gatortracks.pbworks.com/f/facebook+changes+in+use.pdf
Lange, P. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). Retrieved 4 July 2010,
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html
Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and Social Network Websites. Pew Internet and American life project.
Retrieved 4 August 2010, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults-and-Social-Network-
Websites.aspx
Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. (2005). Teen Content Creators and Consumers. Pew Internet and
American life project. Retrieved 11 August 2010, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/Teen-
Content-Creators-and-Consumers.aspx
Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. (2007a). Social networking websites and teens: an overview. Pew
Internet and American life project. Retrieved 4 July 2010,
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Social-Networking-Websites-and-Teens.aspx
Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. (2007b). Teens, Privacy and Online Social Networks. Pew Internet and
American life project. Retrieved 4 July 2010, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-
Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks.aspx
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A. & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among
Teens and Young Adults. Pew Internet and American life project. Retrieved 4 August 2010,
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmerb, A. & Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time:
A new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Social Networks, 30, p. 330-342.
Lockyer, L. and Patterson, J. (2008). Integrating social networking technologies in education: a case
study of a formal learning environment. In Proceedings of 8th IEEE international conference on
advanced learning technologies, Santander, Spain. pp. 529-533. Retrieved 10 October 2010,
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=edupapers
Lund, A. and Smordal, O. (2006). Is there a space for the teacher in a Wiki? In Proceedings of the
2006 International Symposium on Wikis (wikisym), Odense, Denmark, August 21-23.
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J. & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal
learning at university: It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually
doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), pp. 141-155.

79
Manago, A.M., Graham, M.B., Greenfield, P.M. & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and
gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, pp. 446-458.
Maness, J.M. (2006). Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for Libraries. Webology, 3(2).
Retrieved 10 August 2010, http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html
Maranto, G. and Barton, M. (2010). Paradox and Promise: MySpace, Facebook, and the Sociopolitics
of Social Networking in the Writing Classroom. Computers and Composition, 27(1), pp. 36-47.
Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing
Education, 28(2), pp. 121-133.
Mazman, S.G. and Usluel, Y.K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers &
Education, 55, pp. 444-453.
McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M.J.W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: pedagogical
choices with technology affordances in theWeb 2.0 era. Paper presented at the Ascilite, Singapore.
Retrieved 15 August 2010, http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf
Meishar-Tal, H. and Gorsky, P. (2010). Wikis: what students do and do not do when writing
collaboratively. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), pp. 25-35.
Mendez, J.P., Curry, J., Mwavita, M., Kennedy, K., Weinland, K. & Bainbridge, K. (2009). To Friend
or Not to Friend: Academic Interaction on Facebook. Journal of Instructional Technology and
Distance Learning, 6(9), pp. 33-48. Retrieved 15 August 2010,
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_09/article03.htm
Mitrano, T. (2006). A wider world: Youth, privacy, and social networking technologies. EDUCAUSE
Review 41(6), pp. 16-28. Retrieved 15 August 2010,
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0660.pdf
Murphy, K.L. and Cifuentes, L. (2001). Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online, Distance
Education, 22(2), pp. 285-305.
Nardi, B., Schiano, D. & Gumbrecht, M. (2004). Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900
Million People Read Your Diary? In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work. ACM Press, NewYork. Retrieved 15 August 2010,
http://home.comcast.net/~diane.schiano/CSCW04.Blog.pdf
National School Boards Association (2007). Creating and Connecting: Research and Guidelines on
Social - and Educational - Networking. Grunwald Associates. Retrieved 4 August 2010,
http://www.nationaltechcenter.org/index.php/2007/08/21/creating-and-connecting-research-and-
guidelines-on-online-social-and-educational-networking/
Nielsen//NetRatings (2006). Social networking sites grow 47 percent, year over year, reaching 45
percent of web users, according to Nielsen//NetRatings. Retrieved 14 August 2010,
http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_060511.pdf
OMurchu, I., Breslin, J.G. & Decker, S. (2004). Online social and business networking communities.
DERI Technical Report 2004-08-11, SIGKDD03. Washington, DC. Retrieved 14 August 2010,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.99.4055&rep=rep1&type=pdf
OReilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation
of Software. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA). Retrieved 11 August 2010,
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4580/1/MPRA_paper_4580.pdf
Ofcom (2008). Social Networking Sites report, Office of Communications, UK. Retrieved 2 April
2010, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/
Pachler, N. and Daly, C. (2009). Narrative and learning with Web 2.0 technologies: towards a
research agenda. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, pp. 6-18.
Palinscar, A.S. (1998). Social Constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, pp. 349-375.

80
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of
Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media Society, 11, pp. 199-220.
Parker, K.R. and Chao, J.T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge
and Learning Objects, 3, pp. 57-72.
Pell, G. (2005). Use and misuse of Likert scales. Medical Education, 39, pp. 970.
Pempek, T., Yermolayeva, Y.A. & Calvert, S.L. (2009). College students social networking
experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, pp. 227-238.
Prawat, R.S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31(3), pp.
215-225.
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B. & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving
community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), pp. 201-223.
Raacke, J. and Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications
theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), pp. 169-174.
Rau, P.L.P., Gao, Q. & Ding, Y. (2008). Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in
online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, pp. 2757-2770.
Roblyer, M.D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J. & Witty, J.V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in
higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social
networking sites, Internet and Higher Education, 13, pp. 134-140.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers.
Madden, Mass.; Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.G. & Orr, R.R. (2009). Personality and
motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, pp. 578-586.
Ryan, C. and Garland, R. (1999). The use of a specific non-response option on Likert-type scales.
Tourism Management, 20, pp.107-113.
Salomon, G. and Perkins, D.N. (1998). Individual and Social Aspects of Learning. Review of
Research in Education, 23, pp. 1-24.
Scott, D. and Willits, F.K. (1998). Adolescent and Adult Leisure Patterns: A Reassessment. Journal of
Leisure Research, 30(3), pp. 319-330.
Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: exploring students education-related use of Facebook. Learning,
Media and Technology, 34(2), pp. 157-174.
Shapiro, S.M. (2009, January 22). Revolution, Facebook style. New York Times Sunday Magazine.
Retrieved 12 August 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25bloggers-t.html
Smith, M.K. (1999a). Learning theory, the encyclopedia of informal education,
www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm, Last update: September 03, 2009. Retrieved 12 August 2010.
Smith, M.K. (1999b). The social/situational orientation to learning, the encyclopedia of informal
education, www.infed.org/biblio/learning-social.htm, Last update: September 03, 2009. Retrieved 12
August 2010.
Smith, W.P. and Kidder, D.L. (2010). Youve been tagged! (Then again, maybe not): Employers and
Facebook. Business Horizons, 53, pp.491-499.
SPSS (2008). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 17.0 for Windows XP. Release 17.0.0,
Chicago, IL:SPSS, Inc, http://www.spss.com/
Stutzman, F. (2006). An Evaluation of Identity-Sharing Behavior in Social Network Communities.
International Digital and Media Arts Journal, 3(1), Retrieved 12 August 2010,
http://fredstutzman.com/papers/IDMA2006_Stutzman.pdf
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), pp. 420-433.

81
Suziki, L.K. and Calzo, J.P. (2004). The search for peer advice in cyberspace: An examination of
online teen bulletin boards about health and sexuality. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
25, pp. 685-698.
Thomas, M.J.W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, pp. 351-366.
Trend, R. (2005). Individual, situational and topic interest in geoscience among 11- and 12-year-old
children. Research Papers in Education, 20(3), pp. 271-302.
Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, pp. 43-55.
Valkenburg, P.M., Schouten, A.P. & Peter, J. (2005). Adolescents identity experiments on the
internet. New Media & Society, 7(3), pp. 383-402.
Wang, S.S., Moon, S.I., Kwon, K.H., Evans, C.A. & Stefanone, M.A. (2010). Face off: Implications
of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, pp. 226-234.
Wang, Y. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2004). Towards understanding members general participation in and
active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism Management, 25(6), pp.709-722.
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction. Retrieved: 12 August 2010,
http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm
Wheeler, S. and Wheeler, D. (2009). Using wikis to promote quality learning in teacher training.
Learning, Media and Technology, 34(1), pp. 1-10.
Wright, K.B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of
online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), article 11. Retrieved: 12 August 2010,
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S. & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24, pp. 18161836.

82
Appendix A

Survey

Facebook

Facebook.
Facebook.
, 17
10-15 .
CONTINUE
.

.
,
.
.
cookies
web-browser.

A-1

...

1.

2.

3.

If you selected Other, please specify:

4. ( )

, (, )

A-2

5. / (,
).
(select all that apply)

/ (.. , , , )

//

//

( )

(/)

(.. , , , )

/ (.. , )

Other (please specify):

6.
(, ).
(select all that apply)

(.. , , , , )

/ blog

(.. , )

(.. , , , )

A-3
Other (please specify):

7. (,
).
(select all that apply)

(.. , /)

Other (please specify):

8. /
(, ).
(select all that apply)

//

// /

////

//

(.. , )

(.. , )

/ //

////

A-4
/

(.. , )

Other (please specify):

A-5
Facebook

Facebook.

9. Facebook; ( )

1 1-5 6-10 11-

20 21-30 30

10. Facebook ; ( )

1 1-2 2-5
5

A-6
11. Facebook;

a. /

b. (events)

c.

d. ,
,

e. /

f. (wall)
( , ,
)

g. youtube

h. (upload)/(tag)

i.

j. (events)
(invitations)

k. (groups)

l. /

m. /

n.
youtube

A-7
o.

p. (wall),

q. (
)

12. , Facebook,
().

A-8
Facebook

Facebook.

13. /
Facebook .

a.
'

Facebook

b.
'

Facebook

c. /



d.
'

Facebook

e.
//
'

Facebook

f. (chat)
Facebook

g.
(/
,
)

A-9

h.
Facebook


i.
Facebook

'
(..

)

14. /
Facebook.

a. Facebook

(,
, )

b. Facebook
/

(..
)

c. Facebook
/

A-10
15. /
Facebook.

a.




b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.
Facebook

h.


A-11
16. /
Facebook /.

a. Facebook


(..
-
,
,
youtube
)

b. Facebook



(..
(
)
-)

c. Facebook


(..
upload, download,
chat)

d. Facebook


e.
Facebook

f.
Facebook


(..

A-12
, , )

g.
Facebook

17.
Facebook ().


, (a.konstantinidis@sms.ed.ac.uk).

A-13
Survey (translated from Greek)

Learning through Facebook

Welcome

Welcome to the "Learning through Facebook" Survey. This survey aims to gauge your use of, and attitudes
towards Facebook.

The survey is to be completed anonymously, it is comprised of 17 questions, and takes around 10-15
minutes to compete.

Note that once you have clicked on the CONTINUE button at the bottom of each page you can not return to
review or amend that page.

Data Protection

All data collected in this survey will be held anonymously and securely. Any identifiable information will be
removed prior to publishing.

Cookies or other personal data stored by your Web browser are not used in this survey.

A-14
Demographic and background information

The following questions are related to your personal information and background.

Some things about you...

1. What is your gender?

Male Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your profession type?

If you selected Other, please specify:

4. What is your highest educational achievement?

Post-graduate (such as Ph.D, M.Sc.) First degree (such as MA, B.Sc., BA) High School

A-15
Demographic and background information

The following questions are related to your personal information and background.

Some things about you...

1. What is your gender?

Male Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your profession type?

If you selected Other, please specify:

4. What is your highest educational achievement?

Post-graduate (such as Ph.D, M.Sc.) First degree (such as MA, B.Sc., BA) High School

A-16
Please specify your interests from the lists below

5. Please select your creative/artistic interests from the list (Optional)


(select all that apply)

Collecting (e.g., coins, stamps, scale models, art, etc)

Cooking

Dancing

Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting

Fashion

Gardening

Handcraft (e.g. origami, jewellery making)

Moviemaking

Music (listening or playing a musical instrument)

Photography

Restoring machinery (e.g., car, motorbike, computer, radios, etc)

Sewing/knitting/embroidering

Singing

Speaking pieces (e.g. theatre)

Writing poems

Other (please specify):

6. Please select your study/work-related interests from the list. (Optional)


(select all that apply)

Blogging

Reading (poetry, newspapers, magazines, comic books, etc)

Studying (e.g., history, foreign languages, astrology, political science, etc)

Working problems (e.g. software development)

Writing

Other (please specify):

A-17
7. Please select your entetainment/social interests from the list. (Optional)
(select all that apply)

Computer gaming

Forum/group participation

Going to movies

Playing board games (e.g. cards, chess)

Traveling

Other (please specify):

8. Please select your sport/lifestyle interests from the list. (Optional)


(select all that apply)

Bicycling

Camping

Childcare

Cosmetics

Driving

Fishing/hunting/spearfish

Fitness activities (e.g., yoga, aerobic, etc)

Horse riding

Jogging/walking/running/climbing/hiking

Martial arts (e.g., kick boxing, judo, etc)

Natural remedies/nutrition/diets

Pet nurturing

Playing games (e.g., tennis, basketball, etc)

Sailing/boating/kayaking/surfing/windsurfing

Skating/ice skating/skiing/skateboarding/snowboarding

Skydiving/parachuting

Swimming/diving/snorkeling

Other (please specify):

A-18
A-19
Facebook Activities Questionnaire

The following questions relate to your activities on Facebook.

9. On average, how often do you check your Facebook account?

Less than once a day 1-5 times a day 6-10 times a day 11-20 times a day

21-30 times a day More than 30 times a day

10. On average, how much time do you spend on Facebook every day?

Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes-one hour 1-2 hours 2-5 hours More than
five hours

11. How frequently do you do on Facebook the underneath listed activities?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never

a. Browse my friends'
profiles/walls/pages

b. Create events and send invitations

c. Create groups about specific topics

d. Edit my profile/change my profile


picture

e. Find out about events

f. Listen to/find music

g. Look at others' photos

h. Look for new friends, send friend


requests, add friend requests

i. Post links to YouTube.com

A-20
j. Read comments/posts

k. Search for profiles

l. Send personal messages

m. Update my status

n. Upload/tag photos

o. Visit/join groups to talk about specific


topics

p. Watch video links

q. Write comments on photos, walls,


etc.

12. Please add any other comments you wish to make about your activities on Facebook
here. (Optional)

A-21
Learning through Facebook questionnaire

The following questions relate your attitudes and perceptions towards learning through Facebook.

13. Indicate your agreement (or otherwise) with the following statements related to learning through
Facebook about issues that are of interest to you.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Not


Disagree Agree Agree Applicable
nor
Disagree

a. I gain knowledge about


issues that are of interest to
me by asking other people
on Facebook

b. I seek information about


issues that are of interest to
me by asking other people
on Facebook

c. I get ideas/tips and hints


about issues that are of
interest to me by asking
other people on Facebook

d. I get guidance about


issues that are of interest to
me by asking other people
on Facebook

e. I use Facebook groups


to keep myself updated
about issues of interest (e.g.
which I read on my wall
updates)

f. I express my
thoughts/ideas on my wall
and get feedback which
helps me elaborate/question
my ideas and develop them
further

A-22
g. I participate in wall
discussions where everyone
exchanges information and
opinions about issues
related to my interests

h. I actively participate
(read/write posts, participate
in wall discussions) in
groups which are related to
my interests

i. I chat with people on


Facebook about issues
related to my interests

14. Indicate your agreement (or otherwise) with the following statements related to developing your
skills and gaining knowledge through Facebook use.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Not


Disagree Agree Agree Applicable
nor
Disagree

a. Through Facebook use I


have developed my writing
skills (e.g., speed, spelling,
syntax, etc)

b. Through Facebook use I


have gained
knowledge/developed my
skills concerning native
language use

c. Through Facebook use I


have gained
knowledge/developed my
skills concerning foreign
language use

A-23
15. Indicate your agreement (or otherwise) with the following statements related to developing your
skills in several socialization aspects through Facebook use.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Not


Disagree Agree Agree Applicable
nor
Disagree

a. I can more easily start a


conversation with an
unknown/little known person

b. I have learned when and


how to pose questions

c. I have learned how to


seek for help

d. I have learned to accept


different thoughts and
perspectives

e. I observe other people's


behavior on Facebook and
the consequences of those
behaviors

f. I often present a different


personality in chat
discussions depending on the
occasion or on how I want to
promote myself

g. I present a different
personality in my profile so as
to promote myself better

h. I have learned how to get


along with other people

A-24
16. Indicate your agreement (or otherwise) with the following statements related to how Facebook as
a software tool facilitates your learning.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Not


Disagree Agree Agree Applicable
nor
Disagree

a. Facebook as a software
tool helps me to gain
experience in computer
related tasks (e.g., I can copy-
paste faster, I can wield a
mouse more easily, I know
how to embed a video from
YouTube, etc.)

b. Facebook as a software
tool helps me to find
new/better ways to
accomplish computer related
tasks (e.g., I have learned
easier ways (than I was
already aware of) to copy-
paste, how to use tabs on a
browser, etc.)

c. Facebook as a software
tool facilitates my
understanding of several ICT
issues (e.g., what is
uploading, what is the
difference between real-time
chat and wall-discussions)

d. Facebook as a software
tool helps me to become more
self-regulated in learning how
to use ICT

e. Posted videos/images on
Facebook walls help me
reflect or gain new knowledge

A-25
f. My personal wall as a
software tool is a way to
present my ideas or express
them through representative
means (e.g.
videos/images/songs)

g. My personal wall as a
software tool facilitates my
effort to directly present or
express my ideas

17. Please add any other comments you wish to make about your perceptions and attitudes
concerning learning through Facebook here. (Optional)

Thank you!

Thank you for your time and contribution to this survey.

If you have any questions about the survey or you wish to send you the survey results, please do not
hesitate to contact me (angelntini@gmail.com).

A-26
Appendix B
The structure and the headings of this appendix reflect the structure of the main body in order to
facilitate comprehension and search of data.

5.1 Facebook usage


Differences in Facebook usage related to gender

Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

gendern N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Frequency of Facebook 1 201 123,09 24742,00


usage
2 49 135,37 6633,00

Total 250

a
Test Statistics

Frequency of Facebook usage

Mann-Whitney U 4441,000

Wilcoxon W 24742,000

Z -1,177

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,239

a. Grouping Variable: gender

Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test


a
Test Statistics

Frequency of Facebook usage

Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,097

Positive ,097

Negative ,000

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z ,607

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,855

a. Grouping Variable: gender

B-1
Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

gender N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Time spent on Facebook 1 201 130,57 26244,50

2 49 104,70 5130,50

Total 250
a
Test Statistics

Time spent on Facebook

Mann-Whitney U 3905,500

Wilcoxon W 5130,500

Z -2,328

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,020

a. Grouping Variable: gender

Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test


a
Test Statistics

Time spent on Facebook

Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,162

Positive ,000

Negative -,162

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1,014

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,255

a. Grouping Variable: gender

B-2
Differences in Facebook usage related to age

Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks

age group N Mean Rank

Frequency of Facebook under 20 9 159,67


usage
21-25 73 140,03

26-30 81 118,38

31-40 59 124,08

over 40 28 100,21

Total 250

Time spent on Facebook under 20 9 118,94

21-25 73 151,25

26-30 81 113,65

31-40 59 115,19

over 40 28 116,48

Total 250

a,b
Test Statistics

Frequency of Facebook usage Time spent on Facebook

Chi-Square 11,228 14,182

df 4 4

Asymp. Sig. ,024 ,007

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: age group

Median Test
Frequencies

age group

under 20 21-25 26-30 31-40 over 40

Frequency of Facebook > Median 4 21 11 13 3


usage
<= Median 5 52 70 46 25

Time spent on Facebook > Median 4 41 29 24 11

<= Median 5 32 52 35 17

B-3
c
Test Statistics

Frequency of Facebook usage Time spent on Facebook

N 250 250

Median 2,00 2,00


a b
Chi-Square 10,214 7,109

df 4 4

Asymp. Sig. ,037 ,130

a. 1 cells (10,0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 1,9.

b. 1 cells (10,0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 3,9.

c. Grouping Variable: age group

a
Jonckheere-Terpstra Test

Frequency of Facebook usage Time spent on Facebook

Number of Levels in age 5 5


group

N 250 250

Observed J-T Statistic 9923,500 9871,000

Mean J-T Statistic 11566,000 11566,000

Std. Deviation of J-T Statistic 574,801 611,817

Std. J-T Statistic -2,858 -2,770

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,004 ,006

a. Grouping Variable: age group

Directional Measures
a b
Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Somers' d Symmetric -,155 ,054 -2,822 ,005

Frequency of -,142 ,050 -2,822 ,005


Facebook usage
Dependent

age group Dependent -,170 ,060 -2,822 ,005

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

B-4
Symmetric Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b -,156 ,055 -2,822 ,005

Kendall's tau-c -,140 ,050 -2,822 ,005

Gamma -,228 ,079 -2,822 ,005


c
Spearman Correlation -,180 ,063 -2,883 ,004
c
Interval by Interval Pearson's R -,184 ,060 -2,950 ,003

N of Valid Cases 250

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Based on normal approximation.

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Somers' d Symmetric -,147 ,054 -2,699 ,007

Time spent on Facebook -,147 ,055 -2,699 ,007


Dependent

age group Dependent -,147 ,054 -2,699 ,007

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Symmetric Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b -,147 ,054 -2,699 ,007

Kendall's tau-c -,145 ,054 -2,699 ,007

Gamma -,197 ,073 -2,699 ,007


c
Spearman Correlation -,173 ,064 -2,770 ,006
c
Interval by Interval Pearson's R -,165 ,064 -2,631 ,009

N of Valid Cases 250

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

B-5
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Based on normal approximation.

Partial Corr
Correlations

Frequency of Time spent on


Control Variables Facebook usage Facebook age group

gender Frequency of Facebook Correlation 1,000 ,520 -,187


usage
Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,003

df 0 247 247

Time spent on Facebook Correlation ,520 1,000 -,163

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,010

df 247 0 247

age group Correlation -,187 -,163 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,003 ,010 .

df 247 247 0

Correlations

Time spent on
Control Variables Facebook gender

age group Time spent on Facebook Correlation 1,000 -,148

Significance (2-tailed) . ,019

df 0 247

gender Correlation -,148 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,019 .

df 247 0

B-6
Differences in Facebook usage related to interests

Mann-Whitney Test

Ranks

Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Time spent on Facebook 0 189 119,58 22601,50

1 61 143,83 8773,50

Total 250

a
Test Statistics

Time spent on Facebook

Mann-Whitney U 4646,500

Wilcoxon W 22601,500

Z -2,365

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,018

a. Grouping Variable: Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting

Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test


a
Test Statistics

Time spent on Facebook

Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,152

Positive ,152

Negative ,000

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1,034

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,236

a. Grouping Variable: Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting

B-7
Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx.


a b
Value Error Approx. T Sig.
c c
Nominal by Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal c c
Time spent on Facebook ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
c c
Drawing/sketching/painting/s ,000 ,000 . .
culpting Dependent
d
Goodman and Time spent on Facebook ,008 ,007 ,102
Kruskal tau Dependent
d
Drawing/sketching/painting/s ,031 ,024 ,052
culpting Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,015 ,011 1,313 ,065
Coefficient e
Time spent on Facebook ,011 ,008 1,313 ,065
Dependent
e
Drawing/sketching/painting/s ,026 ,020 1,313 ,065
culpting Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,176 ,052

Cramer's V ,176 ,052

Contingency Coefficient ,173 ,052

N of Valid Cases 250

Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

Cosmetics N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

B-8
Time spent on Facebook 0 205 119,85 24568,50

1 45 151,26 6806,50

Total 250

a
Test Statistics

Time spent on Facebook

Mann-Whitney U 3453,500

Wilcoxon W 24568,500

Z -2,741

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,006

a. Grouping Variable: Cosmetics

Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test


a
Test Statistics

Time spent on Facebook

Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,200

Positive ,200

Negative ,000

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1,215

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,104

a. Grouping Variable: Cosmetics

B-9
Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Error T Sig.

Nominal by Lambda Symmetric ,010 ,024 ,392 ,695


Nominal
Time spent on Facebook ,012 ,031 ,392 ,695
Dependent
c c
Cosmetics Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman Time spent on Facebook ,010 ,007 ,069
and Kruskal Dependent
tau d
Cosmetics Dependent ,033 ,024 ,040
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,017 ,012 1,394 ,047
Coefficient e
Time spent on Facebook ,012 ,008 1,394 ,047
Dependent
e
Cosmetics Dependent ,034 ,024 1,394 ,047

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,176 ,052

Cramer's V ,176 ,052

Contingency Coefficient ,173 ,052

N of Valid Cases 250

Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

Working
problems N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

B-10
Time spent on Facebook 0 185 131,36 24301,50

1 65 108,82 7073,50

Total 250

a
Test Statistics

Time spent on
Facebook

Mann-Whitney U 4928,500

Wilcoxon W 7073,500

Z -2,245

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,025

a. Grouping Variable: Working problems

Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test


a
Test Statistics

Time spent on
Facebook

Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,153

Positive ,000

Negative -,153

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1,058

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,213

a. Grouping Variable: Working problems

B-11
Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Error T Sig.

