Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017) 286e291

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Full length article

Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the

academic performance of university students
Wilfred W.F. Lau
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In today's society, social media have become an almost indispensable part of daily life, particularly among
Received 2 August 2016 university students, who are generally heavy social media users. Social media multitasking has also been
Received in revised form increasingly prevalent. Little, however, is known about how social media usage and social media
5 November 2016
multitasking influence the academic performance of university students. This study examined whether
Accepted 22 November 2016
and how these two behaviors predict academic performance among university students. From a sample
of 348 undergraduate students at a comprehensive university in Hong Kong, this study found that using
social media for academic purposes was not a significant predictor of academic performance as measured
Keywords:
Social media usage
by cumulative grade point average, whereas using social media for nonacademic purposes (video gaming
Social media multitasking in particular) and social media multitasking significantly negatively predicted academic performance.
Academic performance © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
University students

1. Introduction enhanced communication between students and instructors, (b)

Social media have penetrated the lives of many young adults.
The social media usage of American adults aged 18e29 years soared
from 12% in 2005 to 90% in 2015 (Pew Research Center, 2015). In
education, social media can be used to share information with
students, collect information when overseas or while conducting
research, share personal academic interests with other people,
engage students and understand what they think about during
instruction, form student study groups, and enhance e-textbook
functions by connecting students with social tools for collaborative
purposes (O'Brien, 2012). Social media also develop students' ca-
pacity to create and arouse their interests in academic subjects
(Lau, Lui, & Chu, 2016), and students more easily communicate with
working professionals through social media. Cox and McLeod
(2014) found that social media foster communication among
teachers, students, parents, and community members, and help
create online professional learning communities.
In university, students and faculty members have increasingly
adopted various social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter to
promote teaching and learning both inside and outside the class-
room. Empirical studies have shown the following educational
benefits associated with the use of social media technologies: (a)
E-mail addresses: wwflau@cuhk.edu.hk, wilfredlau@graduate.hku.hk, wflau.
geo@yahoo.com.
increased opportunities for networking or collaborations among
students, (c) rapid sharing of resources, (d) access to course ma-
terials by students after class, (e) provision of an alternative plat-
form to the official learning management systems, and (f) exposure
of students to technologies and skills that may improve their
employment success (Legaree, 2015).
Because students are likely to use more than one medium
simultaneously, the potential influence of media multitasking
behavior has been under scrutiny for years. Regarding cognition,
media multitasking was found to be negatively related to cognitive
control ability in adolescents (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009). Thus, it
is believed to be predictive of poor academic performance. Today, a
majority of social media tools support the integration of multi-
media elements, and this functionality makes media multitasking
much easier than was previously possible. Researchers and edu-
cators alike are interested in the effects of social media on student
academic performance, and numerous empirical studies have
explored whether such effects are positive, neutral, or negative
(Cheston, Flickinger, & Chisolm., 2013; Glogocheski, 2015). Little,
however, is known about how social media usage and social media
multitasking (SMM) influence the academic performance of uni-
versity students. Accordingly, this study examined whether and
how these two behaviors predict academic performance among
university students.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.043
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W.W.F. Lau / Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017) 286e291
2. Social media usage and media multitasking
Social media come in a variety of forms including social
networking sites, microblogs, blogs, chat platforms, open source
mapping, and photo and video sharing (Gastelum & Whattam,
2013). In general, social media can be defined as “applications,
services, and systems that allow users to create, remix, and share
content.” (Junco, 2014, p. 6). Social media usage refers to “the
multiplicity of activities individuals may participate in online”
(Smith & Gallicano, 2015, p. 83). This description focuses on
numerous online activities that people can engage in with social
media and is primarily related to the purposes of using social
media.
