Journal of Media and Communication Studies Vol. 3(4), pp.

144-150, April 2011

Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/jmcs
ISSN 2141 – 2545 ©2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

The influence of facebook usage on the academic

performance and the quality of life of college students
Faycal Kabre* and Ulysses J. Brown
Savannah State University, 10611 Abercorn Street Apt 79, Savannah, GA 31419, United State.
Accepted 4 April, 2011

This research study examines the impact of facebook usage on the academic performance and the
quality of life of college students. With the advent of the internet, more denizens are spending time on
social networks as a way to expand both their personal and business relationships. We used structural
equation modeling to evaluate the hypotheses. Findings indicate that the dispositional factors may
influence the endogenous variables in our model. We discuss the limitations of the study, the
implications, and future research directions.

Key words: Facebook, college students, academic performance, quality of life, social network.

INTRODUCTION

Facebook as well as twitter or myspace can be fun, with
everyone from teenagers to grandparents trolling for
friends. For many, these tools still represent more of a
diversion than a legitimate business tool. However, social
networks are making significant in roads into the
business practices of corporations. Created in 2004 by
Harvard Sophomore student, Mark Zuckerberg.
Facebook was first targeted to Harvard students and then
expanded to high school and college students. Today,
with more than 500 million active users worldwide,
facebook is arguably one of the most popular social
networks.
The focus of this study is to determine the level of
impact facebook has on the quality of life of college
students and their academic performance. Previous
studies have evaluated the impact of self-efficacy, stress,
and other variables on the performance of college
students. In this study, we used the perception of
*Corresponding author. E-mail: fkabre@student.savannahstate.
edu. Tel: 912-441-2663.
facebook and number of hours spent on this medium as
predictors of quality of life and academic performance of
college students.
Background of the study
Perception of facebook
With the advance technology in communication, social
networks such as facebook and myspace are perhaps
considered one of the most important tools used to keep
in touch or share information with peers. Students have
an irresistible need to connect with their peers because of
the development of these 24/7 accessible technologies
(Fodeman and Monroe, 2009). Therefore, the usage of
Facebook can become a habit that may affect the
academic performance of students as well as their quality
of life. According to Fodeman and Monroe (2009), the
usage of Facebook usage has raised the level of anxiety
among students such that they are apprehensive about
being without their cell phones for a few hours. In light of
these findings, we advance the following hypothesis:

H1: The number of hours spent on Facebook will
influence both academic performance
and quality of life.
Self-efficacy and smoking behavior
Considered to be the central construct in social cognitive
theory, self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s
perceived ability to accomplish some desired tasks
regardless of knowledge or skills (Bandura, 1982). The
relationship between self-efficacy and academic
performance among college students is well documented
in the literature. According to Bandura (1978), a person
with a high level of self-efficacy tends to overcome
challenges while the one with low levels of self-efficacy
may quit when confronted with difficulties. Bandura
(1997) found that how a person deals with their body’s
responses to situations may tend to impact their ability to
cope with specific tasks (Bandura, 1997). Yeo and Neal
(2006) found that the relationship between general self-
efficacy and performance was mediated by task-specific
self-efficacy. Some scholars have found that the behavior
of parents have an influence on their children. For
instance, college students may smoke because one of
their parents smokes (Glawischnig et al., 2009).
Wechsler et al. (1998) reported a considerable increase
in smoking behavior by college students between 1993
and 1997. They also revealed that over one-quarter of
the student smokers started this behavior after entering
college. In view of the previous discussion, we offer the
following hypotheses:
H2: Self-efficacy will influence both academic
performance and quality of life.
H3: Smoking behavior will influence both academic
performance and quality of life.
Drinking behavior
In a national study of student drug and alcohol use
patterns, Presley et al. (1995) found that about half of all
respondents reported drinking to the point of becoming ill,
40% admitted doing something they later regretted, 30%
missed class because of excessive drinking, and over
one-quarter reported drinking so much they could not
remember what happened to them. Thus, drinking
behavior can be expected to influence both quality of life
and academic performance in our model. Therefore, the
following hypotheses will be evaluated:
H4: Drinking behavior will influence academic
performance.
H5: Drinking behavior will influence quality of life.
Kabre and Brown 145
General stress and exercise behavior
Stress in college students’ life is a topic largely discussed
by many scholars. In fact, college students encountered
many problems and situations which may be unique to
them. Among those problems, we have the continuous
evaluation such as weekly assignments and tests. The
pressure to earn good grades and to earn a degree is
very high and is part of the sources of stress for college
students (Hirsch and Ellis, 1996). Besides the academic
stress, college students also encountered general or
social stress such as relationships with family and
friends, eating and sleeping habits, and loneliness
(Wright, 1967). All these different types of stresses may
affect college students’ quality of life as well as their
academic performance. Exercise behavior has always
been part of college students’ life. Whether it is for
enjoyment, positive health, stress management, or weight
management, exercise behavior exists in college
students’ life.
H6: General stress will influence academic performance
and quality of life.
H7: Gender difference will exist across exercise behavior
and academic performance scores.
RESEARCH METHODS
Participants and procedures
The study was conducted at a historically black university in the
southern part of the United States. The authors distributed 209
surveys and received 209 complete instruments for a response rate
of 100%. Research participants were from the different colleges
across the campus to include the College of Business
Administration, the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, and
the College of Science and Technology.
The survey packet was administered to participants during
regular class times to various classes. It took approximately 15 min
for research participants to complete the survey packet in each
class. The survey packet contained a consent form, six measures,
and a background information form which was used to assess
participants’ drinking behavior, exercise behavior, smoking
behavior, number of hours per week spent on Facebook, and to
capture demographic data. Most participants (88%) were African
American. In addition, 57.9% of the respondents were female and
82.8% were between the ages of 18 to 23 years. The sample
consisted of 35.9% who were freshmen, 13.4% were sophomores,
20.1% were juniors, and 30.6% were seniors. In our sample, only
44.5% of the participants were from the College of Business and
the rest were from the College of Science and Technology and the
College of Liberal Arts and the Social Sciences. Full-time students
constituted the majority of the sample (94.3%).
Measurement of variables
The following instruments were used to develop and test the
hypothesized model shown in Figure 1. Unless otherwise indicated,
a 5-point Likert response scale that ranged from strongly disagree
to strongly agree was used to assess the constructs.
146 J. Media Commun. Stud.

Hours per week spent on

facebook

Perceptions of facebook

Self-efficacy

Academic performance

General stress

Drinking behavior

Exercise behavior

Quality of life

Mother’s health behavior

Father’s health behavior

Smoking behavior

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

Perceptions of facebook (Appendix 1) General stress

Since there were no existing scales that measure Perception of
facebook, a 7-item scale that closely follows the attitude and daily
perception of Facebook was developed by the authors. A sample
item in this survey is “I enjoy using Facebook.” High scores indicate
a higher usage and perception of Facebook. The Cronbach alpha
was 0.81
We used the 9-item instrument developed by Dzokoto et al. (2007)
to assess general stress. High scores indicate higher levels of
stress. The alpha was 0.74.
Quality of life

A 13-item survey was administered to the participants to measure

General self-efficacy
We used the eight-item measure developed by Chen et al. (2001)
to assess self-efficacy. High scores indicate higher levels of self-
efficacy. The reliability estimate was 0.94.
Parents’ health behavior
This instrument is a 4-item scale that we developed to assess
mother and father’s health behavior. The items were “My mother
drinks alcoholic beverages,” “My mother smokes,” “My father drinks
alcoholic beverages,” and “My father smokes.” High scores indicate
unhealthy behavior of the parents. The Cronbach alpha was 0.58.
their quality of life (Bobko et al., 1991). Because we reverse-coded
all items, high scores indicate higher levels of quality of life. An
example item is “I feel constantly under strain.” The Cronbach alpha
was 0.93.
In addition, we used four continuous variables and one
dichotomous variable to capture self-reported behavior of research
participants. These variables are listed as follows:
Overall grade point average: This is a continuous variable where
participants were asked to write their overall grade point average. It
was used to assess academic performance.
Drinking behavior: On the background information form, students
were asked to write the specific number of drinks they consume per
 Kabre and Brown 147

Table 1. Means, standard deviations (S.d) and zero-order correlations.