Nominal by Lambda Symmetric ,010 ,024 ,392 ,695


Nominal
Time spent on Facebook ,012 ,031 ,392 ,695
Dependent
c c
Cosmetics Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman Time spent on Facebook ,010 ,007 ,069
and Kruskal Dependent
tau d
Cosmetics Dependent ,033 ,024 ,040
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,017 ,012 1,394 ,047
Coefficient e
Time spent on Facebook ,012 ,008 1,394 ,047
Dependent
e
Cosmetics Dependent ,034 ,024 1,394 ,047

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,183 ,039

Cramer's V ,183 ,039

Contingency Coefficient ,180 ,039

N of Valid Cases 250

B-12
5.2 Facebook activities

Differences in Facebook activities related to gender

Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

gender N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Look for new friends, send 1 197 118,12 23270,50


friend requests, add friend
2 48 143,01 6864,50
requests
Total 245

Listen to/find music 1 198 133,04 26341,00

2 49 87,49 4287,00

Total 247

Post links to YouTube.com 1 199 130,21 25912,50

2 49 101,30 4963,50

Total 248

Upload/tag photos 1 199 127,75 25422,00

2 48 108,46 5206,00

Total 247

Look at others' photos 1 199 128,12 25496,00

2 46 100,85 4639,00

Total 245

Create groups about specific 1 196 114,30 22402,50


topics 2 49 157,81 7732,50

Total 245

B-13
a
Test Statistics

Look for new Create


friends, send groups
friend requests, Look at about
add friend Listen to/find Post links to Upload/tag others' specific
requests music YouTube.com photos photos topics

Mann-Whitney U 3767,500 3062,000 3738,500 4030,000 3558,000 3096,500

Wilcoxon W 23270,500 4287,000 4963,500 5206,000 4639,000 22402,50


0

Z -2,438 -4,212 -2,681 -1,788 -2,519 -4,246

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,015 ,000 ,007 ,074 ,012 ,000

a. Grouping Variable: gender

Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test


a
Test Statistics

Look for new


friends, send
friend requests, Listen Look at Create groups
add friend to/find Post links to Upload/tag others' about specific
requests music YouTube.com photos photos topics

Most Extreme Absolute ,176 ,406 ,207 ,151 ,175 ,362


Differences
Positive ,176 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,362

Negative ,000 -,406 -,207 -,151 -,175 ,000

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1,095 2,542 1,298 ,940 1,071 2,268

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,182 ,000 ,069 ,340 ,201 ,000

a. Grouping Variable: gender

B-14
Partial Corr
Correlations

Look for new friends, Create groups


send friend requests, Listen to/find Post links to Look at others' about specific
Control Variables gender add friend requests music YouTube.com photos topics

age group gender Correlation 1,000 ,159 -,309 -,165 -,161 ,222

Significance (2-tailed) . ,015 ,000 ,012 ,014 ,001

df 0 229 229 229 229 229

Look for new friends, send Correlation ,159 1,000 -,085 -,078 ,145 ,127
friend requests, add friend
Significance (2-tailed) ,015 . ,196 ,237 ,027 ,055
requests
df 229 0 229 229 229 229

Listen to/find music Correlation -,309 -,085 1,000 ,521 ,232 -,100

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 ,196 . ,000 ,000 ,128

df 229 229 0 229 229 229

Post links to YouTube.com Correlation -,165 -,078 ,521 1,000 ,198 ,011

Significance (2-tailed) ,012 ,237 ,000 . ,003 ,872

df 229 229 229 0 229 229

Look at others' photos Correlation -,161 ,145 ,232 ,198 1,000 ,002

Significance (2-tailed) ,014 ,027 ,000 ,003 . ,970

df 229 229 229 229 0 229

Create groups about specific Correlation ,222 ,127 -,100 ,011 ,002 1,000
topics
Significance (2-tailed) ,001 ,055 ,128 ,872 ,970 .

df 229 229 229 229 229 0

B-15
Differences in Facebook activities related to age

Create events and send invitations * age group


Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Somers' d Symmetric ,155 ,054 2,833 ,005


Ordinal
Create events and send ,145 ,051 2,833 ,005
invitations Dependent

age group Dependent ,167 ,059 2,833 ,005

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Symmetric Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b ,156 ,055 2,833 ,005

Kendall's tau-c ,143 ,050 2,833 ,005

Gamma ,224 ,077 2,833 ,005

N of Valid Cases 244

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Watch video links * age group


Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Somers' d Symmetric -,119 ,052 -2,288 ,022


Ordinal
Watch video links Dependent -,116 ,051 -2,288 ,022

age group Dependent -,122 ,053 -2,288 ,022

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

B-16
Symmetric Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b -,119 ,052 -2,288 ,022

Kendall's tau-c -,114 ,050 -2,288 ,022

Gamma -,164 ,071 -2,288 ,022

N of Valid Cases 248

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Look at others' photos * age group


Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Somers' d Symmetric -,150 ,054 -2,773 ,006


Ordinal
Look at others' photos -,142 ,051 -2,773 ,006
Dependent

age group Dependent -,158 ,056 -2,773 ,006

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Symmetric Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b -,150 ,054 -2,773 ,006

Kendall's tau-c -,140 ,050 -2,773 ,006

Gamma -,213 ,075 -2,773 ,006

N of Valid Cases 245

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

B-17
Browse my friends' profiles/walls/pages * age group

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal Somers' d Symmetric -,118 ,051 -2,282 ,023


by
Browse my friends' -,112 ,049 -2,282 ,023
Ordinal
profiles/walls/pages
Dependent

age group Dependent -,124 ,054 -2,282 ,023

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Symmetric Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b -,118 ,052 -2,282 ,023

Kendall's tau-c -,111 ,049 -2,282 ,023

Gamma -,167 ,072 -2,282 ,023

N of Valid Cases 246

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

B-18
Correlations

Browse my
Create events friends'
and send Watch video Look at others' profiles/walls/pag
Control Variables age group invitations links photos es

Time spent on Facebook age group Correlation 1,000 ,207 -,074 -,143 -,070

Significance (2-tailed) . ,001 ,254 ,028 ,281

df 0 236 236 236 236

Create events and send Correlation ,207 1,000 ,046 -,096 -,066
invitations
Significance (2-tailed) ,001 . ,478 ,139 ,313

df 236 0 236 236 236

Watch video links Correlation -,074 ,046 1,000 ,407 ,142

Significance (2-tailed) ,254 ,478 . ,000 ,028

df 236 236 0 236 236

Look at others' photos Correlation -,143 -,096 ,407 1,000 ,501

Significance (2-tailed) ,028 ,139 ,000 . ,000

df 236 236 236 0 236

Browse my friends' Correlation -,070 -,066 ,142 ,501 1,000


profiles/walls/pages
Significance (2-tailed) ,281 ,313 ,028 ,000 .

df 236 236 236 236 0

Differences in Facebook activities related to educational level

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Somers' d Symmetric -,125 ,057 -2,206 ,027

Watch video links Dependent -,138 ,063 -2,206 ,027

educational level Dependent -,115 ,052 -2,206 ,027

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

B-19
Symmetric Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Kendall's tau-b -,126 ,057 -2,206 ,027

Kendall's tau-c -,121 ,055 -2,206 ,027

Gamma -,196 ,088 -2,206 ,027

N of Valid Cases 248

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Correlations

Watch video
Control Variables links educational level

age group Watch video links Correlation 1,000 -,102

Significance (2-tailed) . ,109

df 0 245

educational level Correlation -,102 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,109 .

df 245 0

Correlations

Watch video
Control Variables links educational level

Time spent on Facebook Watch video links Correlation 1,000 -,117

Significance (2-tailed) . ,067

df 0 245

educational level Correlation -,117 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,067 .

df 245 0

B-20
Differences in Facebook activities related to interests

Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting * Read comments/posts


Crosstab

Count

Read comments/posts

never rarely sometimes often Total

Drawing/sketching/painting/s 0 1 12 54 121 188


culpting
1 0 3 5 53 61

Total 1 15 59 174 249

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx.
a b
Value Std. Error Approx. T Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Drawing/sketching/painting/s ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
culpting Dependent
c c
Read comments/posts ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman and Kruskal tau Drawing/sketching/painting/s ,048 ,021 ,007
culpting Dependent
d
Read comments/posts ,038 ,017 ,000
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Coefficient Symmetric ,042 ,020 2,123 ,003
e
Drawing/sketching/painting/s ,051 ,024 2,123 ,003
culpting Dependent
e
Read comments/posts ,036 ,017 2,123 ,003
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-21
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,220 ,007

Cramer's V ,220 ,007

Contingency Coefficient ,215 ,007

N of Valid Cases 249

Speaking pieces * Read comments/posts


Crosstab

Count

Read comments/posts

never rarely sometimes often Total

Speaking pieces 0 0 13 50 123 186

1 1 2 9 51 63

Total 1 15 59 174 249

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,007 ,007 1,002 ,316


by
Speaking pieces Dependent ,016 ,016 1,002 ,316
Nominal
c c
Read comments/posts Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman and Speaking pieces Dependent ,035 ,017 ,034
Kruskal tau d
Read comments/posts Dependent ,017 ,013 ,006
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,027 ,016 1,643 ,029
Coefficient e
Speaking pieces Dependent ,032 ,019 1,643 ,029
e
Read comments/posts Dependent ,023 ,014 1,643 ,029

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-22
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,187 ,033

Cramer's V ,187 ,033

Contingency Coefficient ,184 ,033

N of Valid Cases 249

Blogging * Read comments/posts


Crosstab

Count

Read comments/posts

never rarely sometimes often Total

Blogging 0 1 10 45 110 166

1 0 5 14 64 83

Total 1 15 59 174 249

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx.
a b
Value Std. Error Approx. T Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Blogging Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
c c
Read comments/posts Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman and Blogging Dependent ,016 ,014 ,276
Kruskal tau d
Read comments/posts Dependent ,011 ,011 ,043
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,012 ,011 1,154 ,229
Coefficient e
Blogging Dependent ,014 ,012 1,154 ,229
e
Read comments/posts Dependent ,011 ,010 1,154 ,229

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-23
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,125 ,275

Cramer's V ,125 ,275

Contingency Coefficient ,124 ,275

N of Valid Cases 249

Online computer gaming * Read comments/posts


Crosstab

Count

Read comments/posts

never rarely sometimes often Total

Online computer gaming 0 0 12 49 118 179

1 1 3 10 56 70

Total 1 15 59 174 249

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Std. Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,007 ,007 1,002 ,316


by
Online computer gaming Dependent ,014 ,014 1,002 ,316
Nominal
c c
Read comments/posts Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman and Online computer gaming Dependent ,033 ,017 ,044
Kruskal tau d
Read comments/posts Dependent ,017 ,013 ,006
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,025 ,015 1,598 ,037
Coefficient e
Online computer gaming Dependent ,029 ,018 1,598 ,037
e
Read comments/posts Dependent ,022 ,013 1,598 ,037

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-24
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,180 ,044

Cramer's V ,180 ,044

Contingency Coefficient ,178 ,044

N of Valid Cases 249

Bicycling * Read comments/posts


Crosstab

Count

Read comments/posts

never rarely sometimes often Total

Bicycling 0 1 12 48 121 182

1 0 3 11 53 67

Total 1 15 59 174 249

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx.


a b
Value Error T Approx. Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Bicycling Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
c c
Read comments/posts Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman and Bicycling Dependent ,016 ,014 ,275
Kruskal tau d
Read comments/posts Dependent ,011 ,011 ,036
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,013 ,011 1,138 ,230
Coefficient e
Bicycling Dependent ,015 ,013 1,138 ,230
e
Read comments/posts Dependent ,011 ,010 1,138 ,230

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-25
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,125 ,273

Cramer's V ,125 ,273

Contingency Coefficient ,124 ,273

N of Valid Cases 249

B-26
Partial Corr
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/ Online computer Read


Control Variables Speaking pieces painting/sculpting Blogging gaming Bicycling comments/posts

Time Speaking pieces Correlation 1,000 ,093 ,059 -,079 ,153 ,103
spent on
Significance (2-tailed) . ,144 ,358 ,214 ,016 ,104
Facebook
df 0 246 246 246 246 246

Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,093 1,000 ,153 ,028 ,096 ,147


culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,144 . ,016 ,658 ,134 ,020

df 246 0 246 246 246 246

Blogging Correlation ,059 ,153 1,000 ,145 ,168 ,093

Significance (2-tailed) ,358 ,016 . ,022 ,008 ,143

df 246 246 0 246 246 246

Online computer gaming Correlation -,079 ,028 ,145 1,000 -,070 ,088

Significance (2-tailed) ,214 ,658 ,022 . ,272 ,168

df 246 246 246 0 246 246

Bicycling Correlation ,153 ,096 ,168 -,070 1,000 ,143

Significance (2-tailed) ,016 ,134 ,008 ,272 . ,025

df 246 246 246 246 0 246

Read comments/posts Correlation ,103 ,147 ,093 ,088 ,143 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,104 ,020 ,143 ,168 ,025 .

df 246 246 246 246 246 0

B-27
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/ Online computer Read


Control Variables Speaking pieces painting/sculpting Blogging gaming Bicycling comments/posts

gender Speaking pieces Correlation 1,000 ,102 ,056 -,077 ,146 ,111

Significance (2-tailed) . ,109 ,379 ,225 ,022 ,082

df 0 246 246 246 246 246

Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,102 1,000 ,160 ,041 ,080 ,173


culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,109 . ,011 ,518 ,210 ,006

df 246 0 246 246 246 246

Blogging Correlation ,056 ,160 1,000 ,144 ,164 ,095

Significance (2-tailed) ,379 ,011 . ,024 ,010 ,135

df 246 246 0 246 246 246

Online computer gaming Correlation -,077 ,041 ,144 1,000 -,078 ,101

Significance (2-tailed) ,225 ,518 ,024 . ,218 ,114

df 246 246 246 0 246 246

Bicycling Correlation ,146 ,080 ,164 -,078 1,000 ,116

Significance (2-tailed) ,022 ,210 ,010 ,218 . ,069

df 246 246 246 246 0 246

Read comments/posts Correlation ,111 ,173 ,095 ,101 ,116 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,082 ,006 ,135 ,114 ,069 .

df 246 246 246 246 246 0

B-28
Correlations

Drawing/sketching Online computer Read


Control Variables Speaking pieces /painting/sculpting Blogging gaming Bicycling comments/posts

age group Speaking pieces Correlation 1,000 ,104 ,077 -,094 ,155 ,104

Significance (2-tailed) . ,102 ,227 ,138 ,014 ,101

df 0 246 246 246 246 246

Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,104 1,000 ,150 ,042 ,074 ,177


culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,102 . ,018 ,512 ,243 ,005

df 246 0 246 246 246 246

Blogging Correlation ,077 ,150 1,000 ,158 ,163 ,097

Significance (2-tailed) ,227 ,018 . ,012 ,010 ,126

df 246 246 0 246 246 246

Online computer gaming Correlation -,094 ,042 ,158 1,000 -,073 ,096

Significance (2-tailed) ,138 ,512 ,012 . ,250 ,131

df 246 246 246 0 246 246

Bicycling Correlation ,155 ,074 ,163 -,073 1,000 ,116

Significance (2-tailed) ,014 ,243 ,010 ,250 . ,068

df 246 246 246 246 0 246

Read comments/posts Correlation ,104 ,177 ,097 ,096 ,116 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,101 ,005 ,126 ,131 ,068 .

df 246 246 246 246 246 0

B-29
Writing lyrics/poems * Find out about events
Crosstab

Count

Find out about events

never rarely sometimes often Total

Writing lyrics/poems 0 17 67 60 33 177

1 1 24 23 22 70

Total 18 91 83 55 247

Directional Measures

Asymp.
b
Value Std. Errora Approx. T Approx. Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Writing lyrics/poems Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
c c
Find out about events Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman and Writing lyrics/poems Dependent ,034 ,019 ,038
Kruskal tau d
Find out about events Dependent ,007 ,006 ,154
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,021 ,012 1,759 ,021
Coefficient e
Writing lyrics/poems Dependent ,033 ,019 1,759 ,021
e
Find out about events Dependent ,016 ,009 1,759 ,021

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,185 ,037

Cramer's V ,185 ,037

Contingency Coefficient ,182 ,037

N of Valid Cases 247

B-30
Blogging * Find out about events
Crosstab

Count

Find out about events

never rarely sometimes often Total

Blogging 0 17 63 52 33 165

1 1 28 31 22 82

Total 18 91 83 55 247

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,013 ,032 ,391 ,696


by c c
Blogging Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
Find out about events Dependent ,019 ,049 ,391 ,696
d
Goodman and Blogging Dependent ,033 ,015 ,042
Kruskal tau d
Find out about events Dependent ,006 ,005 ,226
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,022 ,011 1,904 ,017
Coefficient e
Blogging Dependent ,032 ,017 1,904 ,017
e
Find out about events Dependent ,016 ,008 1,904 ,017

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,183 ,041

Cramer's V ,183 ,041

Contingency Coefficient ,180 ,041

N of Valid Cases 247

B-31
Partial Corr

Correlations

Writing Find out about


Control Variables lyrics/poems Blogging events

Time Writing lyrics/poems Correlation 1,000 ,168 ,153


spent on
Significance (2-tailed) . ,008 ,016
Facebook
df 0 244 244

Blogging Correlation ,168 1,000 ,154

Significance (2-tailed) ,008 . ,016

df 244 0 244

Find out about events Correlation ,153 ,154 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,016 ,016 .

df 244 244 0

Correlations

Writing Find out about


Control Variables lyrics/poems Blogging events

gender Writing lyrics/poems Correlation 1,000 ,166 ,169

Significance (2-tailed) . ,009 ,008

df 0 244 244

Blogging Correlation ,166 1,000 ,165

Significance (2-tailed) ,009 . ,010

df 244 0 244

Find out about events Correlation ,169 ,165 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,008 ,010 .

df 244 244 0

Correlations

Writing Find out about


Control Variables lyrics/poems Blogging events

age group Writing lyrics/poems Correlation 1,000 ,169 ,166

Significance (2-tailed) . ,008 ,009

df 0 244 244

B-32
Blogging Correlation ,169 1,000 ,150

Significance (2-tailed) ,008 . ,019

df 244 0 244

Find out about events Correlation ,166 ,150 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,009 ,019 .

df 244 244 0

Speaking pieces * Look for new friends, send friend requests, add friend
requests

Crosstab

Count

Look for new friends, send friend requests, add friend requests

never rarely sometimes often Total

Speaking pieces 0 10 108 54 11 183

1 1 28 20 13 62

Total 11 136 74 24 245

B-33
Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,012 ,028 ,408 ,683


by
Speaking pieces Dependent ,032 ,078 ,408 ,683
Nominal
c c
Look for new friends, send ,000 ,000 . .
friend requests, add friend
requests Dependent
d
Goodman and Speaking pieces Dependent ,056 ,032 ,003
Kruskal tau d
Look for new friends, send ,014 ,010 ,016
friend requests, add friend
requests Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,032 ,018 1,754 ,005
Coefficient e
Speaking pieces Dependent ,046 ,026 1,754 ,005
e
Look for new friends, send ,025 ,014 1,754 ,005
friend requests, add friend
requests Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,238 ,003

Cramer's V ,238 ,003

Contingency Coefficient ,231 ,003

N of Valid Cases 245

B-34
Partial Corr

Correlations

Look for new


friends, send
friend requests,
add friend
Control Variables requests Speaking pieces

Time Look for new friends, send Correlation 1,000 ,216


spent on friend requests, add friend
Significance (2-tailed) . ,001
Facebook requests
df 0 242

Speaking pieces Correlation ,216 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,001 .

df 242 0

Correlations

Look for new


friends, send
friend requests,
add friend
Control Variables requests Speaking pieces

age group Look for new friends, send Correlation 1,000 ,228
friend requests, add friend
Significance (2-tailed) . ,000
requests
df 0 242

Speaking pieces Correlation ,228 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 .

df 242 0

B-35
Correlations

Look for new


friends, send
friend requests,
add friend
Control Variables requests Speaking pieces

gender Look for new friends, send Correlation 1,000 ,213


friend requests, add friend
Significance (2-tailed) . ,001
requests
df 0 242

Speaking pieces Correlation ,213 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,001 .

df 242 0

Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting * Listen to/find music


Crosstab

Count

Listen to/find music

never rarely sometimes often Total

Drawing/sketching/painting/s 0 26 44 49 67 186
culpting
1 6 5 13 37 61

Total 32 49 62 104 247

B-36
Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Std. Error T Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
Dependent
c c
Listen to/find music Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,054 ,027 ,004
and Kruskal Dependent
tau d
Listen to/find music Dependent ,023 ,012 ,001
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,030 ,015 1,947 ,003
Coefficient e
Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,050 ,026 1,947 ,003
Dependent
e
Listen to/find music Dependent ,022 ,011 1,947 ,003

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,231 ,004

Cramer's V ,231 ,004

Contingency Coefficient ,225 ,004

N of Valid Cases 247

B-37
Music * Listen to/find music
Crosstab

Count

Listen to/find music

never rarely sometimes often Total

Music 0 19 17 22 14 72

1 13 32 40 90 175

Total 32 49 62 104 247

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx.


a b
Value Error T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,065 ,037 1,708 ,088


by
Music Dependent ,083 ,075 1,063 ,288
Nominal
Listen to/find music ,056 ,041 1,338 ,181
Dependent
c
Goodman and Music Dependent ,115 ,040 ,000
Kruskal tau c
Listen to/find music ,043 ,015 ,000
Dependent
d
Uncertainty Symmetric ,061 ,022 2,788 ,000
Coefficient d
Music Dependent ,097 ,034 2,788 ,000
d
Listen to/find music ,045 ,016 2,788 ,000
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Based on chi-square approximation

d. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,340 ,000

Cramer's V ,340 ,000

Contingency Coefficient ,322 ,000

N of Valid Cases 247

B-38
Photography * Listen to/find music
Crosstab

Count

Listen to/find music

never rarely sometimes often Total

Photography 0 24 29 38 49 140

1 8 20 24 55 107

Total 32 49 62 104 247

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx.
a b
Value Std. Error T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,024 ,040 ,589 ,556


by
Photography Dependent ,056 ,093 ,589 ,556
Nominal
c c
Listen to/find music ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman and Photography Dependent ,036 ,023 ,031
Kruskal tau d
Listen to/find music ,014 ,009 ,018
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,019 ,012 1,547 ,027
Coefficient e
Photography Dependent ,027 ,017 1,547 ,027
e
Listen to/find music ,014 ,009 1,547 ,027
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,190 ,031

Cramer's V ,190 ,031

Contingency Coefficient ,187 ,031

N of Valid Cases 247

B-39
Handcraft * Listen to/find music
Crosstab

Count

Listen to/find music

never rarely sometimes often Total

Handcraft 0 32 44 51 80 207

1 0 5 11 24 40

Total 32 49 62 104 247

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx.
a b
Value Std. Error T Approx. Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Handcraft Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
c c
Listen to/find music ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman and Handcraft Dependent ,045 ,017 ,011
Kruskal tau d
Listen to/find music ,015 ,008 ,011
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,038 ,011 3,379 ,001
Coefficient e
Handcraft Dependent ,074 ,020 3,379 ,001
e
Listen to/find music ,025 ,007 3,379 ,001
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,213 ,011

Cramer's V ,213 ,011

Contingency Coefficient ,208 ,011

N of Valid Cases 247

B-40
Fitness activities * Listen to/find music
Crosstab

Count

Listen to/find music

never rarely sometimes often Total

Fitness activities 0 27 36 32 67 162

1 5 13 30 37 85

Total 32 49 62 104 247

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx.
a b
Value Std. Error T Approx. Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Fitness activities Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
c c
Listen to/find music ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman and Fitness activities Dependent ,048 ,025 ,008
Kruskal tau d
Listen to/find music ,013 ,008 ,021
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,026 ,014 1,820 ,006
Coefficient e
Fitness activities Dependent ,039 ,021 1,820 ,006
e
Listen to/find music ,019 ,011 1,820 ,006
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,218 ,008