Multitasking is typically understood as the engagement in more
than one task within a given period of time. Multitasking may take
three forms: dual-tasking, rapid attention switching, and contin-
uous partial attention (Wood & Zivcakova, 2015). Dual-tasking re-
fers to the situation in which individuals complete two tasks
simultaneously, rapid attention switching refers to a change of
focus between tasks, and continuous partial attention entails par-
tial attention to more than one task continuously. Media multi-
tasking involves simultaneous participation in activities, at least
one of which must be media related. Media multitasking may occur
between different devices or on a single device (Kononova &
Chiang, 2015).
Regardless of the forms that multitasking behavior may take,
studies have suggested that SMM is prevalent, particularly among
youth. Voorveld and van der Goot (2013) showed that people in
younger age groups (13e16, 17e19, and 20e24 years) spent more
time on media multitasking relative to the total media time
compared with their counterparts in older age groups (25e29,
30e39, 40e49, and 50e65 years). For the age groups 13e16 and
17e19 years, social media with music or websites was the second
most common media multitasking combination. Voorveld, Segijn,
Ketelaar, and Smit (2014) found that in Germany, the United
States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, and Spain, the
three most common media multitasking combinations were the
concurrent use of social media and new media such as e-mail and
mobile phones, the concurrent use of TV and new media, and the
concurrent use of the Internet and new media. Age also signifi-
cantly predicted multitasking with new media, meaning that
younger people are more likely to multitask with new media.
3. Social media usage and academic performance
Regarding the purposes of using social media, Oye, Adam, and
Nor Zairah (2012) indicated that academic performance was
adversely affected when social networking sites were used to fulfill
social and nonacademic needs only. Ravizza, Hambrick, and Fenn
(2014) reported that nonacademic Internet use, including social
media, among university students was negatively associated with
classroom performance as shown in three examinations during the
semester and cumulative final examinations. However, some evi-
dence suggests benefits of social media use in learning. For
instance, the use of Twitter for academic and cocurricular discus-
sions was found to have a positive effect on grades for college
students (Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2011). Students who used
Twitter showed higher levels of engagement and obtained a higher
semester grade point average (GPA) than students who did not. The
positive effect could be explained by the extended engagement
between students and faculty via Twitter beyond traditional
classroom activities. GreGory, GreGory, and Eddy (2014) demon-
strated that the adoption of Facebook as an instructional net-
workdin that case, the creation of a Facebook group specifically for
discussing mathematical course content outside of classdcould
287
significantly increase undergraduate student engagement, satis-
faction, and performance in a calculus course. Therefore, the
following hypotheses were proposed:
H1. Students who use social media more for nonacademic purposes
perform less favorably academically.
H2. Students who use social media more for academic purposes
perform more favorably academically.
4. Media multitasking and academic performance
Studies examining the influence of media multitasking on aca-
demic performance have reported that media multitasking has a
negative effect on three aspects of academic performance, namely,
academic outcomes, study related behaviors and attitudes, and
perceived academic learning (van der Schuur, Baumgartner,
Sumter, & Valkenburg, 2015). The time displacement hypothesis
and the limited information processing capacity hypothesis are
frequently used to explain why media use during academic work
adversely affects academic performance. The time displacement
hypothesis posits that because of the appealing nature of most
media today, students are likely to devote far more time to any
media than to academic activities. Some may even skip class and
choose to use media instead. Media tend to distract student
attention from their studies and subsequently decrease their per-
formance and efficiency (Walsh, Fielder, Carey, & Carey, 2013).
The limited information processing capacity hypothesis pro-
poses that as multiple tasks are performed simultaneously, a
cognitive bottleneck develops because of the limits of cognitive
capabilities, and this results in an appreciable disruption in the
decision-making process. Multitasking performance in multimedia
learning environments can often be explained using cognitive load
theory or the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Cognitive
load theory focuses on the role of working memory in the learning
process (Sweller, 1988). The theory is premised on the following
concepts: (a) working memory is limited in capacity, (b) long-term
memory has essentially unlimited capacity, (c) the learning process
requires working memory to be actively involved in the processing
and comprehension of the instructional materials to encode in-
formation into long-term memory, and (d) learning is ineffective if
working memory is overloaded. Cognitive load refers to the total
amount of mental effort demanded on working memory at any
particular instance, and the number of elements requiring attention
constitutes the major factor influencing cognitive load. There are
three types of cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane.
