Brinster 1

Claire Brinster
Chawkat
Independent Research G/T
1 April 2019
Data and Analysis

I. Data
Group Integration SIEC ISR Passive Use Active Use

Females (n=76) Mean: 3.22 2.62 4.11 3.58 2.54

SD: 1.42 1.47 2.18 1.55 1.11

Males (n=27) Mean: 1.68 1.31 2.22 2.43 1.75

SD: 1.96 1.67 2.52 1.81 1.17

Instagram Users Mean: 3.62 2.95 4.62 3.95 2.75

(n=85)
SD: 1.51 1.50 1.79 1.35 1.06

Non-Instagram Mean: 0 0 0 1 1
Users (n=18)
SD: 0 0 0 0 0

All Respondents Mean: 2.83 2.29 3.64 3.28 2.33

(n=103)
SD: 1.95 1.76 2.41 1.70 1.18

Figure 1. Social Media Behavior among Respondents. Data is reported as the mean and standard
deviation for each sub-category of respondents. SIEC: Social Integration and Emotional
Connection. ISR: Integration into Social Routines. SD: Standard Deviation.

Group Environmental Positive Autonomy Personal Self-Acceptance Purpose Total

Mastery Relations Growth Psychological
Well-Being

Females Mean: 4.32 5.04 4.53 5.72 4.69 5.40 4.95

 Brinster 2

(n=76) SD: 1.11 1.30 1.13 0.94 1.45 0.92 0.84

Males Mean: 4.00 4.84 4.56 6.11 4.77 5.12 4.96

(n=27)
SD: 1.24 1.31 1.42 0.62 1.39 1.12 0.79

Instagram Mean: 4.29 5.00 4.51 5.71 4.65 5.36 4.92

Users
SD: 1.36 1.32 1.26 0.93 1.52 1.05 0.87
(n=85)

Non- Mean: 4.65 5.20 4.52 5.85 5.06 5.54 5.13

Instagram
SD: 1.20 1.14 1.00 0.76 0.90 0.57 0.59
Users
(n=18)

All Mean: 4.33 4.99 4.55 5.82 4.71 5.32 4.95

Respondents
SD: 1.35 1.30 1.22 0.88 1.44 0.98 0.83
(n=103)

Figure 2. Psychological Well-Being scores. Overall Psychological Well-Being is divided into

six subcategories which are averaged for the total well-being score. Data is averaged for each
group.

Group Passive Use Passive Passive Passive Passive Use and Passive Use and
and Use and Use and Use and Self-Acceptance Purpose
Environment Positive Autonomy Personal
al Control Relations Growth

All Instagram r: -0.17 -0.10 -0.16 -0.05 -0.18 0.08

Users (n=85)
CI: -0.36 to -0.30 to -0.35 to -0.25 to -0.37 to 0.02 -0.13 to 0.28
0.04 0.11 0.05 0.16

Female r: -0.06 -0.16 -0.06 0.03 -0.05 0.11

Instagram Users
(n=67)
CI: -0.30 to -0.39 to -0.30 to -0.21 to -0.29 to 0.19 -0.14 to 0.34
0.18 0.09 0.18 0.27
 Brinster 3

Male Instagram r: 0.74 0.69 0.65 0.29 0.93 0.46

Users (n=18)

CI: 0.42 to 0.33 to 0.26 to -0.20 to 0.82 to 0.97 -0.01 to 0.76

0.90 0.87 0.86 0.67

Figure 3. Correlation coefficient (r) between the two listed variables. CI is the confidence
interval around the correlation coefficient calculated with 95% confidence.