Cramer's V ,218 ,008

Contingency Coefficient ,213 ,008

N of Valid Cases 247

B-41
Partial Corr
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/pai Listen to/find


Control Variables Music Photography nting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities music

age Music Correlation 1,000 ,196 ,102 ,069 -,138 ,324


group
Significance (2-tailed) . ,002 ,111 ,284 ,030 ,000

df 0 244 244 244 244 244

Photography Correlation ,196 1,000 ,241 ,241 ,018 ,178

Significance (2-tailed) ,002 . ,000 ,000 ,773 ,005

df 244 0 244 244 244 244

Drawing/sketc Correlation ,102 ,241 1,000 ,359 ,001 ,195


hing/painting/s
Significance (2-tailed) ,111 ,000 . ,000 ,989 ,002
culpting
df 244 244 0 244 244 244

Handcraft Correlation ,069 ,241 ,359 1,000 ,099 ,210

Significance (2-tailed) ,284 ,000 ,000 . ,121 ,001

df 244 244 244 0 244 244

Fitness Correlation -,138 ,018 ,001 ,099 1,000 ,137


activities
Significance (2-tailed) ,030 ,773 ,989 ,121 . ,031

df 244 244 244 244 0 244

Listen to/find Correlation ,324 ,178 ,195 ,210 ,137 1,000


music
Significance (2-tailed) ,000 ,005 ,002 ,001 ,031 .

df 244 244 244 244 244 0

B-42
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/p Listen to/find


Control Variables Music Photography ainting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities music

Time Music Correlation 1,000 ,199 ,092 ,059 -,138 ,319


spent on
Significance (2-tailed) . ,002 ,149 ,354 ,031 ,000
Facebook
df 0 244 244 244 244 244

Photography Correlation ,199 1,000 ,232 ,232 ,018 ,165

Significance (2-tailed) ,002 . ,000 ,000 ,783 ,010

df 244 0 244 244 244 244

Drawing/sketchin Correlation ,092 ,232 1,000 ,350 -,006 ,163


g/painting/sculpti
Significance (2-tailed) ,149 ,000 . ,000 ,924 ,010
ng
df 244 244 0 244 244 244

Handcraft Correlation ,059 ,232 ,350 1,000 ,094 ,190

Significance (2-tailed) ,354 ,000 ,000 . ,141 ,003

df 244 244 244 0 244 244

Fitness activities Correlation -,138 ,018 -,006 ,094 1,000 ,131

Significance (2-tailed) ,031 ,783 ,924 ,141 . ,041

df 244 244 244 244 0 244

Listen to/find Correlation ,319 ,165 ,163 ,190 ,131 1,000


music
Significance (2-tailed) ,000 ,010 ,010 ,003 ,041 .

df 244 244 244 244 244 0

B-43
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/p Listen to/find


Control Variables Music Photography ainting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities music

gender Music Correlation 1,000 ,196 ,090 ,051 -,153 ,305

Significance (2-tailed) . ,002 ,162 ,428 ,016 ,000

df 0 244 244 244 244 244

Photography Correlation ,196 1,000 ,233 ,230 ,011 ,164

Significance (2-tailed) ,002 . ,000 ,000 ,867 ,010

df 244 0 244 244 244 244

Drawing/sketching/ Correlation ,090 ,233 1,000 ,352 -,014 ,177


painting/sculpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,162 ,000 . ,000 ,824 ,005

df 244 244 0 244 244 244

Handcraft Correlation ,051 ,230 ,352 1,000 ,080 ,182

Significance (2-tailed) ,428 ,000 ,000 . ,213 ,004

df 244 244 244 0 244 244

Fitness activities Correlation -,153 ,011 -,014 ,080 1,000 ,101

Significance (2-tailed) ,016 ,867 ,824 ,213 . ,114

df 244 244 244 244 0 244

Listen to/find music Correlation ,305 ,164 ,177 ,182 ,101 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 ,010 ,005 ,004 ,114 .

df 244 244 244 244 244 0

B-44
Writing * Update my status
Crosstab

Count

Update my status

never rarely sometimes often Total

Writing 0 7 45 54 55 161

1 2 10 39 35 86

Total 9 55 93 90 247

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx.
Value Std. Errora T
b
Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,004 ,043 ,096 ,924


by c c
Writing Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
Update my status Dependent ,006 ,068 ,096 ,924
d
Goodman and Writing Dependent ,041 ,022 ,018
Kruskal tau d
Update my status Dependent ,015 ,009 ,010
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,024 ,014 1,728 ,013
Coefficient e
Writing Dependent ,034 ,020 1,728 ,013
e
Update my status Dependent ,018 ,011 1,728 ,013

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,202 ,018

Cramer's V ,202 ,018

Contingency Coefficient ,198 ,018

N of Valid Cases 247

B-45
Partial Corr

Correlations

Update my
Control Variables status Writing

gender Update my status Correlation 1,000 ,152

Significance (2-tailed) . ,017

df 0 244

Writing Correlation ,152 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,017 .

df 244 0

Correlations

Update my
Control Variables status Writing

age group Update my status Correlation 1,000 ,150

Significance (2-tailed) . ,018

df 0 244

Writing Correlation ,150 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,018 .

df 244 0

Correlations

Update my
Control Variables status Writing

Time spent on Facebook Update my status Correlation 1,000 ,154

Significance (2-tailed) . ,016

df 0 244

Writing Correlation ,154 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,016 .

df 244 0

B-46
Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting * Post links to YouTube.com
Crosstab

Count

Post links to YouTube.com

never rarely sometimes often Total

Drawing/sketching/painting/s 0 17 43 56 71 187
culpting
1 3 10 12 36 61

Total 20 53 68 107 248

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


Value Std. Errora T
b
Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
Dependent
c c
Post links to YouTube.com ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman and Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,034 ,023 ,039
Kruskal tau Dependent
d
Post links to YouTube.com ,016 ,011 ,007
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,019 ,013 1,460 ,038
Coefficient e
Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,030 ,021 1,460 ,038
Dependent
e
Post links to YouTube.com ,014 ,009 1,460 ,038
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-47
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,184 ,038

Cramer's V ,184 ,038

Contingency Coefficient ,181 ,038

N of Valid Cases 248

Music * Post links to YouTube.com


Crosstab

Count

Post links to YouTube.com

never rarely sometimes often Total

Music 0 7 21 27 17 72

1 13 32 41 90 176

Total 20 53 68 107 248

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,047 ,030 1,515 ,130


by c c
Music Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
Post links to YouTube.com ,071 ,045 1,515 ,130
Dependent
d
Goodman Music Dependent ,064 ,029 ,001
and Kruskal d
Post links to YouTube.com ,033 ,015 ,000
tau
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,036 ,017 2,123 ,001
Coefficient e
Music Dependent ,056 ,026 2,123 ,001
e
Post links to YouTube.com ,027 ,013 2,123 ,001
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

B-48
d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,254 ,001

Cramer's V ,254 ,001

Contingency Coefficient ,246 ,001

N of Valid Cases 248

Handcraft * Post links to YouTube.com


Crosstab

Count

Post links to YouTube.com

never rarely sometimes often Total

Handcraft 0 19 47 59 81 206

1 1 6 9 26 42

Total 20 53 68 107 248

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std.
a b
Value Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Handcraft Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
c c
Post links to YouTube.com ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman and Handcraft Dependent ,032 ,021 ,047
Kruskal tau d
Post links to YouTube.com ,014 ,010 ,016
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,020 ,013 1,519 ,038
Coefficient e
Handcraft Dependent ,037 ,024 1,519 ,038
e
Post links to YouTube.com ,014 ,009 1,519 ,038
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

B-49
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,180 ,046

Cramer's V ,180 ,046

Contingency Coefficient ,177 ,046

N of Valid Cases 248

Fitness activities * Post links to YouTube.com


Crosstab

Count

Post links to YouTube.com

never rarely sometimes often Total

Fitness activities 0 18 36 45 63 162

1 2 17 23 44 86

Total 20 53 68 107 248

B-50
Directional Measures
a b
Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.
c c
Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 . .
by c c
Fitness activities Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
c c
Post links to YouTube.com ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman Fitness activities Dependent ,030 ,017 ,058
and Kruskal d
Post links to YouTube.com ,008 ,007 ,125
tau
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,018 ,011 1,636 ,034
Coefficient e
Fitness activities Dependent ,027 ,016 1,636 ,034
e
Post links to YouTube.com ,014 ,008 1,636 ,034
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,174 ,057

Cramer's V ,174 ,057

Contingency Coefficient ,172 ,057

N of Valid Cases 248

B-51
Partial Corr

Correlations

Drawing/sketching/p Post links to


Control Variables Music ainting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities YouTube.com

Time spent on Music Correlation 1,000 ,091 ,072 -,133 ,195


Facebook
Significance (2-tailed) . ,152 ,260 ,037 ,002

df 0 245 245 245 245

Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,091 1,000 ,333 -,009 ,123


culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,152 . ,000 ,891 ,054

df 245 0 245 245 245

Handcraft Correlation ,072 ,333 1,000 ,097 ,154

Significance (2-tailed) ,260 ,000 . ,127 ,016

df 245 245 0 245 245

Fitness activities Correlation -,133 -,009 ,097 1,000 ,153

Significance (2-tailed) ,037 ,891 ,127 . ,016

df 245 245 245 0 245

Post links to YouTube.com Correlation ,195 ,123 ,154 ,153 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,002 ,054 ,016 ,016 .

df 245 245 245 245 0

B-52
Correlations

Drawing/sketching Post links to


Control Variables Music /painting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities YouTube.com

gender Music Correlation 1,000 ,088 ,061 -,150 ,185

Significance (2-tailed) . ,168 ,337 ,019 ,004

df 0 245 245 245 245

Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,088 1,000 ,333 -,017 ,144


culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,168 . ,000 ,785 ,023

df 245 0 245 245 245

Handcraft Correlation ,061 ,333 1,000 ,081 ,150

Significance (2-tailed) ,337 ,000 . ,207 ,018

df 245 245 0 245 245

Fitness activities Correlation -,150 -,017 ,081 1,000 ,134

Significance (2-tailed) ,019 ,785 ,207 . ,035

df 245 245 245 0 245

Post links to YouTube.com Correlation ,185 ,144 ,150 ,134 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,004 ,023 ,018 ,035 .

df 245 245 245 245 0

B-53
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/ Post links to


Control Variables Music painting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities YouTube.com

age group Music Correlation 1,000 ,101 ,081 -,135 ,195

Significance (2-tailed) . ,114 ,203 ,034 ,002

df 0 245 245 245 245

Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,101 1,000 ,340 -,002 ,161


culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,114 . ,000 ,977 ,011

df 245 0 245 245 245

Handcraft Correlation ,081 ,340 1,000 ,102 ,176

Significance (2-tailed) ,203 ,000 . ,109 ,006

df 245 245 0 245 245

Fitness activities Correlation -,135 -,002 ,102 1,000 ,155

Significance (2-tailed) ,034 ,977 ,109 . ,015

df 245 245 245 0 245

Post links to YouTube.com Correlation ,195 ,161 ,176 ,155 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,002 ,011 ,006 ,015 .

df 245 245 245 245 0

B-54
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/p Post links to


Control Variables Music ainting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities YouTube.com

Time Music Correlation 1,000 ,097 ,079 -,136 ,193


spent on
Significance (2-tailed) . ,128 ,219 ,033 ,002
Facebook
df 0 244 244 244 244
& age
group Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,097 1,000 ,330 -,007 ,124
culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,128 . ,000 ,913 ,051

df 244 0 244 244 244

Handcraft Correlation ,079 ,330 1,000 ,100 ,156

Significance (2-tailed) ,219 ,000 . ,118 ,014

df 244 244 0 244 244

Fitness activities Correlation -,136 -,007 ,100 1,000 ,152

Significance (2-tailed) ,033 ,913 ,118 . ,017

df 244 244 244 0 244

Post links to YouTube.com Correlation ,193 ,124 ,156 ,152 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,002 ,051 ,014 ,017 .

df 244 244 244 244 0

B-55
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/p Post links to


Control Variables Music ainting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities YouTube.com

Time Music Correlation 1,000 ,085 ,060 -,150 ,183


spent on
Significance (2-tailed) . ,186 ,353 ,018 ,004
Facebook
df 0 244 244 244 244
& gender
Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,085 1,000 ,327 -,020 ,114
culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,186 . ,000 ,758 ,075

df 244 0 244 244 244

Handcraft Correlation ,060 ,327 1,000 ,080 ,138

Significance (2-tailed) ,353 ,000 . ,212 ,031

df 244 244 0 244 244

Fitness activities Correlation -,150 -,020 ,080 1,000 ,135

Significance (2-tailed) ,018 ,758 ,212 . ,034

df 244 244 244 0 244

Post links to YouTube.com Correlation ,183 ,114 ,138 ,135 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,004 ,075 ,031 ,034 .

df 244 244 244 244 0

B-56
Correlations

Drawing/sketching/p Post links to


Control Variables Music ainting/sculpting Handcraft Fitness activities YouTube.com

Time Music Correlation 1,000 ,090 ,066 -,153 ,182


spent on
Significance (2-tailed) . ,158 ,302 ,016 ,004
Facebook
df 0 243 243 243 243
& gender
& age Drawing/sketching/painting/s Correlation ,090 1,000 ,324 -,018 ,115
group culpting
Significance (2-tailed) ,158 . ,000 ,780 ,071

df 243 0 243 243 243

Handcraft Correlation ,066 ,324 1,000 ,082 ,140

Significance (2-tailed) ,302 ,000 . ,200 ,029

df 243 243 0 243 243

Fitness activities Correlation -,153 -,018 ,082 1,000 ,134

Significance (2-tailed) ,016 ,780 ,200 . ,036

df 243 243 243 0 243

Post links to YouTube.com Correlation ,182 ,115 ,140 ,134 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,004 ,071 ,029 ,036 .

df 243 243 243 243 0

B-57
Upload/tag photos * Photography
Crosstab

Count

Photography

0 1 Total

Upload/tag photos never 14 4 18

rarely 63 33 96

sometimes 48 46 94

often 14 25 39

Total 139 108 247

Directional Measures
a b
Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,093 ,039 2,232 ,026


by
Upload/tag photos ,086 ,056 1,469 ,142
Nominal
Dependent

Photography Dependent ,102 ,055 1,773 ,076


c
Goodman Upload/tag photos ,018 ,011 ,004
and Kruskal Dependent
tau c
Photography Dependent ,058 ,029 ,002
d
Uncertainty Symmetric ,031 ,016 1,965 ,002
Coefficient d
Upload/tag photos ,024 ,012 1,965 ,002
Dependent
d
Photography Dependent ,043 ,022 1,965 ,002

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Based on chi-square approximation

d. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-58
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,242 ,002

Cramer's V ,242 ,002

Contingency Coefficient ,235 ,002

N of Valid Cases 247

Upload/tag photos * Handcraft


Crosstab

Count

Handcraft

0 1 Total

Upload/tag photos never 16 2 18

rarely 88 8 96

sometimes 73 21 94

often 28 11 39

Total 205 42 247

Directional Measures
a b
Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,067 ,026 2,443 ,015


by
Upload/tag photos ,086 ,034 2,443 ,015
Nominal
Dependent
c c
Handcraft Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman Upload/tag photos ,020 ,011 ,002
and Kruskal Dependent
tau d
Handcraft Dependent ,044 ,025 ,012
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,027 ,016 1,748 ,010
Coefficient e
Upload/tag photos ,019 ,011 1,748 ,010
Dependent
e
Handcraft Dependent ,050 ,028 1,748 ,010

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

B-59
d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,210 ,012

Cramer's V ,210 ,012

Contingency Coefficient ,206 ,012

N of Valid Cases 247

Upload/tag photos * Online computer gaming


Crosstab

Count

Online computer gaming

0 1 Total

Upload/tag photos never 15 3 18

rarely 75 21 96

sometimes 69 25 94

often 21 18 39

Total 180 67 247

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx.


a b
Value Error T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,018 ,031 ,590 ,555


by
Upload/tag photos Dependent ,026 ,044 ,590 ,555
Nominal
c c
Online computer gaming Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman Upload/tag photos Dependent ,010 ,008 ,054
and Kruskal d
Online computer gaming Dependent ,038 ,026 ,024
tau
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,020 ,014 1,469 ,030
Coefficient e
Upload/tag photos Dependent ,015 ,010 1,469 ,030
e
Online computer gaming Dependent ,031 ,021 1,469 ,030

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

B-60
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,196 ,023

Cramer's V ,196 ,023

Contingency Coefficient ,192 ,023

N of Valid Cases 247

B-61
Partial Corr

Correlations

Online computer Upload/tag


Control Variables Photography Handcraft gaming photos

Time spent on Facebook Photography Correlation 1,000 ,249 -,010 ,233

Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,872 ,000

df 0 244 244 244

Handcraft Correlation ,249 1,000 ,033 ,177

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,611 ,005

df 244 0 244 244

Online computer gaming Correlation -,010 ,033 1,000 ,165

Significance (2-tailed) ,872 ,611 . ,009

df 244 244 0 244

Upload/tag photos Correlation ,233 ,177 ,165 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 ,005 ,009 .

df 244 244 244 0

B-62
Correlations

Online computer Upload/tag


Control Variables Photography Handcraft gaming photos

gender Photography Correlation 1,000 ,244 -,004 ,234

Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,955 ,000

df 0 244 244 244

Handcraft Correlation ,244 1,000 ,043 ,179

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,506 ,005

df 244 0 244 244

Online computer gaming Correlation -,004 ,043 1,000 ,181

Significance (2-tailed) ,955 ,506 . ,004

df 244 244 0 244

Upload/tag photos Correlation ,234 ,179 ,181 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 ,005 ,004 .

df 244 244 244 0

B-63
Correlations

Online computer Upload/tag


Control Variables Photography Handcraft gaming photos

age group Photography Correlation 1,000 ,257 -,012 ,237

Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,853 ,000

df 0 244 244 244

Handcraft Correlation ,257 1,000 ,045 ,197

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,484 ,002

df 244 0 244 244

Online computer gaming Correlation -,012 ,045 1,000 ,169

Significance (2-tailed) ,853 ,484 . ,008

df 244 244 0 244

Upload/tag photos Correlation ,237 ,197 ,169 1,000

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 ,002 ,008 .

df 244 244 244 0

B-64
Send personal messages * Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting
Crosstab

Count

Drawing/sketching/painting/sculptin
g

0 1 Total

Send personal messages never 9 3 12

rarely 49 12 61

sometimes 82 18 100

often 45 27 72

Total 185 60 245

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Std. Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,044 ,032 1,347 ,178


by
Send personal messages Dependent ,062 ,045 1,347 ,178
Nominal
c c
Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman Send personal messages Dependent ,018 ,012 ,004
and Kruskal d
Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,039 ,026 ,022
tau
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,021 ,014 1,502 ,026
Coefficient e
Send personal messages Dependent ,015 ,010 1,502 ,026
e
Drawing/sketching/painting/sculpting ,034 ,022 1,502 ,026
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-65
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,198 ,022

Cramer's V ,198 ,022

Contingency Coefficient ,195 ,022

N of Valid Cases 245

Send personal messages * Board games


Crosstab

Count

Board games

0 1 Total

Send personal messages never 7 5 12

rarely 39 22 61

sometimes 62 38 100

often 28 44 72

Total 136 109 245

Directional Measures
a b
Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,087 ,059 1,420 ,156


by
Send personal messages ,041 ,061 ,663 ,507
Nominal
Dependent

Board games Dependent ,147 ,072 1,899 ,058


c
Goodman Send personal messages ,021 ,012 ,002
and Kruskal Dependent
tau c
Board games Dependent ,047 ,027 ,009
d
Uncertainty Symmetric ,025 ,014 1,716 ,009
Coefficient d
Send personal messages ,019 ,011 1,716 ,009
Dependent
d
Board games Dependent ,034 ,020 1,716 ,009

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

B-66
c. Based on chi-square approximation

d. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,217 ,009

Cramer's V ,217 ,009

Contingency Coefficient ,212 ,009

N of Valid Cases 245

Partial Corr
Correlations

Board Drawing/sketching Send personal


Control Variables games /painting/sculpting messages

Time Board Correlation 1,000 ,103 ,172


spent on games
Significance (2-tailed) . ,108 ,007
Facebook
df 0 242 242

Drawing/ske Correlation ,103 1,000 ,120


tching/painti
Significance (2-tailed) ,108 . ,061
ng/sculpting
df 242 0 242

Send Correlation ,172 ,120 1,000


personal
Significance (2-tailed) ,007 ,061 .
messages
df 242 242 0

B-67
Correlations

Board Drawing/sketching/p Send personal


Control Variables games ainting/sculpting messages

gender Board Correlation 1,000 ,103 ,171


games
Significance (2-tailed) . ,109 ,007

df 0 242 242

Drawing/sket Correlation ,103 1,000 ,132


ching/paintin
Significance (2-tailed) ,109 . ,040
g/sculpting
df 242 0 242

Send Correlation ,171 ,132 1,000


personal
Significance (2-tailed) ,007 ,040 .
messages
df 242 242 0

Correlations

Board Drawing/sketching/pa Send personal


Control Variables games inting/sculpting messages

age Board games Correlation 1,000 ,105 ,179


group
Significance (2-tailed) . ,102 ,005

df 0 242 242

Drawing/sketc Correlation ,105 1,000 ,134


hing/painting/s
Significance (2-tailed) ,102 . ,036
culpting
df 242 0 242

Send personal Correlation ,179 ,134 1,000


messages
Significance (2-tailed) ,005 ,036 .

df 242 242 0

B-68
Create events and send invitations * Blogging
Crosstab

Count

Blogging

0 1 Total

Create events and send never 87 26 113


invitations
rarely 55 32 87

sometimes 15 16 31

often 6 7 13

Total 163 81 244

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Std. Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,038 ,047 ,793 ,428


by
Blogging Dependent ,025 ,081 ,302 ,763
Nominal
Create events and send ,046 ,057 ,789 ,430
invitations Dependent
c
Goodman and Blogging Dependent ,053 ,029 ,005
Kruskal tau c
Create events and send ,022 ,013 ,001
invitations Dependent
d
Uncertainty Symmetric ,030 ,016 1,811 ,005
Coefficient d
Blogging Dependent ,042 ,023 1,811 ,005
d
Create events and send ,023 ,013 1,811 ,005
invitations Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Based on chi-square approximation

d. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-69
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,231 ,005

Cramer's V ,231 ,005

Contingency Coefficient ,225 ,005

N of Valid Cases 244

Create events and send invitations * Forum/group participation


Crosstab

Count

Forum/group participation

0 1 Total

Create events and send never 84 29 113


invitations
rarely 50 37 87

sometimes 12 19 31

often 6 7 13

Total 152 92 244

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Std. Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,072 ,045 1,533 ,125


by
Create events and send invitations ,061 ,060 ,987 ,324
Nominal
Dependent

Forum/group participation Dependent ,087 ,069 1,210 ,226


c
Goodman Create events and send invitations ,029 ,015 ,000
and Kruskal Dependent
tau c
Forum/group participation Dependent ,068 ,032 ,001
d
Uncertainty Symmetric ,038 ,018 2,074 ,001
Coefficient d
Create events and send invitations ,030 ,014 2,074 ,001
Dependent
d
Forum/group participation Dependent ,052 ,025 2,074 ,001

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

B-70
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Based on chi-square approximation

d. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,261 ,001

Cramer's V ,261 ,001

Contingency Coefficient ,253 ,001

N of Valid Cases 244

Create events and send invitations * Bicycling


Crosstab

Count

Bicycling

0 1 Total

Create events and send never 93 20 113


invitations
rarely 57 30 87

sometimes 19 12 31

often 9 4 13

Total 178 66 244

B-71
Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Std. Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,051 ,035 1,420 ,156


by
Create events and send invitations ,076 ,052 1,420 ,156
Nominal
Dependent
c c
Bicycling Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
d
Goodman Create events and send invitations ,022 ,014 ,001
and Kruskal Dependent
tau d
Bicycling Dependent ,040 ,024 ,022
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,023 ,015 1,600 ,020
Coefficient e
Create events and send invitations ,018 ,011 1,600 ,020
Dependent
e
Bicycling Dependent ,035 ,022 1,600 ,020

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,199 ,022

Cramer's V ,199 ,022

Contingency Coefficient ,195 ,022

N of Valid Cases 244

B-72
Partial Corr

Correlations

Create events
Forum/group and send
Control Variables Blogging participation Bicycling invitations