Intrinsic cognitive load is induced by the inherent complexity and
difficulty of the materials being learned. Extraneous cognitive load
is caused by the manner in which the instructional materials are
designed and presented. Germane cognitive load is created by
effortful learning devoted to the processing, construction, and
automation of schemas. The theory predicts an increase in intrinsic
or extraneous load that impedes learning when students multitask.
For example, when students are engaged in off-task activities using
technology, an additional load is imposed on the learning task that
must be completed.
The cognitive theory of multimedia learning is based on three
research-based principles in cognitive science: that learners (a)
have two separate channels for handling verbal and pictorial in-
formation, (b) can process only a limited number of elements in
each channel at a time, and (c) must select, organize, and integrate
appropriate information from the instructional materials with
existing knowledge into long-term memory for meaningful
learning to occur (Mayer, 2010). In other words, learners must pay
attention to relevant words and pictures for further processing,
288 W.W.F. Lau / Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017) 286e291
build internal relationships among selected words and pictures
that lead to conceptual understanding in working memory, and
connect new understanding with prior knowledge in long-term
memory. Media multitasking, however, overloads the limited ca-
pacity in the auditory and visual channels and leads to deficits in
performance. Based on the relevant research findings and theories,
the following hypothesis was formulated in the context of SMM:
H3. Students who engage more in SMM perform less favorably
academically.
5. Method
5.1. Procedure
Mass emails were sent to all undergraduate students at a
comprehensive university in Hong Kong to invite them to partici-
pate on a voluntary basis (Jupp, 2006). While this nonprobability
sampling method may not guarantee the representativeness of the
sample collected, it is the most convenient approach to reaching a
wide variety of participants from all faculties of the university. To
attract more participants, a lucky draw to win HKD100 cash cou-
pons was offered. Anonymous data were collected from the par-
ticipants through an online survey website. The participants first
completed questionnaires measuring their social media usage,
SMM, and academic performance. They then provided some de-
mographic information such as gender, age, faculty, degree major,
year of study, computer or Internet experience, and information
technology (IT) proficiency.
5.2. Participants
The participants were 348 undergraduate students from eight
university faculties. Informed consent was obtained from all par-
ticipants prior to data collection. There were 109 males and 232
females in the sample and their ages ranged from 17 to 28 years
(mean ¼ 20.252, SD ¼ 1.565). They studied in the faculties of arts
(N ¼ 51), business administration (N ¼ 73), education (N ¼ 19),
engineering (N ¼ 29), law (N ¼ 8), medicine (N ¼ 53), science
(N ¼ 47), and social science (N ¼ 62). There were 123 first-year, 85
second-year, 75 third-year, 57 fourth-year, and 2 fifth-year stu-
dents. They had, on average, 12e14 years of experience in using
computers or the Internet and regarded their IT proficiency to be
good. Between 1.4% and 2.0% of the data were missing for the
aforementioned demographic variables.
5.3. Measures
5.3.1. Social media usage for nonacademic purposes
The Media Usage Subscale of the Media and Technology Usage
and Attitudes Scale developed by Rosen, Whaling, Carrier, Cheever,
and Rokkum (2013) was used to evaluate social media usage for
nonacademic purposes (SMUNAP) among the university students.
The authors validated the scale with a large sample of American
adults who mainly held college degrees. This study adapted 12
items that measured media sharing (MS; five items), Internet
searching (IS; four items), and video gaming (VG; three items) from
the subscale. These items represent common online activities
among university students when they use social media
(Kiedrowski, Mahrholz, Griesbaum, & Rittberger, 2015; Smith &
Gallicano, 2015) and were rated on a 10-point frequency scale of
1 (never), 2 (once a month), 3 (several times a month), 4 (once a
week), 5 (several times a week), 6 (once a day), 7 (several times a day),
8 (once an hour), 9 (several times an hour), and 10 (all the time). The
Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the three subscales were reported
to be 0.84 for MS, 0.91 for IS, and 0.83 for VG.