Variable Mean S. d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Academic performance 2.84 0.45 1.00
Quality of life 69.06 19.00 .167* 1.00
Perception of facebook 27.06 6.19 .038 .011 1.00
Self-efficacy 35.77 5.18 .193** .244** .226** 1.00
Mother’s health behavior 3.45 2.05 -.116 -.108 -.044 -.210** 1.00
Father’s health behavior 4.34 2.65 -.043 -.059 .005 -.071 .298** 1.00
General stress 17.27 4.86 -.164* -.666** .065 -.262** .254** .108 1.00
Drinking behavior 1.74 2.11 .065 -.174* .069 -.050 .175* .180** .200** 1.00
Smoking behavior 1.19 .39 -.159* -.085 .021 -.102 .110 .170* .097 .212** 1.00
Exercise behavior 2.44 1.93 .079 .118 .198** .202** -.013 .028 -.085 -087 -.007 1.00
Hours on Facebook 2.05 2.69 .086 -.099 .454** -.004 -.011 -.036 .133 .326** -.074 -.026
*p<0.05; **p<0.01.

Table 2. Overall fit indices of the model. determine how well the data fit the hypothesized model (Hair et al.,
1998). The mean, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations
Index Model are provided in Table 1.
In our hypothesized model, hours per week spent on facebook,
Dfs 1.000 perceptions of facebook, self-efficacy, general stress, drinking
2
X 0.068 behavior, exercise behavior, mother’s health behavior, father’s
P-value 0.966 health behavior, and smoking behavior were expected to predict
quality of life and academic performance of college students.
RMSEA 0.000
GFI 1.000
NFI 1.000 Measurement of model fit
CFI 1.000
Several indices such as the chi-square (X2), root mean squared
NFI 1.000 error of approximation (RMSEA), incremental fit index (IFI),
RFI 0.999 comparative fit index (CFI), and goodness of fit index (GFI) were
used to assess the goodness of fit of the covariance structural
GFI; Goodness of fit index; Df: Degree of
freedom; CFI: Comparative fit index; X2: Chi-square; model. A proposed model is acceptable when the p-value is non-
NFI: Normed fit index; P-value: Probability value; RFI: significant (that is, the p-value is greater than 0.05) (Arbuckle and
Relative fit index; RMSEA: Root mean square error of Wothke, 1995; Gerbing and Anderson, 1993; Hayduk, 1987). A well
approximation fitting model also requires the RMSEA to be less than 0.08 (Steiger
and Lind, 1980). In addition, the values of GFI, IFI, and CFI closer
to 1 indicate an acceptable model fit (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1995;
drinking occasion. Hair et al., 1998; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993).
The SEM was used to evaluate the significance and direction of
Exercise behavior: On the background information form, students the relationships between the independent and dependent variables
were asked to write the specific number of days per week they (Bollen, 1989). Consistent with the recommendations of Anderson
exercise. and Gerbing (1988), we used the two-step procedure for structural
equation modeling. That is, the first step is test the measurement
Smoking behavior: On the background information form, students model and to evaluate the overall fit of the model to the data. After
were asked to specify their smoking behavior by answering yes or establishing a satisfactory fit, next the structural coefficients are
no to the question “Do you smoke?” interpreted.

Number of hours spent on Facebook: On the background

information form, participants were asked to specify the number of RESULTS
hours per week they spend on Facebook.

Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, and

Analysis
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the
hypothesized model presented in Figure 1. The advantage of SEM
is the used of latent variables to estimate the relationship among
theoretically interesting constructs. According to Bollen (1989),
SEM is used to establish relationships between exogenous and
endogenous variables simultaneously. To measure the model fit,
we utilized measures of absolute fit , and incremental fit to
Pearson zero-order correlations of the constructs used in
the current study.
As shown in Table 2, the fit indices indicate an
acceptable fit of the model to the data. The chi-square
was at its minimum and a non significant p-value. The
GFI was greater than 0.90 (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1995;
Hair et al., 1998). The RMSEA was less than 0.08 which
indicated an acceptable model fit (Steiger and Lind,
148 J. Media Commun. Stud.