Time spent on Facebook Blogging Correlation 1,000 ,296 ,182 ,227

Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,005 ,000

df 0 241 241 241

Forum/group participation Correlation ,296 1,000 ,191 ,245

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,003 ,000

df 241 0 241 241

Bicycling Correlation ,182 ,191 1,000 ,161

Significance (2-tailed) ,005 ,003 . ,012

df 241 241 0 241

Create events and send Correlation ,227 ,245 ,161 1,000


invitations
Significance (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,012 .

df 241 241 241 0

B-73
Correlations

Create events
Forum/group and send
Control Variables Blogging participation Bicycling invitations

gender Blogging Correlation 1,000 ,288 ,176 ,221

Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,006 ,001

df 0 241 241 241

Forum/group participation Correlation ,288 1,000 ,187 ,223

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,003 ,000

df 241 0 241 241

Bicycling Correlation ,176 ,187 1,000 ,157

Significance (2-tailed) ,006 ,003 . ,014

df 241 241 0 241

Create events and send Correlation ,221 ,223 ,157 1,000


invitations
Significance (2-tailed) ,001 ,000 ,014 .

df 241 241 241 0

B-74
Correlations

Create events
Forum/group and send
Control Variables Blogging participation Bicycling invitations

age group Blogging Correlation 1,000 ,292 ,175 ,208

Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,006 ,001

df 0 241 241 241

Forum/group participation Correlation ,292 1,000 ,191 ,240

Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,003 ,000

df 241 0 241 241

Bicycling Correlation ,175 ,191 1,000 ,157

Significance (2-tailed) ,006 ,003 . ,014

df 241 241 0 241

Create events and send Correlation ,208 ,240 ,157 1,000


invitations
Significance (2-tailed) ,001 ,000 ,014 .

df 241 241 241 0

B-75
Create groups about specific topics * Forum/group participation
Crosstab

Count

Forum/group participation

0 1 Total

Create groups about specific never 91 35 126


topics
rarely 48 38 86

sometimes 9 17 26

often 3 4 7

Total 151 94 245

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Std. Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,056 ,047 1,169 ,242


by
Create groups about specific topics ,025 ,071 ,351 ,725
Nominal
Dependent

Forum/group participation Dependent ,096 ,058 1,575 ,115


c
Goodman and Create groups about specific topics ,030 ,016 ,000
Kruskal tau Dependent
c
Forum/group participation Dependent ,066 ,032 ,001
d
Uncertainty Symmetric ,039 ,019 2,042 ,001
Coefficient d
Create groups about specific topics ,032 ,015 2,042 ,001
Dependent
d
Forum/group participation Dependent ,050 ,024 2,042 ,001

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Based on chi-square approximation

d. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

B-76
Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,258 ,001

Cramer's V ,258 ,001

Contingency Coefficient ,250 ,001

N of Valid Cases 245

Forum/group participation * Visit/join groups to talk about specific


topics
Crosstab

Count

Visit/join groups to talk about specific topics

never rarely sometimes often Total

Forum/group participation 0 23 67 52 10 152

1 8 34 30 17 89

Total 31 101 82 27 241

Directional Measures

Asymp. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Std. Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,031 ,022 1,352 ,176


by
Forum/group participation Dependent ,079 ,056 1,352 ,176
Nominal
c c
Visit/join groups to talk about specific topics ,000 ,000 . .
Dependent
d
Goodman Forum/group participation Dependent ,041 ,026 ,019
and Kruskal d
Visit/join groups to talk about specific topics ,008 ,006 ,129
tau
Dependent
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,021 ,014 1,560 ,021
Coefficient e
Forum/group participation Dependent ,031 ,020 1,560 ,021
e
Visit/join groups to talk about specific topics ,016 ,010 1,560 ,021
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

B-77
d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,203 ,019

Cramer's V ,203 ,019

Contingency Coefficient ,199 ,019

N of Valid Cases 241

Partial Corr

Correlations

Create groups Visit/join groups


Forum/group about specific to talk about
Control Variables participation topics specific topics

age Forum/group Correlation 1,000 ,247 ,175


group participation
Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,007

df 0 235 235

Create groups Correlation ,247 1,000 ,229


about specific
Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,000
topics
df 235 0 235

Visit/join groups Correlation ,175 ,229 1,000


to talk about
Significance (2-tailed) ,007 ,000 .
specific topics
df 235 235 0

B-78
Correlations

Create groups Visit/join groups


Forum/group about specific to talk about
Control Variables participation topics specific topics

gender Forum/group Correlation 1,000 ,205 ,179


participation
Significance (2-tailed) . ,001 ,006

df 0 235 235

Create groups Correlation ,205 1,000 ,229


about specific
Significance (2-tailed) ,001 . ,000
topics
df 235 0 235

Visit/join groups to Correlation ,179 ,229 1,000


talk about specific
Significance (2-tailed) ,006 ,000 .
topics
df 235 235 0

Correlations

Create groups Visit/join groups


Forum/group about specific to talk about
Control Variables participation topics specific topics

Time Forum/group Correlation 1,000 ,249 ,180


spent on participation
Significance (2-tailed) . ,000 ,005
Facebook
df 0 235 235

Create groups Correlation ,249 1,000 ,225


about specific
Significance (2-tailed) ,000 . ,000
topics
df 235 0 235

Visit/join Correlation ,180 ,225 1,000


groups to talk
Significance (2-tailed) ,005 ,000 .
about specific
df 235 235 0
topics

B-79
Music * Watch video links
Crosstab

Count

Watch video links

never rarely sometimes often Total

Music 0 9 21 26 15 71

1 11 37 62 67 177

Total 20 58 88 82 248

Directional Measures

Asymp. Std. Approx. Approx.


a b
Value Error T Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,022 ,049 ,440 ,660


by c c
Music Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
Watch video links Dependent ,031 ,070 ,440 ,660
d
Goodman and Music Dependent ,035 ,023 ,036
Kruskal tau d
Watch video links Dependent ,012 ,008 ,035
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,019 ,012 1,498 ,034
Coefficient e
Music Dependent ,029 ,019 1,498 ,034
e
Watch video links Dependent ,014 ,009 1,498 ,034

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,186 ,035

Cramer's V ,186 ,035

Contingency Coefficient ,183 ,035

N of Valid Cases 248

B-80
Fitness activities * Watch video links
Crosstab

Count

Watch video links

never rarely sometimes often Total

Fitness activities 0 19 42 55 47 163

1 1 16 33 35 85

Total 20 58 88 82 248

Directional Measures
a b
Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,008 ,034 ,243 ,808


by c c
Fitness activities Dependent ,000 ,000 . .
Nominal
Watch video links Dependent ,013 ,051 ,243 ,808
d
Goodman and Fitness activities Dependent ,047 ,019 ,009
Kruskal tau d
Watch video links Dependent ,011 ,007 ,047
e
Uncertainty Symmetric ,030 ,013 2,228 ,003
Coefficient e
Fitness activities Dependent ,045 ,020 2,228 ,003
e
Watch video links Dependent ,022 ,010 2,228 ,003

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.

d. Based on chi-square approximation

e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,218 ,008

Cramer's V ,218 ,008

Contingency Coefficient ,213 ,008

N of Valid Cases 248

B-81
Partial Corr

Correlations

Control Variables Music Fitness activities Watch video links

Time spent Music Correlation 1,000 -,128 ,178


on
Significance (2-tailed) . ,045 ,005
Facebook
df 0 245 245

Fitness Correlation -,128 1,000 ,201


activities
Significance (2-tailed) ,045 . ,001

df 245 0 245

Watch Correlation ,178 ,201 1,000


video
Significance (2-tailed) ,005 ,001 .
links
df 245 245 0

Correlations

Control Variables Music Fitness activities Watch video links

age Music Correlation 1,000 -,129 ,175


group
Significance (2-tailed) . ,043 ,006

df 0 245 245

Fitness Correlation -,129 1,000 ,201


activities
Significance (2-tailed) ,043 . ,002

df 245 0 245

Watch Correlation ,175 ,201 1,000


video
Significance (2-tailed) ,006 ,002 .
links
df 245 245 0

B-82
Correlations

Control Variables Music Fitness activities Watch video links

gender Music Correlation 1,000 -,144 ,176

Significance (2-tailed) . ,024 ,006

df 0 245 245

Fitness Correlation -,144 1,000 ,192


activities
Significance (2-tailed) ,024 . ,002

df 245 0 245

Watch Correlation ,176 ,192 1,000


video links
Significance (2-tailed) ,006 ,002 .

df 245 245 0

5.3 Learning through Facebook use


5.3.1 Active social mediation of individual learning on Facebook

Differences in perceptions related to demographic characteristics

Oneway ANOVA (independent variable: age group)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Through Facebook use I 3,531 4 235 ,008


have developed my writing
skills

Through Facebook use I ,704 4 233 ,590


have gained knowledge
concerning foreign language
use

ANOVA

B-83
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Through Facebook use I Between Groups 46,400 4 11,600 8,760 ,000


have developed my writing
Within Groups 311,184 235 1,324
skills
Total 357,583 239

Through Facebook use I Between Groups 28,110 4 7,028 4,453 ,002


have gained knowledge Within Groups 367,743 233 1,578
concerning foreign language
Total 395,853 237
use

Robust Tests of Equality of Means


a
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Through Facebook use I Brown-Forsythe 9,183 4 96,466 ,000


have developed my writing
skills

Through Facebook use I Brown-Forsythe 4,658 4 97,106 ,002


have gained knowledge
concerning foreign language
use

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

B-84
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills


Bonferroni

(I) age (J) age Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval


group group (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

under 20 21-25 -,583 ,407 1,000 -1,74 ,57

26-30 ,463 ,405 1,000 -,69 1,61

31-40 ,316 ,413 1,000 -,85 1,49

over 40 -,067 ,447 1,000 -1,33 1,20

21-25 under 20 ,583 ,407 1,000 -,57 1,74


*
26-30 1,047 ,189 ,000 ,51 1,58
*
31-40 ,899 ,204 ,000 ,32 1,48

over 40 ,517 ,267 ,543 -,24 1,27

26-30 under 20 -,463 ,405 1,000 -1,61 ,69


*
21-25 -1,047 ,189 ,000 -1,58 -,51

31-40 -,147 ,201 1,000 -,72 ,42

over 40 -,530 ,265 ,466 -1,28 ,22

31-40 under 20 -,316 ,413 1,000 -1,49 ,85


*
21-25 -,899 ,204 ,000 -1,48 -,32

26-30 ,147 ,201 1,000 -,42 ,72

over 40 -,382 ,276 1,000 -1,16 ,40

over 40 under 20 ,067 ,447 1,000 -1,20 1,33

21-25 -,517 ,267 ,543 -1,27 ,24

26-30 ,530 ,265 ,466 -,22 1,28

31-40 ,382 ,276 1,000 -,40 1,16

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

B-85
Multiple Comparisons

Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills


Tukey HSD

(I) age (J) age Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval


group group (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

under 20 21-25 -,583 ,407 ,606 -1,70 ,54

26-30 ,463 ,405 ,784 -,65 1,58

31-40 ,316 ,413 ,940 -,82 1,45

over 40 -,067 ,447 1,000 -1,30 1,16

21-25 under 20 ,583 ,407 ,606 -,54 1,70


*
26-30 1,047 ,189 ,000 ,53 1,57
*
31-40 ,899 ,204 ,000 ,34 1,46

over 40 ,517 ,267 ,302 -,22 1,25

26-30 under 20 -,463 ,405 ,784 -1,58 ,65


*
21-25 -1,047 ,189 ,000 -1,57 -,53

31-40 -,147 ,201 ,949 -,70 ,41

over 40 -,530 ,265 ,269 -1,26 ,20

31-40 under 20 -,316 ,413 ,940 -1,45 ,82


*
21-25 -,899 ,204 ,000 -1,46 -,34

26-30 ,147 ,201 ,949 -,41 ,70

over 40 -,382 ,276 ,638 -1,14 ,38

over 40 under 20 ,067 ,447 1,000 -1,16 1,30

21-25 -,517 ,267 ,302 -1,25 ,22

26-30 ,530 ,265 ,269 -,20 1,26

31-40 ,382 ,276 ,638 -,38 1,14

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

B-86
Multiple Comparisons

Through Facebook use I have gained knowledge concerning foreign language use
Bonferroni

(I) age (J) age Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval


group group (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

under 20 21-25 ,018 ,444 1,000 -1,24 1,28

26-30 ,781 ,443 ,792 -,47 2,04

31-40 ,733 ,452 1,000 -,55 2,01

over 40 ,533 ,488 1,000 -,85 1,92

21-25 under 20 -,018 ,444 1,000 -1,28 1,24


*
26-30 ,762 ,206 ,003 ,18 1,35
*
31-40 ,715 ,224 ,016 ,08 1,35

over 40 ,515 ,291 ,782 -,31 1,34

26-30 under 20 -,781 ,443 ,792 -2,04 ,47


*
21-25 -,762 ,206 ,003 -1,35 -,18

31-40 -,047 ,222 1,000 -,68 ,58

over 40 -,247 ,290 1,000 -1,07 ,57

31-40 under 20 -,733 ,452 1,000 -2,01 ,55


*
21-25 -,715 ,224 ,016 -1,35 -,08

26-30 ,047 ,222 1,000 -,58 ,68

over 40 -,200 ,303 1,000 -1,06 ,66

over 40 under 20 -,533 ,488 1,000 -1,92 ,85

21-25 -,515 ,291 ,782 -1,34 ,31

26-30 ,247 ,290 1,000 -,57 1,07

31-40 ,200 ,303 1,000 -,66 1,06

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

B-87
Multiple Comparisons

Through Facebook use I have gained knowledge concerning foreign language use
Tukey HSD

(I) age (J) age Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval


group group (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

under 20 21-25 ,018 ,444 1,000 -1,20 1,24

26-30 ,781 ,443 ,398 -,44 2,00

31-40 ,733 ,452 ,484 -,51 1,98

over 40 ,533 ,488 ,811 -,81 1,88

21-25 under 20 -,018 ,444 1,000 -1,24 1,20


*
26-30 ,762 ,206 ,002 ,20 1,33
*
31-40 ,715 ,224 ,014 ,10 1,33

over 40 ,515 ,291 ,394 -,29 1,32

26-30 under 20 -,781 ,443 ,398 -2,00 ,44


*
21-25 -,762 ,206 ,002 -1,33 -,20

31-40 -,047 ,222 1,000 -,66 ,56

over 40 -,247 ,290 ,913 -1,04 ,55

31-40 under 20 -,733 ,452 ,484 -1,98 ,51


*
21-25 -,715 ,224 ,014 -1,33 -,10

26-30 ,047 ,222 1,000 -,56 ,66

over 40 -,200 ,303 ,965 -1,03 ,63

over 40 under 20 -,533 ,488 ,811 -1,88 ,81

21-25 -,515 ,291 ,394 -1,32 ,29

26-30 ,247 ,290 ,913 -,55 1,04

31-40 ,200 ,303 ,965 -,63 1,03

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

B-88
Oneway ANOVA (independent variable: educational level)

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Through Facebook use I 3,874 2 237 ,022


have developed my writing
skills

Through Facebook use I ,896 2 235 ,410


have gained knowledge
concerning foreign language
use

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Through Facebook use I Between Groups 21,743 2 10,872 7,672 ,001


have developed my writing
Within Groups 335,840 237 1,417
skills
Total 357,583 239

Through Facebook use I Between Groups 20,622 2 10,311 6,457 ,002


have gained knowledge Within Groups 375,231 235 1,597
concerning foreign language
Total 395,853 237
use

Robust Tests of Equality of Means


a
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Through Facebook use I Brown-Forsythe 6,729 2 73,364 ,002


have developed my writing
skills

Through Facebook use I Brown-Forsythe 6,807 2 110,833 ,002


have gained knowledge
concerning foreign language
use

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

B-89
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

95% Confidence
Mean Interval
(I) educational (J) educational Difference Std. Lower Upper
Dependent Variable level level (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

Through Tukey HSD high school first degree ,241 ,268 ,642 -,39 ,87
Facebook *
postgraduate ,788 ,269 ,010 ,15 1,42
use I have
first degree high school -,241 ,268 ,642 -,87 ,39
developed
*
my writing postgraduate ,547 ,162 ,002 ,16 ,93
skills postgraduate high school -,788
*
,269 ,010 -1,42 -,15
*
first degree -,547 ,162 ,002 -,93 -,16

Bonferroni high school first degree ,241 ,268 1,000 -,41 ,89
*
postgraduate ,788 ,269 ,011 ,14 1,44

first degree high school -,241 ,268 1,000 -,89 ,41


*
postgraduate ,547 ,162 ,003 ,16 ,94
*
postgraduate high school -,788 ,269 ,011 -1,44 -,14
*
first degree -,547 ,162 ,003 -,94 -,16

Through Tukey HSD high school first degree ,117 ,285 ,912 -,56 ,79
Facebook postgraduate ,685
*
,286 ,046 ,01 1,36
use I have
first degree high school -,117 ,285 ,912 -,79 ,56
gained
*
knowledge postgraduate ,568 ,173 ,003 ,16 ,98
*
concerning postgraduate high school -,685 ,286 ,046 -1,36 -,01
foreign first degree -,568
*
,173 ,003 -,98 -,16
language
Bonferroni high school first degree ,117 ,285 1,000 -,57 ,80
use
postgraduate ,685 ,286 ,052 ,00 1,37

first degree high school -,117 ,285 1,000 -,80 ,57


*
postgraduate ,568 ,173 ,004 ,15 ,98

postgraduate high school -,685 ,286 ,052 -1,37 ,00


*
first degree -,568 ,173 ,004 -,98 -,15

B-90
Multiple Comparisons

95% Confidence
Mean Interval
(I) educational (J) educational Difference Std. Lower Upper
Dependent Variable level level (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound

Through Tukey HSD high school first degree ,241 ,268 ,642 -,39 ,87
Facebook *
postgraduate ,788 ,269 ,010 ,15 1,42
use I have
first degree high school -,241 ,268 ,642 -,87 ,39
developed
*
my writing postgraduate ,547 ,162 ,002 ,16 ,93
skills postgraduate high school -,788
*
,269 ,010 -1,42 -,15
*
first degree -,547 ,162 ,002 -,93 -,16

Bonferroni high school first degree ,241 ,268 1,000 -,41 ,89
*
postgraduate ,788 ,269 ,011 ,14 1,44

first degree high school -,241 ,268 1,000 -,89 ,41


*
postgraduate ,547 ,162 ,003 ,16 ,94
*
postgraduate high school -,788 ,269 ,011 -1,44 -,14
*
first degree -,547 ,162 ,003 -,94 -,16

Through Tukey HSD high school first degree ,117 ,285 ,912 -,56 ,79
Facebook postgraduate ,685
*
,286 ,046 ,01 1,36
use I have
first degree high school -,117 ,285 ,912 -,79 ,56
gained
*
knowledge postgraduate ,568 ,173 ,003 ,16 ,98
*
concerning postgraduate high school -,685 ,286 ,046 -1,36 -,01
foreign first degree -,568
*
,173 ,003 -,98 -,16
language
Bonferroni high school first degree ,117 ,285 1,000 -,57 ,80
use
postgraduate ,685 ,286 ,052 ,00 1,37

first degree high school -,117 ,285 1,000 -,80 ,57


*
postgraduate ,568 ,173 ,004 ,15 ,98

postgraduate high school -,685 ,286 ,052 -1,37 ,00


*
first degree -,568 ,173 ,004 -,98 -,15

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

B-91
Regression (dependent variable: Through Facebook use I have gained
knowledge concerning foreign language use)

Variables Entered/Removed

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 educational level, . Enter


Time spent on
Facebook, age
a
group

a. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,346 ,120 ,109 1,220

a. Predictors: (Constant), educational level, Time spent on Facebook,


age group

b
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 47,527 3 15,842 10,643 ,000

Residual 348,326 234 1,489

Total 395,853 237

a. Predictors: (Constant), educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have gained knowledge concerning foreign
language use

B-92
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,131 ,410 7,640 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,317 ,079 ,250 4,001 ,000 ,284 ,253 ,245

age group -,103 ,081 -,084 -1,277 ,203 -,183 -,083 -,078

educational level -,308 ,129 -,156 -2,390 ,018 -,215 -,154 -,147

a. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have gained knowledge concerning foreign language use

Regression (dependent variable: Through Facebook use I have


developed my writing skills)

Variables Entered/Removed

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 educational level, . Enter


Time spent on
Facebook, age
a
group

a. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,308 ,095 ,084 1,171

a. Predictors: (Constant), educational level, Time spent on Facebook,


age group

B-93
b
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 33,973 3 11,324 8,259 ,000

Residual 323,610 236 1,371

Total 357,583 239

a. Predictors: (Constant), educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,986 ,390 7,651 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,194 ,075 ,163 2,585 ,010 ,200 ,166 ,160

age group -,103 ,077 -,088 -1,330 ,185 -,182 -,086 -,082

educational level -,361 ,123 -,193 -2,924 ,004 -,240 -,187 -,181

a. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

B-94
Differences in perceptions related to interests

T-Test
Group Statistics

Writing
lyrics/po
ems N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I seek information about 0 174 3,32 1,037 ,079


issues that are of interest to
1 63 3,63 ,903 ,114
me by asking other people on
Facebook

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I seek information about Equal variances assumed 2,285 ,132 -2,122 235 ,035 -,313 ,148 -,604 -,022
issues that are of interest to
Equal variances not -2,263 125,043 ,025 -,313 ,138 -,587 -,039
me by asking other people
assumed
on Facebook

B-95
T-Test

Group Statistics

movie
making N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I seek information about 0 209 3,35 1,009 ,070


issues that are of interest to
1 28 3,79 ,957 ,181
me by asking other people on
Facebook

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I seek information about Equal variances assumed 2,020 ,157 -2,138 235 ,034 -,432 ,202 -,829 -,034
issues that are of interest to
Equal variances not -2,227 35,545 ,032 -,432 ,194 -,825 -,038
me by asking other people
assumed
on Facebook

B-96
Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age . Enter


group, Time spent on Facebook,
a
educational level

2 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . Time spent on Backward (criterion: Probability


Facebook of F-to-remove >= ,100).