5.3.2. Social media usage for academic purposes
The Social Media Learning Scale developed and refined by Mills,
Knezek, and Wakefield (2013) was used to assess student percep-
tions on the application of social media to support university
learning (SMUL). In particular, the scale measures university stu-
dent perceptions of using social media for online community
learning and building, and is a seven-item unidimensional scale
with alpha reliability of 0.74. The items were rated on a 5-point
Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
5.3.3. SMM
SMM was measured using three items adapted from Ozer's
(2014) study, which were “I multitask with my social media ac-
count while studying”, “I remain online with my social media site(s)
while doing homework”, and “I do not check my social media ac-
count if I am doing my work for school.” The items were rated on a
5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree) with the last item being reverse coded. Confirmatory factor
analysis of the measurement model of the SMM items supported
their validity.
5.3.4. Academic performance
Academic performance was evaluated with a single item. The
participants were required to provide their cumulative GPAs
(CGPAs) in an open response format (Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012).
6. Results
6.1. Factor structures of the major constructs
Fabrigar and Wegener (2012) suggested that the factor structure
of a scale is likely to be influenced by factors such as culture.
Therefore, exploratory factor analyses using the principal compo-
nent method with promax rotation were applied to the items of the
major constructs described in the Method section. As shown in
Table 1, for the construct SMUNAP, four factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1 were found instead of three as reported by Rosen
et al. (2013). An additional factor with three items, which was
labeled “video watching” (VW), was obtained from the original
five-item MS factor. Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the four factors
were acceptable, ranging from 0.632 to 0.840. The SMUL construct
was confirmed to be a seven-item unidimensional scale with a
Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.756, which is consistent with the
finding of Mills et al. (2013). The SMM construct was also found to
be unidimensional with acceptable reliability of 0.719, which
agrees with the findings of Ozer (2014). All items had factor load-
ings greater than 0.5 on their respective constructs.
6.2. Descriptive statistics of the major variables
As summarized in Table 2, the participants on average engaged
in VW several times a week (SD ¼ 1.593), MS almost once a week
(SD ¼ 1.909), IS once a day (SD ¼ 1.559), and VG once a week
(SD ¼ 2.028). They tended to hold a neutral view toward SMUL. In
other words, they were ambivalent about the application of SMUL.
They agreed that they multitasked with their social media accounts
while doing academic work. The mean CGPA of the participants was
3.178 (SD ¼ 0.349). There was a significant negative correlation
between CGPA and VG. The intercorrelations between the variables
were mostly statistically significant.
 W.W.F. Lau / Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017) 286e291 289

Table 1
Exploratory factor analyses on the items of the major constructs.

Construct Item Factor loading

VW (a ¼ 0.632)
VW1 Watch TV shows, movies, etc. on a TV 0.629
VW2 Watch TV shows, movies, etc. on a computer 0.861
VW3 Watch video clips on a computer 0.760
MS (a ¼ 0.709)
MS1 Download media files from other people on a computer 0.761
MS2 Share your own media files on a computer 0.940
IS (a ¼ 0.840)
IS1 Search the Internet for news on any device 0.798
IS2 Search the Internet for information on any device 0.962
IS3 Search the Internet for videos on any device 0.725
IS4 Search the Internet for images or photos on any device 0.777
VG (a ¼ 0.794)
VG1 Play games on a computer, video game console or smartphone by yourself 0.822
VG2 Play games on a computer, video game console or smartphone with other people in the same room 0.846
VG3 Play games on a computer, video game console or smartphone with other people online 0.821
SMUL (a ¼ 0.756)
SMUL1 I feel a sense of community learning becomes interactive 0.670
SMUL2 Posting questions to my peers helps me understand my readings better 0.639
SMUL3 I am able to get faster feedback from my peers 0.716
SMUL4 I am able to get faster feedback from my instructor 0.576
SMUL5 I am able to communicate effectively 0.685
SMUL6 I am able to connect with peers more easily than face-to-face 0.629
SMUL7 I increase my participation in classes when I am allowed to contribute through social media 0.564
SMM (a ¼ 0.719)
SMM 1 I multitask with my social media account while studying 0.810
SMM 2 I remain online with my social media site(s) while doing homework 0.848
SMM 3a I do not check my social media account if I am doing my work for school. 0.741

Note. VW ¼ video watching, MS ¼ media sharing, IS ¼ Internet searching, VG ¼ video gaming, SMUL ¼ social media to support university learning, SMM ¼ social media
multitasking.