Table 3. Unstandardized path coefficients for the model1

2
Indicators Path coefficient Standard error T-Values R (%)
2
Quality of life
Perception of facebook 0.12 0.17 0.69
Self-efficacy 0.26 0.21 1.23
Mother’s health behavior 0.80 0.53 1.51
Father’s health behavior 0.01 0.40 0.02
46
General stress -2.57 0.22 -11.63*
Drinking behavior -0.45 0.50 -0.91
Smoking behavior -0.66 2.63 -0.25
Exercise behavior 0.37 0.54 0.69
Hours spent on facebook -0.11 0.45 -0.25

2
Overall grade-point average
Perception of facebook -0.00 0.01 -0.51
Self-efficacy 0.01 0.01 1.73**
Mother’s health behavior -0.02 0.02 -0.97
Father’s health behavior 0.00 0.01 0.03
10
General stress -0.01 0.01 -0.65
Drinking behavior 0.03 0.02 1.19
Smoking behavior -0.16 0.08 -2.04*
Exercise behavior 0.01 0.02 0.79
Hours spent on facebook 0.01 0.01 0.87
*Significant at the 0.05 level; **Significant at the 0.10 level.
1
Statistics are based on a sample of 209 respondents.
2
These are the endogenous variables in the model; the exogenous variables are listed underneath.

1980). Also, the CFI, NFI, AND GFI indicated an
acceptable fit of the model to the data (Table 2).
Results of hypothesis testing
performance and quality of life. Partial support was
established for Hypothesis Six (H6) because the path
from general stress to quality of life was significant and in
a negative direction; the path from general stress to
academic performance was not significant.

This research focused on the important constructs that

may influence the quality of life and academic
performance of college students. All structural coefficient
and other model parameters are shown in Table 3.
Hypothesis one (H1) stated that the number of hours
spent on Facebook would influence both academic
performance and quality of life in our model; these paths
were non significant, and therefore no support was
established for this conjecture. Partial support was
established for hypothesis two (H2) because the path
from self-efficacy to academic performance was positive
and in a significant direction; however, the path from self-
efficacy to quality of life was not significant. Partial
support was established for hypothesis three (H3)
because the path from smoking behavior to significant
and in a negative direction; however, the path from
smoking behavior to quality of life was not statistically
significant in the model. No support was established for
hypotheses four (H4) and five (H5), which stated that
drinking behavior would influence both academic
One-way ANOVA tests
A one-way ANOVA was performed with academic perfor-
mance and exercise behavior as the dependent variables
(Table 4). Gender was the factor variable. The omni-bus
F-tests for both dependent variables were statistically
significant. Thus, gender differences exist for both
academic performance and exercise behavior. That is,
males reported exercising significantly more days per
week than females. However, females reported
significantly higher grade point averages than their male
counterparts. Thus, support was established for
hypothesis seven (H7).
In addition, a 2 × 2 contingency table analysis was
conducted using gender as the row and smoking
behavior as the column. The chi-square test was statis-
tically significant, which indicated a gender differences
with respect to smoking behavior. That is, males reported
engaging in significantly more smoking behavior than
 Kabre and Brown 149

Table 4. Result of one-way ANOVA testing procedure for the limitation was that all data were collected via self-report
categorical variables (n = 209). measures, which may lead to the problem of common
method bias and inflated predicted relationships.
Factor F-value P-value Future research in area of social networks should
Academic performance 6.202 0.014* consider examining whether facebook and other social
Quality of life 2.496 0.116 mediums are harmful or helpful to college students. What
Perception of facebook 0.003 0.956 are the determinants of facebook usage? Future research
General self-efficacy 3.056 0.082 could examine a model where perceptions of facebook
Mother’s health behavior 0.229 0.633 and the number of hours spent on facebook are the
Father’s health behavior 0.241 0.624 endogenous variables. Longitudinal research designs are
General stress 0.240 0.625 warranted to see whether the strength of these
Smoking behavior 5.696 0.018* relationships waxes or wane over time. In addition, it
would be interesting to explore the impact of each type of
Exercise behavior 5.980 0.015*
stress such as academic, financial, and family stress on
Number of hours spent on facebook 0.606 0.437
the academic performance and quality of life of college
Drinking behavior 3.293 0.071
students.
*Significant at the 0.05 level.