5 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I seek information about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people
on Facebook

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,186 ,035 ,014 1,004
b
2 ,185 ,034 ,018 1,002
c
3 ,179 ,032 ,019 1,001
d
4 ,163 ,026 ,018 1,002
e
5 ,137 ,019 ,015 1,003

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group,


Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group,


Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, Time spent on


Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender

e. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems

B-97
f
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 8,371 5 1,674 1,662 ,145

Residual 232,743 231 1,008

Total 241,114 236


b
2 Regression 8,290 4 2,073 2,065 ,086

Residual 232,824 232 1,004

Total 241,114 236


c
3 Regression 7,685 3 2,562 2,557 ,056

Residual 233,428 233 1,002

Total 241,114 236


d
4 Regression 6,382 2 3,191 3,181 ,043

Residual 234,732 234 1,003

Total 241,114 236


e
5 Regression 4,534 1 4,534 4,503 ,035

Residual 236,580 235 1,007

Total 241,114 236

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender

e. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems

f. Dependent Variable: I seek information about issues that are of interest to me by asking other
people on Facebook

B-98
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,496 ,402 8,704 ,000

gender -,188 ,163 -,076 -1,154 ,250 -,081 -,076 -,075

age group -,056 ,068 -,057 -,825 ,410 -,072 -,054 -,053

educational level ,030 ,107 ,020 ,284 ,777 ,000 ,019 ,018

Time spent on Facebook ,068 ,066 ,068 1,018 ,310 ,106 ,067 ,066

Writing lyrics/poems ,287 ,151 ,126 1,905 ,058 ,137 ,124 ,123

2 (Constant) 3,550 ,352 10,092 ,000

gender -,188 ,163 -,076 -1,156 ,249 -,081 -,076 -,075

age group -,050 ,064 -,051 -,776 ,438 -,072 -,051 -,050

Time spent on Facebook ,066 ,066 ,067 1,002 ,317 ,106 ,066 ,065

Writing lyrics/poems ,291 ,149 ,128 1,948 ,053 ,137 ,127 ,126

3 (Constant) 3,379 ,273 12,361 ,000

gender -,189 ,163 -,076 -1,164 ,246 -,081 -,076 -,075

Time spent on Facebook ,074 ,065 ,075 1,141 ,255 ,106 ,075 ,074

Writing lyrics/poems ,295 ,149 ,129 1,975 ,049 ,137 ,128 ,127

4 (Constant) 3,583 ,207 17,333 ,000

gender -,218 ,161 -,088 -1,357 ,176 -,081 -,088 -,088

Writing lyrics/poems ,322 ,147 ,141 2,187 ,030 ,137 ,142 ,141

5 (Constant) 3,322 ,076 43,671 ,000

B-99
Writing lyrics/poems ,313 ,148 ,137 2,122 ,035 ,137 ,137 ,137

a. Dependent Variable: I seek information about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on Facebook

e
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 educational level ,020 ,284 ,777 ,019 ,880
b
3 educational level ,001 ,021 ,983 ,001 ,980
b
age group -,051 -,776 ,438 -,051 ,971
c
4 educational level -,008 -,117 ,907 -,008 ,995
c
age group -,061 -,947 ,345 -,062 ,996
c
Time spent on Facebook ,075 1,141 ,255 ,075 ,953
d
5 educational level -,010 -,148 ,882 -,010 ,995
d
age group -,064 -,991 ,323 -,065 ,997
d
Time spent on Facebook ,087 1,337 ,182 ,087 ,977
d
gender -,088 -1,357 ,176 -,088 ,998

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group, Time spent on Facebook

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender

d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems

e. Dependent Variable: I seek information about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on Facebook

B-100
Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 movie making, age group, gender, Time . Enter


a
spent on Facebook, educational level

2 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I seek information about issues that are of interest to me by asking other
people on Facebook

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,201 ,040 ,019 1,001
b
2 ,200 ,040 ,023 ,999
c
3 ,193 ,037 ,025 ,998
d
4 ,177 ,031 ,023 ,999

a. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time


spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time


spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on


Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

B-101
e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 9,700 5 1,940 1,936 ,089

Residual 231,414 231 1,002

Total 241,114 236


b
2 Regression 9,616 4 2,404 2,409 ,050

Residual 231,498 232 ,998

Total 241,114 236


c
3 Regression 8,945 3 2,982 2,992 ,032

Residual 232,169 233 ,996

Total 241,114 236


d
4 Regression 7,556 2 3,778 3,785 ,024

Residual 233,558 234 ,998

Total 241,114 236

a. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I seek information about issues that are of interest to me by asking other
people on Facebook

B-102
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,474 ,400 8,679 ,000

gender -,191 ,163 -,077 -1,173 ,242 -,081 -,077 -,076

age group -,058 ,067 -,060 -,868 ,387 -,072 -,057 -,056

educational level ,031 ,106 ,020 ,289 ,773 ,000 ,019 ,019

Time spent on Facebook ,091 ,065 ,092 1,386 ,167 ,106 ,091 ,089

movie making ,452 ,203 ,145 2,231 ,027 ,138 ,145 ,144

2 (Constant) 3,529 ,351 10,053 ,000

gender -,191 ,162 -,077 -1,174 ,241 -,081 -,077 -,076

age group -,052 ,064 -,054 -,820 ,413 -,072 -,054 -,053

Time spent on Facebook ,089 ,065 ,091 1,375 ,171 ,106 ,090 ,088

movie making ,457 ,202 ,146 2,268 ,024 ,138 ,147 ,146

3 (Constant) 3,348 ,273 12,268 ,000

Gender -,192 ,162 -,077 -1,181 ,239 -,081 -,077 -,076

Time spent on Facebook ,098 ,064 ,100 1,533 ,127 ,106 ,100 ,099

movie making ,459 ,201 ,147 2,278 ,024 ,138 ,148 ,146

4 (Constant) 3,093 ,167 18,557 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,109 ,064 ,111 1,721 ,087 ,106 ,112 ,111

movie making ,443 ,201 ,142 2,201 ,029 ,138 ,142 ,142

a. Dependent Variable: I seek information about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on Facebook

B-103
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 educational level ,020 ,289 ,773 ,019 ,883
b
3 educational level ,001 ,014 ,989 ,001 ,981
b
age group -,054 -,820 ,413 -,054 ,972
c
4 educational level ,001 ,009 ,993 ,001 ,981
c
age group -,054 -,827 ,409 -,054 ,972
c
gender -,077 -1,181 ,239 -,077 ,974

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I seek information about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people
on Facebook

B-104
T-Test
Group Statistics

Writing
lyrics/po
ems N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I express my thoughts on my 0 170 3,17 1,157 ,089


wall and get feedback which
1 65 3,65 1,052 ,131
helps me elaborate on my
ideas and develop them
further

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I express my thoughts on my Equal variances assumed 2,929 ,088 -2,889 233 ,004 -,476 ,165 -,800 -,151
wall and get feedback which
Equal variances not -3,014 126,554 ,003 -,476 ,158 -,788 -,163
helps me elaborate on my
assumed
ideas and develop them
further

B-105
T-Test

Group Statistics

Writing N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I express my thoughts on my 0 154 3,16 1,167 ,094


wall and get feedback which
1 81 3,58 1,059 ,118
helps me elaborate on my
ideas and develop them
further

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I express my thoughts on my Equal variances assumed 1,569 ,212 -2,734 233 ,007 -,424 ,155 -,730 -,119
wall and get feedback which
Equal variances not -2,818 177,015 ,005 -,424 ,151 -,722 -,127
helps me elaborate on my
assumed
ideas and develop them
further

B-106
T-Test
Group Statistics

Forum/group participation N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I express my thoughts on my 0 145 3,14 1,164 ,097


wall and get feedback which
1 90 3,57 1,071 ,113
helps me elaborate on my
ideas and develop them
further

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I express my thoughts on my Equal variances assumed 2,495 ,116 -2,828 233 ,005 -,429 ,152 -,727 -,130
wall and get feedback which
Equal variances not -2,884 200,714 ,004 -,429 ,149 -,722 -,136
helps me elaborate on my ideas
assumed
and develop them further

B-107
Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group, Time . Enter


a
spent on Facebook, educational level

2 . educational level Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-
remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me
elaborate on my ideas and develop them further

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,296 ,088 ,068 1,107
b
2 ,291 ,085 ,069 1,106

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group,


Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group,


Time spent on Facebook
c
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 27,027 5 5,405 4,413 ,001

Residual 280,522 229 1,225

Total 307,549 234


b
2 Regression 26,088 4 6,522 5,330 ,000

Residual 281,461 230 1,224

Total 307,549 234

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group, Time spent on Facebook

c. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me
elaborate on my ideas and develop them further

B-108
a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 1,662 ,440 3,781 ,000

gender ,369 ,181 ,130 2,038 ,043 ,115 ,133 ,129

age group ,120 ,074 ,110 1,625 ,106 ,100 ,107 ,103

educational level ,103 ,118 ,059 ,875 ,382 ,093 ,058 ,055

Time spent on Facebook ,195 ,073 ,174 2,661 ,008 ,155 ,173 ,168

Writing lyrics/poems ,405 ,164 ,158 2,471 ,014 ,186 ,161 ,156

2 (Constant) 1,842 ,388 4,747 ,000

Gender ,374 ,181 ,132 2,066 ,040 ,115 ,135 ,130

age group ,141 ,070 ,128 2,007 ,046 ,100 ,131 ,127

Time spent on Facebook ,190 ,073 ,170 2,609 ,010 ,155 ,170 ,165

Writing lyrics/poems ,418 ,163 ,163 2,561 ,011 ,186 ,166 ,162

a. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me elaborate on my ideas and develop them further

B-109
b
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 educational level ,059 ,875 ,382 ,058 ,882

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, gender, age group, Time spent on
Facebook

b. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me elaborate
on my ideas and develop them further

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Writing, Time spent on . Enter


Facebook, educational level,
a
gender, age group

2 . educational level Backward


(criterion:
Probability of F-
to-remove >=
,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback


which helps me elaborate on my ideas and develop them further

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,302 ,091 ,071 1,105
b
2 ,297 ,088 ,073 1,104

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook, gender,


age group

B-110
c
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 28,019 5 5,604 4,591 ,001

Residual 279,530 229 1,221

Total 307,549 234


b
2 Regression 27,209 4 6,802 5,581 ,000

Residual 280,340 230 1,219

Total 307,549 234

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

c. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me
elaborate on my ideas and develop them further

B-111
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 1,585 ,440 3,605 ,000

gender ,371 ,181 ,131 2,050 ,041 ,115 ,134 ,129

age group ,123 ,074 ,112 1,665 ,097 ,100 ,109 ,105

educational level ,096 ,118 ,055 ,815 ,416 ,093 ,054 ,051

Time spent on Facebook ,218 ,072 ,195 3,026 ,003 ,155 ,196 ,191

Writing ,402 ,153 ,167 2,635 ,009 ,176 ,172 ,166

2 (Constant) 1,749 ,390 4,486 ,000

gender ,375 ,181 ,132 2,076 ,039 ,115 ,136 ,131

age group ,142 ,070 ,130 2,032 ,043 ,100 ,133 ,128

Time spent on Facebook ,215 ,072 ,193 2,988 ,003 ,155 ,193 ,188

Writing ,415 ,152 ,173 2,739 ,007 ,176 ,178 ,172

a. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me elaborate on my ideas and develop them further
b
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 educational level ,055 ,815 ,416 ,054 ,879

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

b. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me elaborate on my
ideas and develop them further

B-112
Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Forum/group participation, Time . Enter


spent on Facebook, educational
a
level, gender, age group

2 . educational level Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-
remove >= ,100).

3 . gender Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-
remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which


helps me elaborate on my ideas and develop them further

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,294 ,086 ,066 1,108
b
2 ,286 ,082 ,066 1,108
c
3 ,270 ,073 ,061 1,111

a. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on


Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on


Facebook, gender, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on


Facebook, age group

B-113
d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 26,563 5 5,313 4,330 ,001

Residual 280,986 229 1,227

Total 307,549 234


b
2 Regression 25,091 4 6,273 5,108 ,001

Residual 282,458 230 1,228

Total 307,549 234


c
3 Regression 22,352 3 7,451 6,035 ,001

Residual 285,197 231 1,235

Total 307,549 234

a. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on Facebook, educational level,


gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on Facebook, age group

d. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me
elaborate on my ideas and develop them further

B-114
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 1,673 ,440 3,802 ,000

gender ,273 ,187 ,096 1,459 ,146 ,115 ,096 ,092

age group ,108 ,074 ,098 1,451 ,148 ,100 ,095 ,092

educational level ,129 ,118 ,073 1,095 ,275 ,093 ,072 ,069

Time spent on Facebook ,218 ,072 ,195 3,013 ,003 ,155 ,195 ,190

Forum/group participation ,368 ,154 ,156 2,391 ,018 ,182 ,156 ,151

2 (Constant) 1,899 ,389 4,886 ,000

gender ,280 ,187 ,099 1,493 ,137 ,115 ,098 ,094

age group ,133 ,070 ,121 1,890 ,060 ,100 ,124 ,119

Time spent on Facebook ,214 ,072 ,191 2,957 ,003 ,155 ,191 ,187

Forum/group participation ,368 ,154 ,156 2,392 ,018 ,182 ,156 ,151

3 (Constant) 2,247 ,312 7,200 ,000

age group ,134 ,071 ,122 1,904 ,058 ,100 ,124 ,121

Time spent on Facebook ,198 ,072 ,177 2,765 ,006 ,155 ,179 ,175

Forum/group participation ,426 ,149 ,181 2,853 ,005 ,182 ,185 ,181

a. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me elaborate on my ideas and develop them further

B-115
c
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 educational level ,073 1,095 ,275 ,072 ,889
b
3 educational level ,076 1,139 ,256 ,075 ,890
b
gender ,099 1,493 ,137 ,098 ,916

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age
group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Dependent Variable: I express my thoughts on my wall and get feedback which helps me elaborate
on my ideas and develop them further

T-Test
Group Statistics

Natural remedies/nutrition/diets N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I get guidance about issues that are of interest to 0 182 2,63 1,004 ,074
me by asking other people on Facebook
1 56 3,04 1,235 ,165

B-116
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I get guidance about issues Equal variances assumed 4,744 ,030 -2,488 236 ,014 -,404 ,162 -,724 -,084
that are of interest to me by
Equal variances not -2,230 78,627 ,029 -,404 ,181 -,764 -,043
asking other people on
assumed
Facebook

B-117
Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, age group, gender, . Enter


a
Time spent on Facebook, educational level

2 . age group Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-remove
>= ,100).

3 . gender Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-remove
>= ,100).

4 . Time spent on Backward (criterion:


Facebook Probability of F-to-remove
>= ,100).

5 . educational level Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-remove
>= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I get guidance about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,192 ,037 ,016 1,065
b
2 ,192 ,037 ,020 1,063
c
3 ,191 ,036 ,024 1,061
d
4 ,175 ,031 ,022 1,062
e
5 ,160 ,026 ,021 1,062

a. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, age group, gender, Time spent on


Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, gender, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, educational level

B-118
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, age group, gender, . Enter


a
Time spent on Facebook, educational level

2 . age group Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-remove
>= ,100).

3 . gender Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-remove
>= ,100).

4 . Time spent on Backward (criterion:


Facebook Probability of F-to-remove
>= ,100).

5 . educational level Backward (criterion:


Probability of F-to-remove
>= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

e. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets

f
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 10,112 5 2,022 1,783 ,117

Residual 263,135 232 1,134

Total 273,248 237


b
2 Regression 10,024 4 2,506 2,218 ,068

Residual 263,224 233 1,130

Total 273,248 237


c
3 Regression 9,916 3 3,305 2,937 ,034

Residual 263,331 234 1,125

Total 273,248 237


d
4 Regression 8,368 2 4,184 3,712 ,026

Residual 264,880 235 1,127

Total 273,248 237


e
5 Regression 6,984 1 6,984 6,190 ,014

Residual 266,264 236 1,128

Total 273,248 237

B-119
a. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, age group, gender, Time spent on
Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, gender, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, Time spent on Facebook, educational


level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, educational level

e. Predictors: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets

f. Dependent Variable: I get guidance about issues that are of interest to me by asking other
people on Facebook

B-120
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,111 ,428 4,936 ,000

Gender ,053 ,174 ,020 ,305 ,761 -,006 ,020 ,020

age group -,020 ,071 -,019 -,280 ,780 ,000 -,018 -,018

educational level ,142 ,114 ,086 1,250 ,213 ,087 ,082 ,081

Time spent on Facebook ,080 ,070 ,076 1,144 ,254 ,075 ,075 ,074

Natural ,378 ,165 ,149 2,289 ,023 ,160 ,149 ,147


remedies/nutrition/diets

2 (Constant) 2,066 ,395 5,228 ,000

gender ,053 ,174 ,020 ,308 ,758 -,006 ,020 ,020

educational level ,132 ,108 ,080 1,227 ,221 ,087 ,080 ,079

Time spent on Facebook ,083 ,069 ,079 1,203 ,230 ,075 ,079 ,077

Natural ,377 ,165 ,149 2,293 ,023 ,160 ,149 ,147


remedies/nutrition/diets

3 (Constant) 2,137 ,321 6,666 ,000

educational level ,133 ,108 ,080 1,239 ,217 ,087 ,081 ,079

Time spent on Facebook ,080 ,068 ,076 1,173 ,242 ,075 ,076 ,075

Natural ,372 ,163 ,147 2,278 ,024 ,160 ,147 ,146


remedies/nutrition/diets

4 (Constant) 2,359 ,259 9,111 ,000

B-121
educational level ,118 ,107 ,072 1,108 ,269 ,087 ,072 ,071

Natural ,385 ,163 ,153 2,362 ,019 ,160 ,152 ,152


remedies/nutrition/diets

5 (Constant) 2,632 ,079 33,427 ,000

Natural ,404 ,162 ,160 2,488 ,014 ,160 ,160 ,160


remedies/nutrition/diets

a. Dependent Variable: I get guidance about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on Facebook

B-122
e
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group -,019 -,280 ,780 -,018 ,869
b
3 age group -,020 -,283 ,777 -,019 ,869
b
gender ,020 ,308 ,758 ,020 ,964
c
4 age group -,031 -,458 ,648 -,030 ,890
c
gender ,009 ,133 ,894 ,009 ,986
c
Time spent on Facebook ,076 1,173 ,242 ,076 ,983
d
5 age group -,004 -,066 ,947 -,004 ,999
d
gender ,012 ,184 ,854 ,012 ,988
d
Time spent on Facebook ,067 1,034 ,302 ,067 ,997
d
educational level ,072 1,108 ,269 ,072 ,989

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets, educational level

d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Natural remedies/nutrition/diets

e. Dependent Variable: I get guidance about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

B-123
T-Test

Group Statistics

Board games N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I get tips about issues that 0 134 3,22 1,081 ,093


are of interest to me by
1 107 3,50 1,013 ,098
asking other people on
Facebook

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I get tips about issues that are of Equal variances assumed ,833 ,362 -1,992 239 ,048 -,271 ,136 -,540 -,003
interest to me by asking other
Equal variances not -2,007 232,901 ,046 -,271 ,135 -,538 -,005
people on Facebook
assumed

B-124
T-Test

Group Statistics

Writing N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I get tips about issues that 0 158 3,23 1,101 ,088


are of interest to me by
1 83 3,55 ,940 ,103
asking other people on
Facebook

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I get tips about issues that are of Equal variances assumed 2,928 ,088 -2,251 239 ,025 -,320 ,142 -,600 -,040
interest to me by asking other
Equal variances not -2,364 190,928 ,019 -,320 ,135 -,587 -,053
people on Facebook
assumed

B-125
T-Test

Group Statistics

Going to movies N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I get tips about issues that 0 65 3,12 1,111 ,138


are of interest to me by
1 176 3,43 1,028 ,078
asking other people on
Facebook

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I get tips about issues that are Equal variances assumed ,744 ,389 -1,986 239 ,048 -,303 ,153 -,604 -,003
of interest to me by asking
Equal variances not -1,917 106,975 ,058 -,303 ,158 -,617 ,010
other people on Facebook
assumed

B-126
Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Board games, Time spent on Facebook, . Enter


a
gender, educational level, age group

2 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,201 ,040 ,020 1,047
b
2 ,200 ,040 ,024 1,045
c
3 ,196 ,039 ,026 1,044
d
4 ,189 ,036 ,028 1,043

a. Predictors: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook,


gender, educational level, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook,


gender, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook,


gender

d. Predictors: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook

B-127
e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 10,832 5 2,166 1,977 ,083

Residual 257,582 235 1,096

Total 268,415 240


b
2 Regression 10,708 4 2,677 2,452 ,047

Residual 257,707 236 1,092

Total 268,415 240


c
3 Regression 10,347 3 3,449 3,168 ,025

Residual 258,068 237 1,089

Total 268,415 240


d
4 Regression 9,617 2 4,808 4,422 ,013

Residual 258,798 238 1,087

Total 268,415 240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook, gender, educational level, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook, gender, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook, gender

d. Predictors: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

B-128
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,599 ,430 6,042 ,000

gender ,136 ,171 ,051 ,796 ,427 ,034 ,052 ,051

age group -,023 ,070 -,023 -,337 ,737 -,052 -,022 -,022

educational level ,072 ,111 ,044 ,647 ,518 ,000 ,042 ,041

Time spent on Facebook ,152 ,067 ,148 2,246 ,026 ,140 ,145 ,144

Board games ,277 ,138 ,131 2,007 ,046 ,128 ,130 ,128

2 (Constant) 2,542 ,395 6,431 ,000

gender ,135 ,170 ,051 ,795 ,428 ,034 ,052 ,051

educational level ,061 ,106 ,037 ,575 ,566 ,000 ,037 ,037

Time spent on Facebook ,155 ,066 ,151 2,333 ,020 ,140 ,150 ,149

Board games ,282 ,137 ,133 2,053 ,041 ,128 ,132 ,131

3 (Constant) 2,698 ,288 9,367 ,000

gender ,139 ,170 ,053 ,819 ,414 ,034 ,053 ,052

Time spent on Facebook ,151 ,066 ,147 2,285 ,023 ,140 ,147 ,146

Board games ,269 ,135 ,127 1,989 ,048 ,128 ,128 ,127

4 (Constant) 2,882 ,180 16,011 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,143 ,065 ,140 2,194 ,029 ,140 ,141 ,140

Board games ,271 ,135 ,127 2,003 ,046 ,128 ,129 ,127

a. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on Facebook

B-129
d
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group -,023 -,337 ,737 -,022 ,863
b
3 age group -,010 -,153 ,878 -,010 ,945
b
educational level ,037 ,575 ,566 ,037 ,958
c
4 age group -,009 -,137 ,891 -,009 ,945
c
educational level ,039 ,607 ,545 ,039 ,960
c
gender ,053 ,819 ,414 ,053 ,981

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook, gender, educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook, gender

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Board games, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on Facebook

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Writing, age group, gender, Time spent . Enter


a
on Facebook, educational level

2 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

B-130
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,210 ,044 ,024 1,045
b
2 ,210 ,044 ,028 1,043
c
3 ,208 ,043 ,031 1,041
d
4 ,202 ,041 ,033 1,040

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on


Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on


Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 11,816 5 2,363 2,164 ,059

Residual 256,599 235 1,092

Total 268,415 240


b
2 Regression 11,795 4 2,949 2,712 ,031

Residual 256,620 236 1,087

Total 268,415 240


c
3 Regression 11,615 3 3,872 3,573 ,015

Residual 256,800 237 1,084

Total 268,415 240


d
4 Regression 10,955 2 5,477 5,063 ,007

Residual 257,460 238 1,082

Total 268,415 240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

B-131
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,778 ,414 6,704 ,000

gender ,133 ,170 ,050 ,781 ,436 ,034 ,051 ,050

age group -,030 ,069 -,029 -,430 ,668 -,052 -,028 -,027

educational level ,016 ,111 ,010 ,140 ,889 ,000 ,009 ,009

Time spent on Facebook ,148 ,067 ,144 2,196 ,029 ,140 ,142 ,140

Writing ,317 ,143 ,143 2,224 ,027 ,144 ,144 ,142

2 (Constant) 2,805 ,366 7,659 ,000

gender ,134 ,170 ,051 ,786 ,432 ,034 ,051 ,050

age group -,027 ,066 -,026 -,407 ,684 -,052 -,026 -,026

Time spent on Facebook ,147 ,067 ,144 2,196 ,029 ,140 ,141 ,140

Writing ,320 ,141 ,144 2,260 ,025 ,144 ,146 ,144

3 (Constant) 2,711 ,285 9,510 ,000

gender ,132 ,170 ,050 ,780 ,436 ,034 ,051 ,050

Time spent on Facebook ,152 ,066 ,149 2,315 ,021 ,140 ,149 ,147

Writing ,320 ,141 ,144 2,269 ,024 ,144 ,146 ,144

4 (Constant) 2,886 ,177 16,331 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,145 ,065 ,142 2,230 ,027 ,140 ,143 ,142

Writing ,324 ,141 ,146 2,296 ,023 ,144 ,147 ,146

a. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on Facebook

B-132
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 educational level ,010 ,140 ,889 ,009 ,877
b
3 educational level ,000 ,006 ,995 ,000 ,972
b
age group -,026 -,407 ,684 -,026 ,964
c
4 educational level ,002 ,032 ,975 ,002 ,973
c
age group -,025 -,393 ,695 -,026 ,964
c
gender ,050 ,780 ,436 ,051 ,980

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Going to movies, gender, educational level, . Enter


a
Time spent on Facebook, age group

2 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . educational Backward (criterion: Probability of


level F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

B-133
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,195 ,038 ,018 1,048
b
2 ,195 ,038 ,022 1,046
c
3 ,193 ,037 ,025 1,044
d
4 ,186 ,034 ,026 1,044

a. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level,


Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level,


Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on


Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 10,234 5 2,047 1,863 ,102

Residual 258,181 235 1,099

Total 268,415 240


b
2 Regression 10,161 4 2,540 2,321 ,058

Residual 258,254 236 1,094

Total 268,415 240


c
3 Regression 10,019 3 3,340 3,063 ,029

Residual 258,396 237 1,090

Total 268,415 240


d
4 Regression 9,250 2 4,625 4,247 ,015

Residual 259,165 238 1,089

Total 268,415 240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level, Time spent on Facebook,
age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, Time spent on Facebook

B-134
e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 10,234 5 2,047 1,863 ,102

Residual 258,181 235 1,099

Total 268,415 240


b
2 Regression 10,161 4 2,540 2,321 ,058

Residual 258,254 236 1,094

Total 268,415 240


c
3 Regression 10,019 3 3,340 3,063 ,029

Residual 258,396 237 1,090

Total 268,415 240


d
4 Regression 9,250 2 4,625 4,247 ,015

Residual 259,165 238 1,089

Total 268,415 240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level, Time spent on Facebook,
age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