a
This item was reverse coded.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of and intercorrelations between the major variables.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. VW 5.489 1.593 e
2. MS 3.530 1.909 0.338** e
3. IS 6.345 1.559 0.329** 0.379** e
4. VG 3.652 2.028 0.373** 0.316** 0.184** e
5. SMUL 3.346 0.571 0.156** 0.075 0.243** 0.073 e
6. SMM 3.526 0.806 0.133* 0.069 0.146** 0.017 0.266** e
7. CGPA 3.178 0.349 0.017 0.072 0.051 0.161** 0.048 0.092 e

Note. VW ¼ video watching, MS ¼ media sharing, IS ¼ Internet searching, VG ¼ video gaming, SMUL ¼ social media to support university learning, SMM ¼ social media
multitasking, CGPA ¼ cumulative grade point average.
*
p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

6.3. Hierarchical regression analysis
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with CGPA as
the dependent variable and variables from the constructs of VW,
MS, IS, VG, SMUL, and SMM as the independent variables. To
eliminate the effect of some demographic variables on academic
performance, age and gender were entered as the control variables
in the first block. In this study, age was reported in an open
response format and gender was coded as 1 for males and 2 for
females. These variables were shown to be demographic correlates
of university students' academic performance in meta-analysis
(Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012). The aforementioned inde-
pendent variables were then entered into the second block.
Before the analysis, it is necessary to evaluate the validity of the
underlying assumptions of regression analysis, including the
absence of outliers and multicollinearity, linearity, normality, in-
dependence, and homoscedasticity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006).
There were four cases with a standardized residual more than 3
standard deviations from the predicted value. This number of cases
is negligible compared with the sample size of 348 and thus they
were retained in the regression analysis. All the independent var-
iables had tolerance greater than 0.7, which showed that the vari-
ance explained by one independent variable was not well explained
by the others, and that therefore the problem of multicollinearity
was not apparent. The linearity and homoscedasticity assumptions
were tested by examining the residual plot showing the relation-
ship between standardized residuals and standardized predicted
values. These assumptions were tenable because the standardized
residuals were scattered in a random manner around a horizontal
line representing the standardized residuals equaling zero. The
DurbineWatson statistic was used to test whether serial correla-
tion between residuals occurs and therefore test the independence
assumption. The statistic's value was 1.914, which indicated that
the residuals were uncorrelated and that the assumption was valid.
The normality assumption was examined using the normal prob-
ability plot of the standardized residuals. The points fell mostly on a
straight line and thus supported the assumption.
From Table 3, for the first block of control variables, age and
290 W.W.F. Lau / Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017) 286e291
Table 3
Hierarchical regression analysis of the control and independent variables on CGPA.
Predictor CGPA
Step 1
b b
Age 0.098
Gender 0.115*
VW
MS
IS
VG
SMUL
SMM
F 4.187*
R2 0.024
DR2 e 0.049
Note. VW ¼ video watching, MS ¼ media sharing, IS ¼ Internet searching,
VG ¼ video gaming, SMUL ¼ social media to support university learning,
SMM ¼ social media multitasking, CGPA ¼ cumulative grade point average.