REFERENCES

their female counterparts.
Conclusion
The authors of this research intended to expand the
existing literature by analyzing the antecedents of quality
of life and academic performance among college
students. The results of our study indicate that self-
efficacy and smoking behavior were predictors of acade-
mic performance. In addition, general stress predicted
quality of life. Gender differences were found with respect
to exercise behavior and academic performance. That is,
females reported higher GPAs than males while males
exercised more than females. Furthermore, we found that
males higher levels of smoking behavior than females.
However, an unexpected finding was that the number of
hours per week spent on Facebook did not predict
academic performance or quality of life in our model.
Implications
These findings may indicate that college administrators
may consider devising programs and that attempt to
reduce the stress and smoking behavior of students. In
addition, programs that attempt to increase the self-
efficacy of students are also warranted based on our
findings, especially if administrators are interested in
increasing the quality of life of college students.
Limitations of the study
As with any study, ours did have some limitations. For
instance, we used a modest sample size and therefore
our findings may not be generalizable to all college
students until replicated by other scholars. Another
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in
Practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol.
Bull., (103): 411 - 423.
Arbuckle JL, Wothke W (1995). AMOS 4.0 User’s Guide, Smallwaters
Corporation, Chicago.
Bandura A (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychol. Rev., (84): 191-215.
Bandura A (1978). Reflection on self-efficacy. Adv Behav. Res. Ther.,
1(4): 237-269.
Bandura A (1982). Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. Am.
Psycho., (37): 22 -147
Bandura A (1986). Social Foundation of Thought and Action. Engl.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bollen KA (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:
Wiley.
Chen G, Gully S, Eden D (2001). Validation of a New General Self-
Efficacy Scale. Organ. Res. Method, 4(1).
Dzokoto V, Hicks T, Miller E (2007). Student Lifestyles and Emotional
Well-Being at a Historically Black University. Faculty Working Papers
from the School of Education.
Hirsch JK, Ellis JB (1996). Differences in life stress and reasons for
living among college suicide ideators and non-Ideators. Coll. Student
J., 30: 377- 384.
Fodeman D, Monroe M (2009). The impact of Facebook on our
students. Teach. Lib., 36(5): 36.
Glawischnig M, Reichmann G, Sommersguter-Reichmann M (2009).
AUSTRIAN Students and Smoking: Prevalence and Characteristics.
Coll. Student J. 43(2): 514.
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1999). Multivariate Data
Analysis. Fifth edition. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Bobko P, Lee C, Earley CP, Locke EA (1991). An empirical analysis of
a goal setting questionnaire. J. Organ. Behav., 12: 467- 482.
Steiger JH, Lind JC (1980). “Statistically-based tests for the number of
common factors”, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IO.
Wechsler H, Rigotti N, Gledhill-Hoyt J, Lee H (1998). Increased levels of
cigarette use among college students: A cause for national concern.
J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280: 1673 - 1678.
Wright JJ (1967). Reported personal stress sources and adjustment of
entering freshmen. J. Couns. Psychol. 14(4): 371 - 373.
Yeo GB, Neal A (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship
between self-efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and
levels of specificity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91: 1088 - 1101.
150 J. Media Commun. Stud.

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Perception of facebook scale

Please circle the one number for each statement that
comes closest to reflecting your opinion Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
I enjoy using facebook account 1 2 3 4 5
Most of my friends have Facebook accounts 1 2 3 4 5
Facebook is a great way to keep in touch with my friends 1 2 3 4 5
Some of my family members also have Facebook accounts 1 2 3 4 5
Using Facebook is a waste of my time 1 2 3 4 5
I have made new friends using Facebook 1 2 3 4 5
I log into my Facebook account every day 1 2 3 4 5
Perception of facebook Scale.