B-135
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,562 ,439 5,835 ,000

gender ,141 ,171 ,053 ,825 ,410 ,034 ,054 ,053

age group -,018 ,070 -,018 -,258 ,797 -,052 -,017 -,016

educational level ,047 ,111 ,029 ,422 ,674 ,000 ,027 ,027

Time spent on Facebook ,146 ,068 ,143 2,166 ,031 ,140 ,140 ,139

Going to movies ,287 ,154 ,121 1,864 ,064 ,127 ,121 ,119

2 (Constant) 2,517 ,401 6,272 ,000

gender ,141 ,170 ,053 ,825 ,410 ,034 ,054 ,053

educational level ,038 ,105 ,023 ,361 ,718 ,000 ,023 ,023

Time spent on Facebook ,149 ,067 ,145 2,237 ,026 ,140 ,144 ,143

Going to movies ,293 ,152 ,123 1,925 ,055 ,127 ,124 ,123

3 (Constant) 2,612 ,301 8,677 ,000

gender ,143 ,170 ,054 ,840 ,402 ,034 ,054 ,054

Time spent on Facebook ,146 ,066 ,143 2,214 ,028 ,140 ,142 ,141

Going to movies ,290 ,152 ,122 1,911 ,057 ,127 ,123 ,122

4 (Constant) 2,801 ,200 14,041 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,138 ,065 ,135 2,119 ,035 ,140 ,136 ,135

Going to movies ,290 ,152 ,122 1,916 ,057 ,127 ,123 ,122

a. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on Facebook

B-136
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group -,018 -,258 ,797 -,017 ,853
b
3 age group -,009 -,136 ,892 -,009 ,941
b
educational level ,023 ,361 ,718 ,023 ,980
c
4 age group -,008 -,120 ,905 -,008 ,941
c
educational level ,025 ,391 ,696 ,025 ,981
c
gender ,054 ,840 ,402 ,054 ,981

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level, Time spent on
Facebook

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Going to movies, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I get tips about issues that are of interest to me by asking other people on
Facebook

T-Test

Group Statistics

Fashion N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Through Facebook use I 0 193 2,17 1,161 ,084


have developed my writing
1 47 2,81 1,345 ,196
skills

B-137
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

Through Facebook Equal variances assumed 3,178 ,076 -3,296 238 ,001 -,643 ,195 -1,027 -,259
use I have developed
Equal variances not -3,013 63,684 ,004 -,643 ,213 -1,069 -,217
my writing skills
assumed

T-Test

Group Statistics

Cosmetics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Through Facebook use I have 0 196 2,15 1,131 ,081


developed my writing skills
1 44 2,91 1,428 ,215

B-138
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

Through Facebook Equal variances assumed 6,406 ,012 -3,808 238 ,000 -,756 ,199 -1,147 -,365
use I have developed
Equal variances not -3,289 55,725 ,002 -,756 ,230 -1,217 -,295
my writing skills
assumed

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method


a
1 Fashion, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group . Enter

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

B-139
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,351 ,123 ,104 1,158
b
2 ,350 ,123 ,108 1,155
c
3 ,347 ,120 ,109 1,155

a. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 43,978 5 8,796 6,563 ,000

Residual 313,605 234 1,340

Total 357,583 239


b
2 Regression 43,929 4 10,982 8,228 ,000

Residual 313,654 235 1,335

Total 357,583 239


c
3 Regression 43,003 3 14,334 10,754 ,000

Residual 314,581 236 1,333

Total 357,583 239

a. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

B-140
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,826 ,475 5,948 ,000

gender -,037 ,191 -,012 -,191 ,848 -,068 -,013 -,012

age group -,065 ,078 -,056 -,835 ,405 -,182 -,055 -,051

educational level -,357 ,122 -,190 -2,924 ,004 -,240 -,188 -,179

Time spent on Facebook ,184 ,075 ,154 2,447 ,015 ,200 ,158 ,150

Fashion ,520 ,194 ,169 2,676 ,008 ,209 ,172 ,164

2 (Constant) 2,775 ,393 7,067 ,000

age group -,065 ,078 -,056 -,833 ,406 -,182 -,054 -,051

educational level -,357 ,122 -,190 -2,931 ,004 -,240 -,188 -,179

Time spent on Facebook ,186 ,074 ,156 2,513 ,013 ,200 ,162 ,154

Fashion ,525 ,192 ,171 2,731 ,007 ,209 ,175 ,167

3 (Constant) 2,625 ,349 7,528 ,000

educational level -,389 ,115 -,208 -3,370 ,001 -,240 -,214 -,206

Time spent on Facebook ,195 ,073 ,164 2,659 ,008 ,200 ,171 ,162

Fashion ,554 ,189 ,180 2,931 ,004 ,209 ,187 ,179

a. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

B-141
c
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,012 -,191 ,848 -,013 ,956
b
3 gender -,011 -,175 ,861 -,011 ,956
b
age group -,056 -,833 ,406 -,054 ,839

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Fashion, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, age group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Fashion, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent . Enter


a
on Facebook, gender, age group

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,360 ,130 ,111 1,153
b
2 ,360 ,130 ,115 1,151
c
3 ,354 ,125 ,114 1,151

a. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on


Facebook, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on


Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on


Facebook

B-142
d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 46,382 5 9,276 6,975 ,000

Residual 311,202 234 1,330

Total 357,583 239


b
2 Regression 46,368 4 11,592 8,753 ,000

Residual 311,215 235 1,324

Total 357,583 239


c
3 Regression 44,845 3 14,948 11,280 ,000

Residual 312,739 236 1,325

Total 357,583 239

a. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

B-143
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,846 ,469 6,062 ,000

gender ,019 ,193 ,006 ,100 ,920 -,068 ,007 ,006

age group -,082 ,077 -,070 -1,069 ,286 -,182 -,070 -,065

educational level -,349 ,122 -,186 -2,870 ,004 -,240 -,184 -,175

Time spent on Facebook ,158 ,076 ,133 2,094 ,037 ,200 ,136 ,128

Cosmetics ,605 ,202 ,192 3,004 ,003 ,240 ,193 ,183

2 (Constant) 2,872 ,385 7,454 ,000

age group -,082 ,076 -,070 -1,073 ,285 -,182 -,070 -,065

educational level -,349 ,121 -,186 -2,876 ,004 -,240 -,184 -,175

Time spent on Facebook ,157 ,075 ,132 2,103 ,037 ,200 ,136 ,128

Cosmetics ,601 ,196 ,191 3,059 ,002 ,240 ,196 ,186

3 (Constant) 2,689 ,345 7,784 ,000

educational level -,390 ,115 -,208 -3,396 ,001 -,240 -,216 -,207

Time spent on Facebook ,168 ,074 ,141 2,265 ,024 ,200 ,146 ,138

Cosmetics ,620 ,196 ,197 3,168 ,002 ,240 ,202 ,193

a. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

B-144
c
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender ,006 ,100 ,920 ,007 ,928
b
3 gender ,007 ,116 ,907 ,008 ,929
b
age group -,070 -1,073 ,285 -,070 ,860

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

c. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have developed my writing skills

T-Test

Group Statistics

Fashion N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Through Facebook use I 0 192 2,77 1,237 ,089


have gained knowledge
1 46 3,22 1,459 ,215
concerning foreign language
use

B-145
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

Through Facebook use Equal variances assumed 3,448 ,065 -2,146 236 ,033 -,452 ,211 -,867 -,037
I have gained
Equal variances not -1,939 61,410 ,057 -,452 ,233 -,918 ,014
knowledge concerning
assumed
foreign language use

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method


a
1 Fashion, educational level, gender, Time spent on Facebook, age group . Enter

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have gained knowledge concerning foreign language use

B-146
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,359 ,129 ,110 1,219
b
2 ,358 ,128 ,113 1,217
c
3 ,352 ,124 ,113 1,217

a. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, educational level, gender, Time


spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, educational level, Time spent on


Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, educational level, Time spent on


Facebook

d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 51,009 5 10,202 6,863 ,000

Residual 344,844 232 1,486

Total 395,853 237


b
2 Regression 50,667 4 12,667 8,550 ,000

Residual 345,186 233 1,481

Total 395,853 237


c
3 Regression 49,171 3 16,390 11,063 ,000

Residual 346,682 234 1,482

Total 395,853 237

a. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, educational level, gender, Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Fashion, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have gained knowledge concerning foreign
language use

B-147
a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,883 ,507 5,682 ,000

gender ,098 ,204 ,030 ,480 ,632 -,033 ,032 ,029

age group -,081 ,082 -,066 -,993 ,322 -,183 -,065 -,061

educational level -,307 ,129 -,155 -2,380 ,018 -,215 -,154 -,146

Time spent on Facebook ,317 ,080 ,250 3,940 ,000 ,284 ,250 ,241

Fashion ,310 ,206 ,095 1,502 ,134 ,138 ,098 ,092

2 (Constant) 3,022 ,416 7,272 ,000

age group -,082 ,082 -,067 -1,005 ,316 -,183 -,066 -,061

educational level -,307 ,129 -,156 -2,387 ,018 -,215 -,155 -,146

Time spent on Facebook ,310 ,079 ,245 3,923 ,000 ,284 ,249 ,240

Fashion ,297 ,204 ,091 1,456 ,147 ,138 ,095 ,089

3 (Constant) 2,833 ,371 7,646 ,000

educational level -,348 ,122 -,176 -2,854 ,005 -,215 -,183 -,175

Time spent on Facebook ,321 ,078 ,254 4,103 ,000 ,284 ,259 ,251

Fashion ,333 ,201 ,102 1,658 ,099 ,138 ,108 ,101

a. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have gained knowledge concerning foreign language use

B-148
c
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender ,030 ,480 ,632 ,032 ,951
b
3 gender ,031 ,501 ,617 ,033 ,952
b
age group -,067 -1,005 ,316 -,066 ,839

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Fashion, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Fashion, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

c. Dependent Variable: Through Facebook use I have gained knowledge concerning foreign language use

T-Test

Group Statistics

movie making N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I use Facebook groups to 0 213 3,77 1,042 ,071


keep myself updated about
1 27 4,11 ,698 ,134
issues of interest

B-149
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I use Facebook groups to Equal variances assumed 7,786 ,006 -1,676 238 ,095 -,346 ,206 -,752 ,061
keep myself updated about
Equal variances not -2,273 42,357 ,028 -,346 ,152 -,653 -,039
issues of interest
assumed

T-Test
Group Statistics

Studying N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I use Facebook groups to 0 73 3,59 1,165 ,136


keep myself updated about
1 167 3,90 ,929 ,072
issues of interest

B-150
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I use Facebook groups to Equal variances assumed 11,534 ,001 -2,190 238 ,029 -,309 ,141 -,587 -,031
keep myself updated about
Equal variances not -2,006 113,799 ,047 -,309 ,154 -,614 -,004
issues of interest
assumed

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method


a
1 movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level . Enter

2 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I use Facebook groups to keep myself updated about issues of interest

B-151
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,167 ,028 ,007 1,010
b
2 ,167 ,028 ,011 1,008
c
3 ,165 ,027 ,015 1,007
d
4 ,155 ,024 ,016 1,006

a. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time


spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on


Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 6,861 5 1,372 1,344 ,247

Residual 238,935 234 1,021

Total 245,796 239


b
2 Regression 6,860 4 1,715 1,687 ,154

Residual 238,935 235 1,017

Total 245,796 239


c
3 Regression 6,661 3 2,220 2,191 ,090

Residual 239,135 236 1,013

Total 245,796 239


d
4 Regression 5,921 2 2,961 2,925 ,056

Residual 239,875 237 1,012

Total 245,796 239

a. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I use Facebook groups to keep myself updated about issues of interest

B-152
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,376 ,399 8,458 ,000

gender -,073 ,164 -,029 -,442 ,659 -,035 -,029 -,028

age group ,002 ,066 ,002 ,029 ,977 ,000 ,002 ,002

educational level ,086 ,107 ,055 ,799 ,425 ,051 ,052 ,051

Time spent on Facebook ,113 ,066 ,114 1,714 ,088 ,105 ,111 ,111

movie making ,360 ,208 ,113 1,733 ,084 ,108 ,113 ,112

2 (Constant) 3,380 ,370 9,127 ,000

gender -,073 ,164 -,029 -,443 ,658 -,035 -,029 -,029

educational level ,087 ,101 ,056 ,859 ,391 ,051 ,056 ,055

Time spent on Facebook ,113 ,065 ,113 1,731 ,085 ,105 ,112 ,111

movie making ,360 ,207 ,112 1,737 ,084 ,108 ,113 ,112

3 (Constant) 3,285 ,301 10,898 ,000

educational level ,086 ,101 ,055 ,854 ,394 ,051 ,056 ,055

Time spent on Facebook ,117 ,064 ,117 1,817 ,071 ,105 ,117 ,117

movie making ,354 ,206 ,110 1,712 ,088 ,108 ,111 ,110

4 (Constant) 3,498 ,168 20,782 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,111 ,064 ,112 1,737 ,084 ,105 ,112 ,111

movie making ,366 ,206 ,114 1,778 ,077 ,108 ,115 ,114

a. Dependent Variable: I use Facebook groups to keep myself updated about issues of interest

B-153
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group ,002 ,029 ,977 ,002 ,863
b
3 age group ,002 ,034 ,973 ,002 ,864
b
gender -,029 -,443 ,658 -,029 ,972
c
4 age group ,021 ,318 ,751 ,021 ,972
c
gender -,028 -,431 ,667 -,028 ,972
c
educational level ,055 ,854 ,394 ,056 ,983

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational
level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I use Facebook groups to keep myself updated about issues of interest

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Studying, educational level, . Enter


gender, Time spent on
a
Facebook, age group

2 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-


to-remove >= ,100).

3 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-


to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-


to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I use Facebook groups to keep myself updated about issues of
interest

B-154
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,195 ,038 ,018 1,005
b
2 ,195 ,038 ,022 1,003
c
3 ,194 ,038 ,025 1,001
d
4 ,184 ,034 ,026 1,001

a. Predictors: (Constant), Studying, educational level, gender, Time


spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Studying, educational level, gender, Time


spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Studying, educational level, Time spent on


Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Studying, Time spent on Facebook


e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 9,367 5 1,873 1,854 ,103

Residual 236,429 234 1,010

Total 245,796 239


b
2 Regression 9,357 4 2,339 2,325 ,057

Residual 236,439 235 1,006

Total 245,796 239


c
3 Regression 9,244 3 3,081 3,074 ,028

Residual 236,552 236 1,002

Total 245,796 239


d
4 Regression 8,290 2 4,145 4,136 ,017

Residual 237,506 237 1,002

Total 245,796 239

a. Predictors: (Constant), Studying, educational level, gender, Time spent on Facebook, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Studying, educational level, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors: (Constant), Studying, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Studying, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I use Facebook groups to keep myself updated about issues of interest

B-155
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,104 ,415 7,489 ,000

gender -,054 ,163 -,022 -,334 ,739 -,035 -,022 -,021

age group ,006 ,066 ,007 ,098 ,922 ,000 ,006 ,006

educational level ,094 ,106 ,061 ,889 ,375 ,051 ,058 ,057

Time spent on Facebook ,123 ,066 ,123 1,864 ,064 ,105 ,121 ,119

Studying ,333 ,142 ,151 2,348 ,020 ,141 ,152 ,151

2 (Constant) 3,119 ,384 8,117 ,000

gender -,055 ,163 -,022 -,336 ,737 -,035 -,022 -,021

educational level ,098 ,100 ,063 ,980 ,328 ,051 ,064 ,063

Time spent on Facebook ,122 ,065 ,122 1,873 ,062 ,105 ,121 ,120

Studying ,332 ,141 ,151 2,352 ,020 ,141 ,152 ,150

3 (Constant) 3,048 ,319 9,546 ,000

educational level ,097 ,100 ,063 ,975 ,330 ,051 ,063 ,062

Time spent on Facebook ,125 ,064 ,126 1,946 ,053 ,105 ,126 ,124

Studying ,332 ,141 ,151 2,354 ,019 ,141 ,151 ,150

4 (Constant) 3,292 ,199 16,556 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,118 ,064 ,119 1,851 ,065 ,105 ,119 ,118

Studying ,332 ,141 ,151 2,357 ,019 ,141 ,151 ,151

a. Dependent Variable: I use Facebook groups to keep myself updated about issues of interest

B-156
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group ,007 ,098 ,922 ,006 ,862
b
3 age group ,007 ,103 ,918 ,007 ,862
b
gender -,022 -,336 ,737 -,022 ,977
c
4 age group ,027 ,422 ,674 ,027 ,969
c
gender -,020 -,317 ,752 -,021 ,977
c
educational level ,063 ,975 ,330 ,063 ,988

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Studying, educational level, gender, Time spent on Facebook

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Studying, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Studying, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I use Facebook groups to keep myself updated about issues of interest

5.3.2 Social mediation as participatory knowledge construction on


Facebook

Differences in perceptions related to interests

T-Test

Group Statistics

Blogging N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I actively participate in groups 0 159 3,60 ,961 ,076


which are related to my interests
1 82 3,89 ,994 ,110

B-157
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I actively participate in Equal variances assumed ,751 ,387 -2,167 239 ,031 -,286 ,132 -,547 -,026
groups which are related to
Equal variances not -2,144 159,050 ,034 -,286 ,134 -,550 -,023
my interests
assumed

T-Test
Group Statistics

Writing N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I actively participate in groups which 0 157 3,60 1,024 ,082


are related to my interests
1 84 3,89 ,865 ,094

B-158
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I actively participate in Equal variances assumed 6,693 ,010 -2,239 239 ,026 -,294 ,131 -,553 -,035
groups which are related to
Equal variances not -2,356 195,768 ,019 -,294 ,125 -,540 -,048
my interests
assumed

T-Test
Group Statistics

Forum/group participation N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I actively participate in groups 0 148 3,57 1,017 ,084


which are related to my interests
1 93 3,90 ,885 ,092

B-159
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I actively participate in Equal variances assumed 8,061 ,005 -2,566 239 ,011 -,329 ,128 -,581 -,076
groups which are related to
Equal variances not -2,648 215,261 ,009 -,329 ,124 -,574 -,084
my interests
assumed

T-Test

Group Statistics

Child care N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests 0 205 3,65 1,007 ,070

1 36 4,00 ,756 ,126

B-160
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I actively participate in Equal variances assumed 10,579 ,001 -1,996 239 ,047 -,351 ,176 -,698 -,005
groups which are related to
Equal variances not -2,434 59,207 ,018 -,351 ,144 -,640 -,063
my interests
assumed

B-161
Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, . Enter


a
educational level, gender, age group

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,242 ,059 ,039 ,961
b
2 ,241 ,058 ,042 ,959
c
3 ,232 ,054 ,042 ,959

a. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 13,509 5 2,702 2,926 ,014

Residual 216,981 235 ,923

Total 230,490 240


b
2 Regression 13,390 4 3,348 3,639 ,007

Residual 217,099 236 ,920

Total 230,490 240


c
3 Regression 12,379 3 4,126 4,484 ,004

Residual 218,110 237 ,920

Total 230,490 240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-162
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,039 ,380 7,991 ,000

gender -,057 ,158 -,023 -,358 ,721 -,032 -,023 -,023

age group -,067 ,064 -,072 -1,052 ,294 -,028 -,068 -,067

educational level ,224 ,101 ,149 2,216 ,028 ,116 ,143 ,140

Time spent on Facebook ,130 ,062 ,136 2,093 ,037 ,137 ,135 ,132

Blogging ,298 ,132 ,144 2,264 ,024 ,139 ,146 ,143

2 (Constant) 2,963 ,317 9,361 ,000

age group -,067 ,063 -,071 -1,048 ,296 -,028 -,068 -,066

educational level ,224 ,101 ,149 2,219 ,027 ,116 ,143 ,140

Time spent on Facebook ,133 ,061 ,139 2,171 ,031 ,137 ,140 ,137

Blogging ,295 ,131 ,143 2,249 ,025 ,139 ,145 ,142

3 (Constant) 2,823 ,287 9,845 ,000

educational level ,189 ,095 ,126 1,984 ,048 ,116 ,128 ,125

Time spent on Facebook ,142 ,061 ,148 2,335 ,020 ,137 ,150 ,148

Blogging ,280 ,130 ,136 2,149 ,033 ,139 ,138 ,136

a. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-163
c
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,023 -,358 ,721 -,023 ,975
b
3 gender -,022 -,340 ,734 -,022 ,975
b
age group -,071 -1,048 ,296 -,068 ,860

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, age
group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Writing, age group, gender, Time spent . Enter


a
on Facebook, educational level

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-164
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,235 ,055 ,035 ,963
b
2 ,235 ,055 ,039 ,961
c
3 ,230 ,053 ,041 ,960

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on


Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 12,774 5 2,555 2,758 ,019

Residual 217,715 235 ,926

Total 230,490 240


b
2 Regression 12,705 4 3,176 3,442 ,009

Residual 217,784 236 ,923

Total 230,490 240


c
3 Regression 12,174 3 4,058 4,405 ,005

Residual 218,316 237 ,921

Total 230,490 240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-165
a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,022 ,381 7,927 ,000

gender -,043 ,158 -,017 -,273 ,785 -,032 -,018 -,017

age group -,048 ,063 -,052 -,760 ,448 -,028 -,050 -,048

educational level ,198 ,102 ,132 1,943 ,053 ,116 ,126 ,123

Time spent on Facebook ,134 ,062 ,140 2,159 ,032 ,137 ,139 ,137

Writing ,272 ,131 ,133 2,077 ,039 ,143 ,134 ,132

2 (Constant) 2,964 ,317 9,345 ,000

age group -,048 ,063 -,052 -,759 ,449 -,028 -,049 -,048

educational level ,198 ,102 ,132 1,947 ,053 ,116 ,126 ,123

Time spent on Facebook ,136 ,061 ,143 2,224 ,027 ,137 ,143 ,141

Writing ,271 ,131 ,132 2,073 ,039 ,143 ,134 ,131

3 (Constant) 2,859 ,285 10,029 ,000

educational level ,172 ,096 ,115 1,799 ,073 ,116 ,116 ,114

Time spent on Facebook ,143 ,061 ,149 2,351 ,020 ,137 ,151 ,149

Writing ,273 ,131 ,133 2,095 ,037 ,143 ,135 ,132

a. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-166
c
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,017 -,273 ,785 -,018 ,978
b
3 gender -,017 -,266 ,791 -,017 ,979
b
age group -,052 -,759 ,449 -,049 ,869

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Forum/group participation, age group, Time . Enter


a
spent on Facebook, gender, educational level

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,261 ,068 ,048 ,956
b
2 ,255 ,065 ,049 ,956
c
3 ,250 ,062 ,050 ,955

a. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, age group, Time


spent on Facebook, gender, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, age group, Time


spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on


Facebook, educational level

B-167
d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 15,658 5 3,132 3,426 ,005

Residual 214,831 235 ,914

Total 230,490 240


b
2 Regression 15,024 4 3,756 4,114 ,003

Residual 215,466 236 ,913

Total 230,490 240


c
3 Regression 14,360 3 4,787 5,249 ,002

Residual 216,130 237 ,912

Total 230,490 240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, age group, Time spent on Facebook, gender,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, age group, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-168
a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,074 ,378 8,126 ,000

gender -,134 ,161 -,054 -,833 ,406 -,032 -,054 -,052

age group -,054 ,063 -,058 -,864 ,389 -,028 -,056 -,054

educational level ,213 ,101 ,142 2,117 ,035 ,116 ,137 ,133

Time spent on Facebook ,133 ,062 ,139 2,159 ,032 ,137 ,139 ,136

Forum/group participation ,357 ,130 ,178 2,744 ,007 ,164 ,176 ,173

2 (Constant) 2,903 ,318 9,142 ,000

age group -,054 ,063 -,058 -,853 ,395 -,028 -,055 -,054

educational level ,213 ,100 ,142 2,121 ,035 ,116 ,137 ,133

Time spent on Facebook ,140 ,061 ,147 2,298 ,022 ,137 ,148 ,145

Forum/group participation ,332 ,127 ,165 2,624 ,009 ,164 ,168 ,165

3 (Constant) 2,786 ,286 9,727 ,000

educational level ,185 ,095 ,123 1,950 ,052 ,116 ,126 ,123

Time spent on Facebook ,147 ,060 ,154 2,437 ,016 ,137 ,156 ,153

Forum/group participation ,331 ,127 ,165 2,614 ,010 ,164 ,167 ,164

a. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-169
c
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,054 -,833 ,406 -,054 ,927
b
3 gender -,054 -,822 ,412 -,053 ,927
b
age group -,058 -,853 ,395 -,055 ,869