*
p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
gender together accounted for 2.4% of the variance of CGPA. As the
other independent variables were entered into the second block,
the variance explained increased by 4.9% with the total variance
explained becoming 7.3%. The regression model was significantly
predicted by the control and independent variables. Significant
predictors of CGPA were gender (b ¼ 0.115, p < 0.05), VG
(b ¼ 0.167, p < 0.01), and SMM (b ¼ 0.126, p < 0.05). Therefore,
H1 and H3 were supported whereas H2 was not.
7. Discussion
The primary objective of this study was to examine whether and
how social media usage and SMM influenced the academic per-
formance of university students. Three hypotheses were formu-
lated and tested with online survey data collected from a sample of
348 undergraduate students. After controlling for the effect of age
and gender, it was found that SMUL did not significantly predict
academic performance as measured by CGPA. SMUNAP (VG in
particular) and SMM significantly negatively predicted academic
performance.
In accordance with the findings of Richardson et al. (2012), a
gender difference in academic performance was found in which
female students generally attained a higher CGPA than that of male
students. There are arguably various cognitive and noncognitive
factors that explain academic gender differences (Cooper, 2014).
Against this background, it is crucial to explore further how dif-
ferences in social media usage and SMM between genders may
exacerbate or ameliorate the noticeable gender gap in academic
performance.
Oye et al. (2012) and Ravizza et al. (2014) have empirically
demonstrated the negative effect of nonacademic social media
usage on academic performance. The present study obtained the
same result but further identified VG as the key determinant of
poor academic performance. It is beyond the scope of this study to
gather more information about how much time students spend on
VG every week, the nature of the games they play, and how long
students have been involved in VG. These are, however, important
issues that will help explain the finding here regarding students
who reported that they on average played video games once a
week.
The present study also found that SMUL had no effect on their
academic performance. However, Junco et al. (2011) and GreGory
et al. (2014) have shown that the use of Twitter and Facebook can
enhance undergraduate student engagement and performance. The
difference may be explained by the fact that the students in the
current study used social media mainly for purposes other than
Step 2
learning, as indicated by their ambivalent view toward the related
survey items. They possibly have not enrolled in courses that
integrate social media as a learning tool and therefore have not
0.110* experienced the educational benefits arising from such an
0.062
instructional approach, unlike in the studies of Junco et al. (2011)
0.093 and GreGory et al. (2014), where social media was utilized as a
0.073 learning platform.
0.116
0.167**
SMM was found to impede student learning, as reflected in
0.040 students' CGPA. This finding agrees with the existence of ample
0.126* evidence documenting the negative effect of media multitasking on
3.236** a range of learning attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes (van der
0.073 Schuur et al., 2015). The item responses indicate that university
students commonly multitask with their social media accounts
while studying. A recent online survey conducted with university
students in Hong Kong showed that although they used social
media for sharing, discussing, and searching for information, they
were readily distracted by the entertainment and social functions
provided by social media (Tang, Yau, Wong, & Wong, 2015). To
reduce this harmful effect on learning, it is necessary to analyze in
detail different manifestations of multitasking (Wood & Zivcakova,
2015) and the cognitive learning processes (Mayer, 2010; Sweller,
1988) that may differentially affect student learning trajectories
and outcomes. This task calls for more in-depth longitudinal
observation and recording of student learning activities over a
chosen period of time.
Theoretically, the findings of this study provide clear research
evidence to guide the investigation of the relationships of the
variables concerned (van der Schuur et al., 2015). The study es-
tablishes social media usage and SMM as the key variables that
negatively influence the academic performance of university stu-
dents and, specifically, that VG and SMM are detrimental to uni-
versity student learning. Future studies should also explore how
individual difference and contextual factors may moderate these
effects on academic performance. Practically, because SMM was
found to negatively affect academic performance, educators should
consider some measures to mitigate its influence. For example,
Bowman, Waite, and Levine (2015) suggested interventions such as
technology breaks, self-monitoring, the teaching of metacognitive
skills, and the promotion of technological literacy to help students
manage their technology use. University administrators should also
utilize the findings of this study to set guidelines about the
appropriate use of social media (Rowe, 2014).