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Forum/group participation, age group, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Forum/group participation, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Child care, age group, gender, Time . Enter


a
spent on Facebook, educational level

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,231 ,053 ,033 ,964
b
2 ,231 ,053 ,037 ,962
c
3 ,224 ,050 ,038 ,961

a. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

B-170
d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 12,306 5 2,461 2,651 ,024

Residual 218,184 235 ,928

Total 230,490 240


b
2 Regression 12,303 4 3,076 3,327 ,011

Residual 218,187 236 ,925

Total 230,490 240


c
3 Regression 11,573 3 3,858 4,176 ,007

Residual 218,917 237 ,924

Total 230,490 240

a. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational
level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-171
a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,992 ,383 7,818 ,000

gender -,009 ,159 -,003 -,054 ,957 -,032 -,004 -,003

age group -,056 ,063 -,060 -,887 ,376 -,028 -,058 -,056

educational level ,233 ,101 ,155 2,298 ,022 ,116 ,148 ,146

Time spent on Facebook ,123 ,062 ,129 1,973 ,050 ,137 ,128 ,125

Child care ,343 ,176 ,125 1,950 ,052 ,128 ,126 ,124

2 (Constant) 2,981 ,317 9,403 ,000

age group -,056 ,063 -,060 -,889 ,375 -,028 -,058 -,056

educational level ,233 ,101 ,155 2,303 ,022 ,116 ,148 ,146

Time spent on Facebook ,124 ,062 ,129 2,003 ,046 ,137 ,129 ,127

Child care ,344 ,175 ,125 1,963 ,051 ,128 ,127 ,124

3 (Constant) 2,859 ,286 10,009 ,000

educational level ,203 ,095 ,136 2,130 ,034 ,116 ,137 ,135

Time spent on Facebook ,131 ,061 ,137 2,148 ,033 ,137 ,138 ,136

Child care ,337 ,175 ,123 1,931 ,055 ,128 ,124 ,122

a. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

B-172
c
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,003 -,054 ,957 -,004 ,974
b
3 gender -,003 -,048 ,962 -,003 ,974
b
age group -,060 -,889 ,375 -,058 ,868

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Child care, age group, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Child care, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Dependent Variable: I actively participate in groups which are related to my interests

T-Test
Group Statistics

Blogging N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I participate in wall 0 160 3,43 1,007 ,080


discussions where everyone
1 82 3,85 ,918 ,101
exchanges information and
opinions about issues related
to my interests

B-173
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I participate in wall discussions Equal variances assumed 4,473 ,035 -3,229 240 ,001 -,429 ,133 -,690 -,167
where everyone exchanges
Equal variances not -3,326 177,303 ,001 -,429 ,129 -,683 -,174
information and opinions about
assumed
issues related to my interests

T-Test

Group Statistics

Writing N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I participate in wall discussions where everyone 0 158 3,47 1,001 ,080


exchanges information and opinions about
1 84 3,76 ,965 ,105
issues related to my interests

B-174
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I participate in wall Equal variances assumed 2,373 ,125 -2,199 240 ,029 -,294 ,133 -,557 -,031
discussions where everyone
Equal variances not -2,224 174,935 ,027 -,294 ,132 -,554 -,033
exchanges information and
assumed
opinions about issues related
to my interests

T-Test
Group Statistics

Forum/group participation N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I participate in wall discussions where 0 149 3,44 1,029 ,084


everyone exchanges information and
1 93 3,78 ,907 ,094
opinions about issues related to my
interests

B-175
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I participate in wall discussions Equal variances assumed 5,357 ,021 -2,682 240 ,008 -,349 ,130 -,605 -,093
where everyone exchanges
Equal variances not -2,761 213,488 ,006 -,349 ,126 -,598 -,100
information and opinions about
assumed
issues related to my interests

T-Test
Group Statistics

Child care N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I participate in wall discussions where 0 206 3,51 1,016 ,071


everyone exchanges information and
1 36 3,89 ,820 ,137
opinions about issues related to my
interests

Independent Samples Test

B-176
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I participate in wall Equal variances assumed 4,488 ,035 -2,094 240 ,037 -,374 ,179 -,726 -,022
discussions where everyone
Equal variances not -2,431 55,579 ,018 -,374 ,154 -,683 -,066
exchanges information and
assumed
opinions about issues related
to my interests

T-Test
Group Statistics

Writing lyrics/poems N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I participate in wall discussions 0 174 3,49 1,024 ,078


where everyone exchanges
1 68 3,78 ,895 ,109
information and opinions about
issues related to my interests

B-177
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I participate in wall Equal variances assumed 4,464 ,036 -2,055 240 ,041 -,291 ,142 -,570 -,012
discussions where everyone
Equal variances not -2,180 138,997 ,031 -,291 ,133 -,555 -,027
exchanges information and
assumed
opinions about issues related
to my interests

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method


a
1 Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group . Enter

2 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-178
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,284 ,080 ,061 ,966
b
2 ,283 ,080 ,065 ,964
c
3 ,283 ,080 ,069 ,962
d
4 ,266 ,071 ,063 ,965

a. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender

c. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 19,238 5 3,848 4,126 ,001

Residual 220,068 236 ,932

Total 239,306 241


b
2 Regression 19,223 4 4,806 5,175 ,001

Residual 220,082 237 ,929

Total 239,306 241


c
3 Regression 19,172 3 6,391 6,909 ,000

Residual 220,134 238 ,925

Total 239,306 241


d
4 Regression 16,934 2 8,467 9,100 ,000

Residual 222,372 239 ,930

Total 239,306 241

a. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender

c. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information


and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-179
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,587 ,382 6,767 ,000

gender ,038 ,158 ,015 ,239 ,812 ,007 ,016 ,015

age group ,008 ,064 ,008 ,125 ,901 ,033 ,008 ,008

educational level ,145 ,103 ,094 1,417 ,158 ,084 ,092 ,088

Time spent on Facebook ,179 ,063 ,183 2,861 ,005 ,172 ,183 ,179

Blogging ,417 ,132 ,199 3,152 ,002 ,204 ,201 ,197

2 (Constant) 2,604 ,356 7,316 ,000

gender ,037 ,158 ,015 ,236 ,814 ,007 ,015 ,015

educational level ,150 ,096 ,097 1,551 ,122 ,084 ,100 ,097

Time spent on Facebook ,178 ,062 ,182 2,878 ,004 ,172 ,184 ,179

Blogging ,419 ,131 ,200 3,191 ,002 ,204 ,203 ,199

3 (Constant) 2,653 ,290 9,149 ,000

educational level ,150 ,096 ,097 1,555 ,121 ,084 ,100 ,097

Time spent on Facebook ,176 ,061 ,180 2,881 ,004 ,172 ,184 ,179

Blogging ,422 ,131 ,201 3,229 ,001 ,204 ,205 ,201

4 (Constant) 3,024 ,165 18,330 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,167 ,061 ,171 2,737 ,007 ,172 ,174 ,171

Blogging ,426 ,131 ,203 3,253 ,001 ,204 ,206 ,203

a. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-180
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group ,008 ,125 ,901 ,008 ,855
b
3 age group ,008 ,119 ,905 ,008 ,855
b
gender ,015 ,236 ,814 ,015 ,971
c
4 age group ,040 ,629 ,530 ,041 ,963
c
gender ,016 ,245 ,807 ,016 ,972
c
educational level ,097 1,555 ,121 ,100 ,991

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Blogging, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and
opinions about issues related to my interests

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Writing, age group, gender, Time spent . Enter


a
on Facebook, educational level

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational Backward (criterion: Probability


level of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information


and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-181
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,242 ,059 ,039 ,977
b
2 ,241 ,058 ,042 ,975
c
3 ,239 ,057 ,045 ,974
d
4 ,223 ,050 ,042 ,975

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on


Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook,


educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 14,066 5 2,813 2,948 ,013

Residual 225,240 236 ,954

Total 239,306 241


b
2 Regression 13,911 4 3,478 3,657 ,007

Residual 225,395 237 ,951

Total 239,306 241


c
3 Regression 13,634 3 4,545 4,793 ,003

Residual 225,672 238 ,948

Total 239,306 241


d
4 Regression 11,913 2 5,957 6,261 ,002

Residual 227,393 239 ,951

Total 239,306 241

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information


and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-182
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,578 ,387 6,662 ,000

gender ,064 ,159 ,026 ,403 ,688 ,007 ,026 ,025

age group ,035 ,064 ,037 ,544 ,587 ,033 ,035 ,034

educational level ,113 ,105 ,073 1,081 ,281 ,084 ,070 ,068

Time spent on Facebook ,186 ,063 ,190 2,933 ,004 ,172 ,188 ,185

Writing ,276 ,133 ,132 2,070 ,039 ,141 ,134 ,131

2 (Constant) 2,664 ,323 8,245 ,000

age group ,035 ,064 ,037 ,540 ,590 ,033 ,035 ,034

educational level ,113 ,104 ,073 1,085 ,279 ,084 ,070 ,068

Time spent on Facebook ,182 ,063 ,186 2,910 ,004 ,172 ,186 ,183

Writing ,278 ,133 ,133 2,096 ,037 ,141 ,135 ,132

3 (Constant) 2,738 ,292 9,389 ,000

educational level ,132 ,098 ,086 1,347 ,179 ,084 ,087 ,085

Time spent on Facebook ,177 ,062 ,181 2,868 ,005 ,172 ,183 ,181

Writing ,276 ,132 ,132 2,081 ,039 ,141 ,134 ,131

4 (Constant) 3,060 ,168 18,245 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,169 ,062 ,173 2,748 ,006 ,172 ,175 ,173

Writing ,297 ,132 ,142 2,252 ,025 ,141 ,144 ,142

a. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-183
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender ,026 ,403 ,688 ,026 ,976
b
3 gender ,025 ,396 ,693 ,026 ,976
b
age group ,037 ,540 ,590 ,035 ,864
c
4 gender ,025 ,398 ,691 ,026 ,976
c
age group ,061 ,960 ,338 ,062 ,974
c
educational level ,086 1,347 ,179 ,087 ,977

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and
opinions about issues related to my interests

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Child care, age group, gender, Time . Enter


a
spent on Facebook, educational level

2 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and
opinions about issues related to my interests

B-184
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,240 ,057 ,037 ,978
b
2 ,238 ,057 ,041 ,976
c
3 ,235 ,055 ,043 ,975

a. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 13,736 5 2,747 2,874 ,015

Residual 225,569 236 ,956

Total 239,306 241


b
2 Regression 13,593 4 3,398 3,568 ,008

Residual 225,713 237 ,952

Total 239,306 241


c
3 Regression 13,186 3 4,395 4,626 ,004

Residual 226,120 238 ,950

Total 239,306 241

a. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational
level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Child care, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information


and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-185
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,533 ,389 6,516 ,000

gender ,105 ,160 ,042 ,657 ,512 ,007 ,043 ,042

age group ,025 ,064 ,026 ,387 ,699 ,033 ,025 ,024

educational level ,153 ,104 ,099 1,471 ,143 ,084 ,095 ,093

Time spent on Facebook ,176 ,064 ,180 2,764 ,006 ,172 ,177 ,175

Child care ,354 ,178 ,127 1,984 ,048 ,134 ,128 ,125

2 (Constant) 2,587 ,362 7,140 ,000

gender ,104 ,160 ,042 ,654 ,514 ,007 ,042 ,041

educational level ,167 ,098 ,108 1,703 ,090 ,084 ,110 ,107

Time spent on Facebook ,172 ,063 ,176 2,742 ,007 ,172 ,175 ,173

Child care ,357 ,178 ,128 2,005 ,046 ,134 ,129 ,126

3 (Constant) 2,727 ,292 9,324 ,000

educational level ,167 ,098 ,108 1,708 ,089 ,084 ,110 ,108

Time spent on Facebook ,167 ,062 ,170 2,680 ,008 ,172 ,171 ,169

Child care ,348 ,177 ,124 1,962 ,051 ,134 ,126 ,124

a. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-186
c
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group ,026 ,387 ,699 ,025 ,864
b
3 age group ,026 ,380 ,704 ,025 ,864
b
gender ,042 ,654 ,514 ,042 ,972

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Child care, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Child care, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and opinions
about issues related to my interests

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Writing lyrics/poems, age group, . Enter


gender, Time spent on Facebook,
a
educational level

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-


to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-


to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-


to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and
opinions about issues related to my interests

B-187
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,229 ,052 ,032 ,980
b
2 ,228 ,052 ,036 ,978
c
3 ,225 ,051 ,039 ,977
d
4 ,206 ,042 ,034 ,979

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 12,561 5 2,512 2,615 ,025

Residual 226,745 236 ,961

Total 239,306 241


b
2 Regression 12,393 4 3,098 3,236 ,013

Residual 226,913 237 ,957

Total 239,306 241


c
3 Regression 12,132 3 4,044 4,237 ,006

Residual 227,174 238 ,955

Total 239,306 241


d
4 Regression 10,132 2 5,066 5,283 ,006

Residual 229,174 239 ,959

Total 239,306 241

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational
level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information


and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-188
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,613 ,388 6,732 ,000

gender ,067 ,160 ,027 ,418 ,676 ,007 ,027 ,026

age group ,034 ,064 ,036 ,527 ,599 ,033 ,034 ,033

educational level ,123 ,105 ,080 1,180 ,239 ,084 ,077 ,075

Time spent on Facebook ,174 ,064 ,178 2,713 ,007 ,172 ,174 ,172

Writing lyrics/poems ,233 ,142 ,105 1,641 ,102 ,131 ,106 ,104

2 (Constant) 2,702 ,323 8,357 ,000

age group ,033 ,064 ,036 ,522 ,602 ,033 ,034 ,033

educational level ,124 ,104 ,080 1,186 ,237 ,084 ,077 ,075

Time spent on Facebook ,170 ,063 ,173 2,685 ,008 ,172 ,172 ,170

Writing lyrics/poems ,236 ,141 ,107 1,667 ,097 ,131 ,108 ,105

3 (Constant) 2,774 ,292 9,500 ,000

educational level ,142 ,098 ,092 1,447 ,149 ,084 ,093 ,091

Time spent on Facebook ,165 ,062 ,169 2,643 ,009 ,172 ,169 ,167

Writing lyrics/poems ,233 ,141 ,105 1,651 ,100 ,131 ,106 ,104

4 (Constant) 3,125 ,163 19,149 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,156 ,062 ,159 2,500 ,013 ,172 ,160 ,158

Writing lyrics/poems ,251 ,141 ,114 1,782 ,076 ,131 ,115 ,113

a. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and opinions about issues related to my interests

B-189
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender ,027 ,418 ,676 ,027 ,975
b
3 gender ,026 ,412 ,681 ,027 ,976
b
age group ,036 ,522 ,602 ,034 ,864
c
4 gender ,027 ,415 ,678 ,027 ,976
c
age group ,063 ,977 ,330 ,063 ,974
c
educational level ,092 1,447 ,149 ,093 ,983

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I participate in wall discussions where everyone exchanges information and
opinions about issues related to my interests

5.3.3 Social mediation by cultural scaffolding on Facebook

Differences in perceptions related to demographic characteristics

T-Test

Group Statistics

gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Facebook as a software tool 1 197 3,04 1,277 ,091


helps me to gain experience
2 49 2,55 1,174 ,168
in computer related tasks

B-190
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

Facebook as a software tool Equal variances assumed ,047 ,829 2,439 244 ,015 ,490 ,201 ,094 ,885
helps me to gain experience
Equal variances not 2,566 78,761 ,012 ,490 ,191 ,110 ,869
in computer related tasks
assumed

B-191
Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 Time spent on . Enter


Facebook,
educational level,
gender, age
a
group

2 . age group Backward


(criterion:
Probability of F-
to-remove >=
,100).

3 . educational level Backward


(criterion:
Probability of F-
to-remove >=
,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Facebook as a software tool helps me


to gain experience in computer related tasks

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,315 ,099 ,084 1,215
b
2 ,313 ,098 ,087 1,214
c
3 ,297 ,088 ,081 1,218

a. Predictors: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, educational level,


gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, educational level,


gender

c. Predictors: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, gender

B-192
d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 39,206 4 9,801 6,635 ,000

Residual 355,998 241 1,477

Total 395,203 245


b
2 Regression 38,755 3 12,918 8,771 ,000

Residual 356,448 242 1,473

Total 395,203 245


c
3 Regression 34,878 2 17,439 11,761 ,000

Residual 360,325 243 1,483

Total 395,203 245

a. Predictors: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender

c. Predictors: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, gender

d. Dependent Variable: Facebook as a software tool helps me to gain experience in computer


related tasks

B-193
a
Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,187 ,476 6,697 ,000

gender -,357 ,196 -,112 -1,816 ,071 -,154 -,116 -,111

age group -,044 ,080 -,036 -,552 ,581 -,110 -,036 -,034

educational level -,171 ,127 -,088 -1,344 ,180 -,129 -,086 -,082

Time spent on Facebook ,300 ,078 ,242 3,853 ,000 ,275 ,241 ,236

2 (Constant) 3,092 ,443 6,975 ,000

gender -,357 ,196 -,112 -1,819 ,070 -,154 -,116 -,111

educational level -,195 ,120 -,100 -1,622 ,106 -,129 -,104 -,099

Time spent on Facebook ,306 ,077 ,247 3,972 ,000 ,275 ,247 ,242

3 (Constant) 2,612 ,331 7,892 ,000

gender -,362 ,197 -,114 -1,839 ,067 -,154 -,117 -,113

Time spent on Facebook ,319 ,077 ,257 4,145 ,000 ,275 ,257 ,254

a. Dependent Variable: Facebook as a software tool helps me to gain experience in computer related tasks

B-194
c
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group -,036 -,552 ,581 -,036 ,865
b
3 age group -,066 -1,058 ,291 -,068 ,972
b
educational level -,100 -1,622 ,106 -,104 ,989

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, gender

c. Dependent Variable: Facebook as a software tool helps me to gain experience in computer related
tasks

Differences in perceptions related to interests

T-Test

Group Statistics

Going
to
movies N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Posted videos/images on 0 65 3,09 1,128 ,140


Facebook walls help me
1 178 3,41 1,011 ,076
reflect or gain new
knowledge

B-195
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality


of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

Posted videos/images on Equal variances assumed 1,192 ,276 -2,101 241 ,037 -,318 ,151 -,616 -,020
Facebook walls help me
Equal variances not -1,997 103,851 ,048 -,318 ,159 -,633 -,002
reflect or gain new
assumed
knowledge

T-Test

Group Statistics

Cosmetics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Posted videos/images on Facebook walls 0 198 3,25 1,078 ,077


help me reflect or gain new knowledge
1 45 3,67 ,853 ,127

B-196
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

Posted videos/images on Equal variances assumed 6,958 ,009 -2,440 241 ,015 -,419 ,172 -,758 -,081
Facebook walls help me
Equal variances not -2,824 79,411 ,006 -,419 ,148 -,715 -,124
reflect or gain new knowledge
assumed

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method


a
1 Going to movies, gender, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group . Enter

2 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Posted videos/images on Facebook walls help me reflect or gain new knowledge

B-197
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the


Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 ,252 ,063 ,044 1,028
b
2 ,251 ,063 ,047 1,026
c
3 ,234 ,055 ,043 1,028
d
4 ,211 ,044 ,036 1,032

a. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level,


Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on


Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on


Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 16,941 5 3,388 3,207 ,008

Residual 250,376 237 1,056

Total 267,317 242


b
2 Regression 16,791 4 4,198 3,988 ,004

Residual 250,526 238 1,053

Total 267,317 242


c
3 Regression 14,661 3 4,887 4,623 ,004

Residual 252,656 239 1,057

Total 267,317 242


d
4 Regression 11,877 2 5,938 5,579 ,004

Residual 255,440 240 1,064

Total 267,317 242

a. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Going to movies, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: Posted videos/images on Facebook walls help me reflect or gain new knowledge

B-198
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,802 ,428 6,539 ,000

gender -,271 ,166 -,104 -1,627 ,105 -,126 -,105 -,102

age group ,099 ,068 ,100 1,465 ,144 ,040 ,095 ,092

educational level -,041 ,108 -,025 -,377 ,707 -,022 -,024 -,024

Time spent on Facebook ,163 ,066 ,160 2,468 ,014 ,168 ,158 ,155

Going to movies ,334 ,151 ,141 2,215 ,028 ,134 ,142 ,139

2 (Constant) 2,729 ,381 7,158 ,000

gender -,272 ,166 -,104 -1,634 ,104 -,126 -,105 -,103

age group ,091 ,064 ,092 1,423 ,156 ,040 ,092 ,089

Time spent on Facebook ,165 ,066 ,161 2,495 ,013 ,168 ,160 ,157

Going to movies ,335 ,150 ,142 2,229 ,027 ,134 ,143 ,140

3 (Constant) 3,066 ,299 10,260 ,000

gender -,270 ,167 -,103 -1,623 ,106 -,126 -,104 -,102

Time spent on Facebook ,150 ,065 ,146 2,292 ,023 ,168 ,147 ,144

Going to movies ,304 ,149 ,128 2,041 ,042 ,134 ,131 ,128

4 (Constant) 2,702 ,198 13,638 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,167 ,065 ,163 2,577 ,011 ,168 ,164 ,163

Going to movies ,302 ,150 ,128 2,019 ,045 ,134 ,129 ,127

a. Dependent Variable: Posted videos/images on Facebook walls help me reflect or gain new knowledge

B-199
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 educational level -,025 -,377 ,707 -,024 ,878
b
3 educational level ,007 ,107 ,915 ,007 ,983
b
age group ,092 1,423 ,156 ,092 ,952
c
4 educational level ,005 ,086 ,932 ,006 ,983
c
age group ,091 1,409 ,160 ,091 ,952
c
gender -,103 -1,623 ,106 -,104 ,974

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Going to movies, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Going to movies, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: Posted videos/images on Facebook walls help me reflect or gain new
knowledge

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Cosmetics, educational level, Time . Enter


a
spent on Facebook, gender, age group

2 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Posted videos/images on Facebook walls help me reflect or gain new
knowledge

B-200
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,240 ,058 ,038 1,031
b
2 ,239 ,057 ,041 1,029
c
3 ,227 ,052 ,040 1,030
d
4 ,211 ,045 ,037 1,032

a. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook, age group

d. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 15,378 5 3,076 2,893 ,015

Residual 251,939 237 1,063

Total 267,317 242


b
2 Regression 15,244 4 3,811 3,598 ,007

Residual 252,073 238 1,059

Total 267,317 242


c
3 Regression 13,818 3 4,606 4,343 ,005

Residual 253,499 239 1,061

Total 267,317 242


d
4 Regression 11,932 2 5,966 5,607 ,004

Residual 255,385 240 1,064

Total 267,317 242

a. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook, age group

d. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: Posted videos/images on Facebook walls help me reflect or gain new
knowledge

B-201
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,946 ,416 7,081 ,000

gender -,198 ,171 -,076 -1,157 ,248 -,126 -,075 -,073

age group ,092 ,068 ,092 1,352 ,178 ,040 ,088 ,085

educational level -,038 ,108 -,024 -,355 ,723 -,022 -,023 -,022

Time spent on Facebook ,151 ,067 ,148 2,259 ,025 ,168 ,145 ,142

Cosmetics ,329 ,178 ,122 1,846 ,066 ,155 ,119 ,116

2 (Constant) 2,877 ,367 7,841 ,000

gender -,198 ,171 -,076 -1,160 ,247 -,126 -,075 -,073

age group ,084 ,064 ,084 1,310 ,191 ,040 ,085 ,082

Time spent on Facebook ,152 ,067 ,149 2,283 ,023 ,168 ,146 ,144

Cosmetics ,332 ,178 ,123 1,865 ,063 ,155 ,120 ,117

3 (Constant) 2,602 ,281 9,275 ,000

age group ,085 ,064 ,086 1,333 ,184 ,040 ,086 ,084

Time spent on Facebook ,162 ,066 ,158 2,446 ,015 ,168 ,156 ,154

Cosmetics ,377 ,174 ,140 2,170 ,031 ,155 ,139 ,137

4 (Constant) 2,901 ,169 17,150 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,149 ,066 ,145 2,271 ,024 ,168 ,145 ,143

Cosmetics ,351 ,173 ,130 2,032 ,043 ,155 ,130 ,128

a. Dependent Variable: Posted videos/images on Facebook walls help me reflect or gain new knowledge