There are a number of limitations in this study that should be
further addressed in the future. First, the cross-sectional nature of
the study renders making an inference of the causal relationships
between the variables impossible, and future researchers should
adopt a longitudinal research design to examine causality. Second,
the nonprobability sampling method used in this study may limit
the generalizability of the findings to the target population. Future
investigation should consider employing probability sampling
methods such as stratified random sampling to collect random
student samples from different faculties. Third, more research is
necessary to understand the multitasking activities that students
are involved in when using social media. This investigation pro-
vides a deeper understanding of how SMM is likely to affect aca-
demic performance differentially. Fourth, future research could
examine study related behaviors and attitudes, perceived academic
learning, and nonacademic performance as outcome variables.
8. Conclusion
Because university students participate in various social media
 W.W.F. Lau / Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017) 286e291
activities on a daily basis, there are growing concerns about the
potential negative impacts of social media on students' social well-
being. These potential negative impacts include inappropriate in-
teractions between students and teachers online, the influence of
an informal relationship with a teacher that disrupts formal in-
struction during class time, and cyberbullying. Social media may
distort the traditional teacherestudent relationship, and the
boundaries between students and teachers have become less
defined. Social media may also adversely affect students' sense of
belonging, psychosocial well-being, and identity development
(Allen, Ryan, Gray, McInerney, & Waters, 2014). Other studies have
been performed on the effects of social media on students' cogni-
tive development (Ting & Rashied, 2015).
This study found that SMUNAP and SMM negatively predicted
academic performance. Because the emergence of new social me-
dia technologies is anticipated, it is imperative to be more aware of
how these technologies may foster or hinder students' psychosocial
and academic development, particularly when they are used in a
multitasking setting. The present findings shed new light on the
understanding of how social media usage and SMM may influence
university students' academic performance, and pave the way for
future research in this area.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Direct Grant for Research
(2015-16) (Grant number: 4058032) of the Chinese University of
Hong Kong awarded to the author of the paper. I would like to thank
all the participating undergraduate students for contributing the
data for analysis.
References
Allen, K. A., Ryan, T., Gray, D. L., McInerney, D. M., & Waters, L. (2014). Social media
use and social connectedness in adolescents: The positives and the potential
pitfalls. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 31(1), 18e31.
Bowman, L. L., Waite, B. M., & Levine, L. E. (2015). Multitasking and attention:
Implications for college students. In Larry D. Rosen, N. A. Cheever, &
L. M. Carrier (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychology, technology, and society
(pp. 388e403). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Cheston, C. C., Flickinger, T. E., & Chisolm, M. S. (2013). Social media use in medical
education: A systematic review. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of
American Medical Colleges, 88(6), 893e901.
Cooper, A. D. (2014). Exploring the use of non-cognitive factors in predicting college
academic outcomes (Unpublished masters thesis). Chattanooga, Tennessee:
University of Tennessee.
Cox, D., & McLeod, S. (2014). Social media strategies for school principals. NASSP
Bulletin, 98(1), 5e25.
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Gastelum, Z. N., & Whattam, K. M. (2013). State-of-the-art of social media analytics
research. Retrieved from: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/
technical_reports/PNNL-22171.pdf.
Glogocheski, S. W. (2015). Social media usage and its impact on grade point average
and retention: An exploratory study to generate viable strategies in a dynamic
higher education learning environment (Unpublished doctoral thesis). USA: St.
John's University.
GreGory, P., GreGory, K., & Eddy, E. (2014). The instructional network: Using Face-
book to enhance undergraduate mathematics instruction. Journal of Computers
in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(1), 5e26.
Junco, R. (2014). Engaging students through social media: Evidence-based practices for
use in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student
engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119e132.
Jupp, V. (2006). Volunteer sampling. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The Sage dictionary of social
research methods (pp. 322e323). London: SAGE Publications.
Kiedrowski, K. v. L., Mahrholz, N., Griesbaum, J., & Rittberger, M. (2015). Social
media usage in education related web search: An analysis of the information
291
behavior of students of education related study paths in Germany. In F. Pehar,
C. Schlo €gl, & C. Wolff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on
information science (ISI 2015) (pp. 264e277). Glückstadt: Verlag Werner
Hülsbusch.
Kononova, A., & Chiang, Y.-H. (2015). Why do we multitask with media? Predictors
of media multitasking among internet users in the United States and Taiwan.
Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 31e41.
Legaree, B. A. (2015). Considering the changing face of social media in higher ed-
ucation. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 362(16), 1e3.
Lau, W. W. F., Lui, V., & Chu, S. K. W. (2016). The use of wikis in a science inquiry-
based project in a primary school. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9479-9 (Advance online
publication).
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the science of learning to medical education. Medical
Education, 44(6), 543e549.
Mills, L. A., Knezek, G. A., & Wakefield, J. S. (2013). Learning with social media:
Measurement tools for understanding information behavior in technology
pervasive environments of the 21st century. In L. Schamber (Ed.), iConference
2013 proceedings (pp. 593e600). Fort Worth, TX.
Ophir, E., Nass, C. I., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583e15587.
Oye, N. D., Adam, M. H., & Nor Zairah, A. R. (2012). Model of perceived influence of
academic performance using social networking. International Journal of Com-
puters and Technology, 2(2), 24e29.
Ozer, I. (2014). Facebook addiction, intensive social networking site use, multitasking
and academic performance among university students in the United States, Europe
and Turkey: A multigroup structural equation modelling approach (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). USA: Kent State University.
O'Brien, L. (2012). Six ways to use social media in education. Retrieved from: https://
cit.duke.edu/blog/2012/04/six-ways-to-use-social-media-in-education/.
Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on
student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6),
2117e2127.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Social media usage: 2005-2015. Retrieved from: http://
www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/.
Ravizza, S. M., Hambrick, D. Z., & Fenn, K. M. (2014). Non-academic internet use in
the classroom is negatively related to classroom learning regardless of intel-
lectual ability. Computers & Education, 78, 109e114.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of univer-
sity students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353e387.
Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K. K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. J. (2013). The
media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501e2511.
Rowe, J. (2014). Student use of social media: When should the university intervene?
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(3), 241e256.
van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015).
The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in
Human Behavior, 53, 204e215.
Smith, B. G., & Gallicano, T. D. (2015). Terms of engagement: Analyzing public
engagement with organizations through social media. Computers in Human
Behavior, 53, 82e90.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257e285.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2006). Using multivariate analysis (5th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tang, J. K. T., Yau, H.-N., Wong, S.-F., & Wong, S.-K. (2015). The impacts on learning
via social media: A study on post-secondary students in Hong Kong. In J. Lam,
K. K. Ng, S. K. S. Cheung, T. L. Wong, K. C. Li, & F. L. Wang (Eds.), Technology in
education. Technology-mediated proactive learning (pp. 195e208). Berlin, Hei-
delberg: Springer-Verlag.
Ting, L., & Rashied, N. (2015). The effects of social media on cognitive development in
undergraduate economics students. Retrieved from: http://www.econrsa.org/
system/files/publications/working_papers/working_paper_513.pdf.
Voorveld, H. A., Segijn, C. M., Ketelaar, P. E., & Smit, E. G. (2014). Investigating the
prevalence and predictors of media multitasking across countries. International
Journal of Communication, 8, 2755e2777.
Voorveld, H. A. M., & van der Goot, M. (2013). Age differences in media multi-
tasking: A diary study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(3),
392e408.
Walsh, J. L., Fielder, R. L., Carey, K. B., & Carey, M. P. (2013). Female college students'
media use and academic outcomes: Results from a longitudinal cohort study.
Emerging Adulthood, 1(3), 219e232.
Wood, E., & Zivcakova, L. (2015). Understanding multimedia multitasking in
educational settings. In Larry D. Rosen, N. A. Cheever, & L. M. Carrier (Eds.), The
Wiley handbook of psychology, technology, and society (pp. 404e419). West
Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.