B-202
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 educational level -,024 -,355 ,723 -,023 ,878
b
3 educational level -,024 -,357 ,721 -,023 ,878
b
gender -,076 -1,160 ,247 -,075 ,928
c
4 educational level ,006 ,097 ,923 ,006 ,982
c
gender -,078 -1,185 ,237 -,076 ,928
c
age group ,086 1,333 ,184 ,086 ,960

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: Posted videos/images on Facebook walls help me reflect or gain new
knowledge

T-Test

Group Statistics

Writing
lyrics/po
ems N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

My personal wall is a way to 0 176 3,76 ,901 ,068


present my ideas through
1 68 4,06 ,790 ,096
representative means

B-203
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

My personal wall is a way to Equal variances assumed 2,648 ,105 -2,391 242 ,018 -,297 ,124 -,543 -,052
present my ideas through
Equal variances not -2,534 137,968 ,012 -,297 ,117 -,530 -,065
representative means
assumed

T-Test
Group Statistics

Handcraft N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

My personal wall is a way to 0 203 3,77 ,894 ,063


present my ideas through
1 41 4,20 ,715 ,112
representative means

B-204
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

My personal wall is a way to Equal variances assumed 1,179 ,279 -2,840 242 ,005 -,422 ,148 -,714 -,129
present my ideas through
Equal variances not -3,293 67,947 ,002 -,422 ,128 -,677 -,166
representative means
assumed

T-Test
Group Statistics

Cosmetics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

My personal wall is a way to present my 0 199 3,78 ,875 ,062


ideas through representative means
1 45 4,11 ,859 ,128

B-205
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

My personal wall is a way to Equal variances assumed ,239 ,626 -2,272 242 ,024 -,327 ,144 -,611 -,044
present my ideas through
Equal variances not -2,300 66,294 ,025 -,327 ,142 -,611 -,043
representative means
assumed

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Writing lyrics/poems, age group, gender, Time spent on . Enter


a
Facebook, educational level

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative means

B-206
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,270 ,073 ,053 ,856
b
2 ,268 ,072 ,056 ,855
c
3 ,266 ,071 ,059 ,853
d
4 ,263 ,069 ,061 ,852

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 13,723 5 2,745 3,746 ,003

Residual 174,359 238 ,733

Total 188,082 243


b
2 Regression 13,523 4 3,381 4,629 ,001

Residual 174,559 239 ,730

Total 188,082 243


c
3 Regression 13,305 3 4,435 6,090 ,001

Residual 174,777 240 ,728

Total 188,082 243


d
4 Regression 13,000 2 6,500 8,947 ,000

Residual 175,082 241 ,726

Total 188,082 243

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational
level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative


means

B-207
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,356 ,335 10,003 ,000

gender -,074 ,141 -,033 -,523 ,601 -,058 -,034 -,033

age group -,030 ,056 -,037 -,544 ,587 -,056 -,035 -,034

educational level ,071 ,090 ,053 ,787 ,432 ,028 ,051 ,049

Time spent on Facebook ,181 ,055 ,211 3,276 ,001 ,231 ,208 ,204

Writing lyrics/poems ,243 ,124 ,124 1,971 ,050 ,152 ,127 ,123

2 (Constant) 3,259 ,279 11,690 ,000

age group -,030 ,056 -,037 -,546 ,586 -,056 -,035 -,034

educational level ,071 ,090 ,053 ,793 ,429 ,028 ,051 ,049

Time spent on Facebook ,185 ,055 ,215 3,382 ,001 ,231 ,214 ,211

Writing lyrics/poems ,241 ,123 ,123 1,953 ,052 ,152 ,125 ,122

3 (Constant) 3,193 ,251 12,697 ,000

educational level ,055 ,085 ,041 ,647 ,518 ,028 ,042 ,040

Time spent on Facebook ,189 ,054 ,220 3,494 ,001 ,231 ,220 ,217

Writing lyrics/poems ,243 ,123 ,124 1,973 ,050 ,152 ,126 ,123

4 (Constant) 3,328 ,141 23,604 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,186 ,054 ,216 3,453 ,001 ,231 ,217 ,215

Writing lyrics/poems ,248 ,123 ,127 2,022 ,044 ,152 ,129 ,126

a. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative means

B-208
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,033 -,523 ,601 -,034 ,981
b
3 gender -,033 -,525 ,600 -,034 ,981
b
age group -,037 -,546 ,586 -,035 ,863
c
4 gender -,033 -,531 ,596 -,034 ,981
c
age group -,019 -,296 ,768 -,019 ,974
c
educational level ,041 ,647 ,518 ,042 ,988

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative means

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method

1 Handcraft, educational level, . Enter


Time spent on Facebook,
a
gender, age group

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability


of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative


means

B-209
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,289 ,083 ,064 ,851
b
2 ,288 ,083 ,068 ,849
c
3 ,284 ,081 ,069 ,849
d
4 ,280 ,078 ,071 ,848

a. Predictors: (Constant), Handcraft, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Handcraft, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Handcraft, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Handcraft, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 15,657 5 3,131 4,322 ,001

Residual 172,425 238 ,724

Total 188,082 243


b
2 Regression 15,646 4 3,911 5,421 ,000

Residual 172,436 239 ,721

Total 188,082 243


c
3 Regression 15,164 3 5,055 7,015 ,000

Residual 172,918 240 ,720

Total 188,082 243


d
4 Regression 14,701 2 7,350 10,217 ,000

Residual 173,381 241 ,719

Total 188,082 243

a. Predictors: (Constant), Handcraft, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Handcraft, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Handcraft, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Handcraft, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative


means

B-210
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,289 ,335 9,827 ,000

gender -,017 ,142 -,008 -,123 ,902 -,058 -,008 -,008

age group -,045 ,056 -,055 -,815 ,416 -,056 -,053 -,051

educational level ,092 ,090 ,068 1,027 ,305 ,028 ,066 ,064

Time spent on Facebook ,181 ,055 ,211 3,311 ,001 ,231 ,210 ,205

Handcraft ,380 ,148 ,162 2,569 ,011 ,180 ,164 ,159

2 (Constant) 3,266 ,277 11,793 ,000

age group -,045 ,055 -,055 -,818 ,414 -,056 -,053 -,051

educational level ,092 ,089 ,068 1,030 ,304 ,028 ,067 ,064

Time spent on Facebook ,182 ,054 ,212 3,355 ,001 ,231 ,212 ,208

Handcraft ,382 ,147 ,163 2,608 ,010 ,180 ,166 ,162

3 (Constant) 3,170 ,250 12,655 ,000

educational level ,067 ,084 ,050 ,801 ,424 ,028 ,052 ,050

Time spent on Facebook ,189 ,054 ,220 3,518 ,001 ,231 ,221 ,218

Handcraft ,373 ,146 ,159 2,552 ,011 ,180 ,163 ,158

4 (Constant) 3,336 ,140 23,908 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,185 ,053 ,215 3,464 ,001 ,231 ,218 ,214

Handcraft ,372 ,146 ,158 2,548 ,011 ,180 ,162 ,158

a. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative means

B-211
d
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,008 -,123 ,902 -,008 ,968
b
3 gender -,008 -,132 ,895 -,009 ,968
b
age group -,055 -,818 ,414 -,053 ,858
c
4 gender -,009 -,137 ,891 -,009 ,968
c
age group -,031 -,498 ,619 -,032 ,969
c
educational level ,050 ,801 ,424 ,052 ,992

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Handcraft, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Handcraft, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Handcraft, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative means

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Cosmetics, educational level, Time . Enter


a
spent on Facebook, gender, age group

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of


F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative means

B-212
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,262 ,069 ,049 ,858
b
2 ,262 ,069 ,053 ,856
c
3 ,260 ,068 ,056 ,855
d
4 ,254 ,065 ,057 ,854

a. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 12,907 5 2,581 3,507 ,004

Residual 175,175 238 ,736

Total 188,082 243


b
2 Regression 12,903 4 3,226 4,401 ,002

Residual 175,179 239 ,733

Total 188,082 243


c
3 Regression 12,763 3 4,254 5,824 ,001

Residual 175,319 240 ,730

Total 188,082 243


d
4 Regression 12,166 2 6,083 8,334 ,000

Residual 175,916 241 ,730

Total 188,082 243

a. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, gender, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative


means

B-213
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 3,237 ,344 9,410 ,000

gender -,010 ,145 -,005 -,071 ,944 -,058 -,005 -,004

age group -,025 ,056 -,030 -,437 ,663 -,056 -,028 -,027

educational level ,090 ,090 ,066 ,993 ,322 ,028 ,064 ,062

Time spent on Facebook ,183 ,055 ,213 3,298 ,001 ,231 ,209 ,206

Cosmetics ,246 ,148 ,109 1,661 ,098 ,145 ,107 ,104

2 (Constant) 3,223 ,281 11,477 ,000

age group -,024 ,056 -,029 -,437 ,663 -,056 -,028 -,027

educational level ,090 ,090 ,066 ,996 ,320 ,028 ,064 ,062

Time spent on Facebook ,183 ,055 ,213 3,329 ,001 ,231 ,211 ,208

Cosmetics ,248 ,144 ,110 1,719 ,087 ,145 ,111 ,107

3 (Constant) 3,170 ,253 12,549 ,000

educational level ,077 ,085 ,057 ,904 ,367 ,028 ,058 ,056

Time spent on Facebook ,186 ,054 ,217 3,415 ,001 ,231 ,215 ,213

Cosmetics ,254 ,144 ,112 1,772 ,078 ,145 ,114 ,110

4 (Constant) 3,360 ,140 23,978 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,182 ,054 ,212 3,359 ,001 ,231 ,211 ,209

Cosmetics ,245 ,143 ,108 1,711 ,088 ,145 ,110 ,107

a. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative means

B-214
d
Excluded Variables

Collinearity Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,005 -,071 ,944 -,005 ,938
b
3 gender -,004 -,062 ,951 -,004 ,938
b
age group -,029 -,437 ,663 -,028 ,855
c
4 gender -,005 -,082 ,935 -,005 ,939
c
age group -,007 -,112 ,911 -,007 ,961
c
educational level ,057 ,904 ,367 ,058 ,987

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Cosmetics, educational level, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Cosmetics, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: My personal wall is a way to present my ideas through representative means

T-Test

Group Statistics

Writing
lyrics/po
ems N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

My personal wall facilitates 0 174 3,55 1,073 ,081


my effort to directly present
1 68 3,97 ,810 ,098
my ideas

B-215
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality


of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

My personal wall facilitates Equal variances assumed 12,716 ,000 -2,950 240 ,003 -,425 ,144 -,708 -,141
my effort to directly present
Equal variances not -3,330 161,082 ,001 -,425 ,128 -,676 -,173
my ideas
assumed

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method
a
1 Writing lyrics/poems, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level . Enter

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: My personal wall facilitates my effort to directly present my ideas

B-216
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,316 ,100 ,081 ,980
b
2 ,316 ,100 ,084 ,978
c
3 ,315 ,099 ,088 ,977

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook

d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 25,110 5 5,022 5,226 ,000

Residual 226,778 236 ,961

Total 251,888 241


b
2 Regression 25,110 4 6,277 6,560 ,000

Residual 226,779 237 ,957

Total 251,888 241


c
3 Regression 24,915 3 8,305 8,709 ,000

Residual 226,973 238 ,954

Total 251,888 241

a. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational
level

c. Predictors: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: My personal wall facilitates my effort to directly present my ideas

B-217
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,547 ,391 6,517 ,000

gender -,004 ,164 -,002 -,024 ,981 -,031 -,002 -,001

age group ,104 ,064 ,107 1,615 ,108 ,072 ,105 ,100

educational level ,047 ,103 ,030 ,450 ,653 ,053 ,029 ,028

Time spent on Facebook ,246 ,064 ,247 3,873 ,000 ,245 ,244 ,239

Writing lyrics/poems ,360 ,142 ,159 2,541 ,012 ,187 ,163 ,157

2 (Constant) 2,542 ,322 7,900 ,000

age group ,104 ,064 ,107 1,619 ,107 ,072 ,105 ,100

educational level ,047 ,103 ,030 ,451 ,652 ,053 ,029 ,028

Time spent on Facebook ,246 ,063 ,247 3,927 ,000 ,245 ,247 ,242

Writing lyrics/poems ,360 ,141 ,159 2,549 ,011 ,187 ,163 ,157

3 (Constant) 2,623 ,267 9,840 ,000

age group ,114 ,060 ,117 1,877 ,062 ,072 ,121 ,116

Time spent on Facebook ,245 ,063 ,246 3,918 ,000 ,245 ,246 ,241

Writing lyrics/poems ,365 ,141 ,161 2,593 ,010 ,187 ,166 ,160

a. Dependent Variable: My personal wall facilitates my effort to directly present my ideas

B-218
c
Excluded Variables

Collinearity
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender -,002 -,024 ,981 -,002 ,978
b
3 gender -,002 -,031 ,976 -,002 ,978
b
educational level ,030 ,451 ,652 ,029 ,879

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Writing lyrics/poems, age group, Time spent on Facebook

c. Dependent Variable: My personal wall facilitates my effort to directly present my ideas

5.3.4 Learning to be a social learner on Facebook

Differences in perceptions related to demographic characteristics

T-Test

Group Statistics

gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I can more easily start a 1 188 2,79 1,223 ,089


conversation with an
2 45 3,24 1,131 ,169
unknown/little known person

B-219
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I can more easily start a Equal variances assumed 1,980 ,161 -2,285 231 ,023 -,457 ,200 -,851 -,063
conversation with an
Equal variances not -2,397 70,737 ,019 -,457 ,191 -,838 -,077
unknown/little known person
assumed

B-220
Regression
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method


a
1 Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group . Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,286 ,082 ,065 1,176

a. Predictors: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 27,998 4 7,000 5,060 ,001

Residual 315,392 228 1,383

Total 343,391 232

a. Predictors: (Constant), Time spent on Facebook, educational level, gender, age group

b. Dependent Variable: I can more easily start a conversation with an unknown/little known person

B-221
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 1,692 ,479 3,535 ,000

gender ,531 ,197 ,173 2,690 ,008 ,149 ,175 ,171

age group ,199 ,078 ,172 2,547 ,012 ,107 ,166 ,162

educational level -,252 ,126 -,133 -2,000 ,047 -,092 -,131 -,127

Time spent on Facebook ,216 ,077 ,182 2,793 ,006 ,138 ,182 ,177

a. Dependent Variable: I can more easily start a conversation with an unknown/little known person

Differences in perceptions related to interests

T-Test

Group Statistics

Online computer gaming N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I have learned when and how to pose questions 0 166 2,40 ,940 ,073

1 64 2,75 1,098 ,137

B-222
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I have learned when and Equal variances assumed 1,893 ,170 -2,429 228 ,016 -,352 ,145 -,638 -,066
how to pose questions
Equal variances not -2,267 100,535 ,026 -,352 ,155 -,661 -,044
assumed

Regression
b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Online computer gaming, gender, educational . Enter


a
level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I have learned when and how to pose questions

B-223
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,256 ,065 ,045 ,974
b
2 ,256 ,065 ,049 ,972
c
3 ,253 ,064 ,051 ,971

a. Predictors: (Constant), Online computer gaming, gender, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age
group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Online computer gaming, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Online computer gaming, Time spent on Facebook, age group

d
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 14,879 5 2,976 3,135 ,009

Residual 212,616 224 ,949

Total 227,496 229


b
2 Regression 14,867 4 3,717 3,933 ,004

Residual 212,628 225 ,945

Total 227,496 229


c
3 Regression 14,517 3 4,839 5,135 ,002

Residual 212,979 226 ,942

Total 227,496 229

a. Predictors: (Constant), Online computer gaming, gender, educational level, Time spent on
Facebook, age group

b. Predictors: (Constant), Online computer gaming, educational level, Time spent on Facebook,
age group

c. Predictors: (Constant), Online computer gaming, Time spent on Facebook, age group

d. Dependent Variable: I have learned when and how to pose questions

B-224
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 1,690 ,405 4,172 ,000

gender ,018 ,164 ,007 ,113 ,910 -,014 ,008 ,007

age group ,142 ,066 ,149 2,152 ,032 ,084 ,142 ,139

educational level -,064 ,105 -,042 -,611 ,542 -,031 -,041 -,039

Time spent on Facebook ,165 ,065 ,172 2,561 ,011 ,158 ,169 ,165

Online computer gaming ,342 ,145 ,154 2,365 ,019 ,159 ,156 ,153

2 (Constant) 1,714 ,347 4,939 ,000

age group ,142 ,066 ,149 2,158 ,032 ,084 ,142 ,139

educational level -,064 ,104 -,041 -,609 ,543 -,031 -,041 -,039

Time spent on Facebook ,164 ,064 ,171 2,574 ,011 ,158 ,169 ,166

Online computer gaming ,342 ,144 ,154 2,371 ,019 ,159 ,156 ,153

3 (Constant) 1,592 ,283 5,621 ,000

age group ,130 ,063 ,137 2,073 ,039 ,084 ,137 ,133

Time spent on Facebook ,167 ,064 ,174 2,625 ,009 ,158 ,172 ,169

Online computer gaming ,347 ,144 ,156 2,411 ,017 ,159 ,158 ,155

a. Dependent Variable: I have learned when and how to pose questions

B-225
c
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender ,007 ,113 ,910 ,008 ,979
b
3 gender ,006 ,095 ,924 ,006 ,980
b
educational level -,041 -,609 ,543 -,041 ,896

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Online computer gaming, educational level, Time spent on Facebook, age
group

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Online computer gaming, Time spent on Facebook, age group

c. Dependent Variable: I have learned when and how to pose questions

T-Test

Group Statistics

movie making N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I have learned to accept 0 206 2,84 ,990 ,069


different thoughts and
1 27 3,44 1,121 ,216
perspectives.

B-226
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I have learned to accept Equal variances assumed 1,261 ,263 -2,913 231 ,004 -,600 ,206 -1,005 -,194
different thoughts and
Equal variances not -2,648 31,550 ,013 -,600 ,226 -1,061 -,138
perspectives.
assumed

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method


a
1 movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level . Enter

2 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I have learned to accept different thoughts and perspectives.

B-227
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,293 ,086 ,066 ,988
b
2 ,293 ,086 ,070 ,986
c
3 ,283 ,080 ,068 ,987
d
4 ,265 ,070 ,062 ,990

a. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 20,766 5 4,153 4,256 ,001

Residual 221,517 227 ,976

Total 242,283 232


b
2 Regression 20,731 4 5,183 5,334 ,000

Residual 221,553 228 ,972

Total 242,283 232


c
3 Regression 19,414 3 6,471 6,649 ,000

Residual 222,870 229 ,973

Total 242,283 232


d
4 Regression 17,023 2 8,512 8,691 ,000

Residual 225,260 230 ,979

Total 242,283 232

a. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

d. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I have learned to accept different thoughts and perspectives.

B-228
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,575 ,403 6,384 ,000

gender ,031 ,165 ,012 ,190 ,850 ,000 ,013 ,012

age group ,077 ,066 ,079 1,160 ,247 ,001 ,077 ,074

educational level -,195 ,106 -,124 -1,840 ,067 -,110 -,121 -,117

Time spent on Facebook ,186 ,065 ,189 2,871 ,004 ,184 ,187 ,182

movie making ,632 ,204 ,198 3,104 ,002 ,188 ,202 ,197

2 (Constant) 2,614 ,346 7,560 ,000

age group ,077 ,066 ,079 1,164 ,246 ,001 ,077 ,074

educational level -,194 ,106 -,123 -1,839 ,067 -,110 -,121 -,116

Time spent on Facebook ,185 ,064 ,187 2,877 ,004 ,184 ,187 ,182

movie making ,635 ,202 ,199 3,139 ,002 ,188 ,204 ,199

3 (Constant) 2,803 ,306 9,164 ,000

educational level -,158 ,101 -,100 -1,567 ,118 -,110 -,103 -,099

Time spent on Facebook ,171 ,063 ,173 2,709 ,007 ,184 ,176 ,172

movie making ,629 ,202 ,198 3,110 ,002 ,188 ,201 ,197

4 (Constant) 2,400 ,166 14,414 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,184 ,063 ,187 2,935 ,004 ,184 ,190 ,187

movie making ,608 ,203 ,191 2,999 ,003 ,188 ,194 ,191

a. Dependent Variable: I have learned to accept different thoughts and perspectives.

B-229
d
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 gender ,012 ,190 ,850 ,013 ,970
b
3 gender ,013 ,202 ,840 ,013 ,970
b
age group ,079 1,164 ,246 ,077 ,874
c
4 gender ,009 ,145 ,885 ,010 ,972
c
age group ,043 ,655 ,513 ,043 ,955
c
educational level -,100 -1,567 ,118 -,103 ,977

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, age group, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

d. Dependent Variable: I have learned to accept different thoughts and perspectives.

5.3.5 Learning of social content on Facebook

Differences in perceptions related to interests

T-Test
Group Statistics

movie making N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

I have learned how to get 0 204 2,62 ,987 ,069


along with other people
1 26 3,08 1,164 ,228

B-230
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for


Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval


of the Difference

Mean Std. Error


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

I have learned how to get Equal variances assumed ,114 ,736 -2,164 228 ,031 -,454 ,210 -,868 -,041
along with other people
Equal variances not -1,906 29,769 ,066 -,454 ,238 -,941 ,033
assumed

Regression

b
Variables Entered/Removed

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method


a
1 movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level . Enter

2 . age group Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

3 . educational level Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

4 . gender Backward (criterion: Probability of F-to-remove >= ,100).

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: I have learned how to get along with other people

B-231
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


a
1 ,268 ,072 ,051 ,990
b
2 ,268 ,072 ,055 ,988
c
3 ,267 ,071 ,059 ,986
d
4 ,260 ,068 ,059 ,986

a. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

e
ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


a
1 Regression 17,009 5 3,402 3,471 ,005

Residual 219,534 224 ,980

Total 236,543 229


b
2 Regression 17,002 4 4,251 4,356 ,002

Residual 219,541 225 ,976

Total 236,543 229


c
3 Regression 16,800 3 5,600 5,760 ,001

Residual 219,743 226 ,972

Total 236,543 229


d
4 Regression 16,008 2 8,004 8,238 ,000

Residual 220,536 227 ,972

Total 236,543 229

a. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, age group, gender, Time spent on Facebook,
educational level

b. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

c. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook

d. Predictors: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook

e. Dependent Variable: I have learned how to get along with other people

B-232
a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Correlations


Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part

1 (Constant) 2,029 ,409 4,963 ,000

gender ,153 ,167 ,060 ,912 ,363 ,040 ,061 ,059

age group -,006 ,067 -,006 -,084 ,933 -,054 -,006 -,005

educational level -,044 ,106 -,028 -,412 ,681 -,044 -,028 -,027

Time spent on Facebook ,220 ,066 ,222 3,335 ,001 ,214 ,218 ,215

movie making ,460 ,208 ,144 2,215 ,028 ,142 ,146 ,143

2 (Constant) 2,016 ,374 5,386 ,000

gender ,152 ,167 ,060 ,913 ,362 ,040 ,061 ,059

educational level -,046 ,102 -,030 -,455 ,649 -,044 -,030 -,029

Time spent on Facebook ,220 ,065 ,223 3,408 ,001 ,214 ,222 ,219

movie making ,461 ,207 ,144 2,221 ,027 ,142 ,146 ,143

3 (Constant) 1,901 ,277 6,871 ,000

gender ,150 ,167 ,059 ,903 ,368 ,040 ,060 ,058

Time spent on Facebook ,224 ,064 ,227 3,496 ,001 ,214 ,227 ,224

movie making ,453 ,206 ,142 2,197 ,029 ,142 ,145 ,141

4 (Constant) 2,099 ,169 12,452 ,000

Time spent on Facebook ,216 ,063 ,218 3,402 ,001 ,214 ,220 ,218

movie making ,472 ,205 ,147 2,297 ,023 ,142 ,151 ,147

a. Dependent Variable: I have learned how to get along with other people

B-233
d
Excluded Variables

Partial Collinearity Statistics


Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
a
2 age group -,006 -,084 ,933 -,006 ,882
b
3 age group -,014 -,209 ,835 -,014 ,958
b
educational level -,030 -,455 ,649 -,030 ,976
c
4 age group -,013 -,196 ,845 -,013 ,958
c
educational level -,028 -,431 ,667 -,029 ,977
c
gender ,059 ,903 ,368 ,060 ,969

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook, educational level

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, gender, Time spent on Facebook

c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), movie making, Time spent on Facebook


d. Dependent Variable: I have learned how to get along with other people

B-234