Group Integration Integration Integration Integration Integration and Integration and

and and and and Self-Acceptance Purpose
Environment Positive Autonomy Personal
al Control Relations Growth

All Instagram r: 0.10 -0.10 -0.05 0.03 -0.10 0.10

Users (n=85)
CI: -0.10 to -0.30 to -0.25 to -0.17 to -0.30 to 0.11 -0.10 to 0.30
0.30 0.11 0.16 0.23

Female r: 0.14 -0.07 -0.07 0.17 0.04 0.14

Instagram Users
(n=67)
CI: -0.11 to -0.31 to -0.31 to -0.08 to -0.20 to 0.28 -0.11 to 0.37
0.37 0.18 0.18 0.40

Male Instagram r: -0.40 0.06 -0.60 -0.20 -0.43 0.15

Users (n=18)

CI: -0.73 to -0.42 to -0.83 to - -0.61 to -0.75 to 0.05 -0.34 to 0.58

0.08 0.51 0.18 0.29

Figure 4. Correlation coefficient (r) between the two variables. CI is the confidence interval
around the correlation coefficient calculated with 95% confidence.

Group Time and Time and Time and Time and Time and Time Time Time
Environme Positive Autonomy Self- Personal and and and ISR
ntal Control Relations Acceptan Growth Purpose SIEC
ce
 Brinster 4

All Social r: -0.08 -0.06 -0.19 -0.17 -0.12 0.06 0.41 0.52
Media Users
(n=85)
CI: -0.29 to -0.27 to -0.39 to -0.37 to -0.32 to -0.16 to 0.22 0.34 to
0.14 0.16 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.27 to 0.66
0.57

Figure 5. Correlation coefficient (r) between the two variables. CI is the confidence interval
around the correlation coefficient calculated with 95% confidence. Time refers to the self-
reported time spent on social media. SIEC is Social Integration and Emotional Connection. ISR
is Integration into Social Routines.

III. Analysis

A statistical analysis of the results of the survey reveals that non-Instagram users as a

group have similar psychological well-being score as compared with Instagram users (scores of

4.92 and 5.13, respectively); these scores fall within each other’s standard deviation, so they are

not statistically different. However, the sample size for non-Instagram users (n=18) was much

smaller than the sample size for Instagram users (n=85). Larger sample sizes for both groups

should be obtained to effectively evaluate differences between these two groups, as this finding

is contradicted by research which shows that social media users as a whole have reduced

psychological well-being as compared to non-social media users (Clark, Algoe, & Green, 2018).

Larger studies that gather data on a larger range of demographics and items assessing

individuality, like personality tests and mental health profiles, could examine more specific

characteristics of social media users and analyze the differences between users and non-users.

As a whole, the male group of Instagram users had a significantly higher correlation

between passive use and measures of psychological well-being as compared to female Instagram

users, specifically with environmental control (r=0.74), positive relations (r=0.69), autonomy

(r=0.65), and personal growth (r=0.93). Each of these correlations fell outside of the female
 Brinster 5

subsample confidence interval, making the differences between the correlations significant.

These correlations were all moderately positive, indicating that as the amount of passive social

media behaviors increase, the subcategory of psychological well-being shows higher

development and strength within that individual; however, it is important to remember that

correlation does not imply causation. These findings contradict most studies on passive and

active use which show that increased passive behavior on social media sites is correlated with

increased symptoms of depression and other factors of reduced mental health (Escobar-Viera, et

al., 2018). Future studies could examine more factors that could affect psychological well-being,

like personality traits, social networks, and family relations, especially among the male

population. The male group of Instagram users was also smaller than the female group of

Instagram users (n=27 and n=67, respectively). To gather more accurate data to compare the

social media behaviors between the two groups, larger sample sizes which consist of equal

amounts of males and females could be tested. The group of male Instagram users could also be

linked by other factors, like personality, which separates them from their non-Instagram

counterparts. 66% of all male respondents use Instagram, whereas 87% of all female respondents

use Instagram. Therefore, based on the demographics of this study and the findings of other

studies, one could conclude that male Instagram use is less of a social norm as compared with

female social media use, indicating that those males who do choose to use social media may be

linked by other personality types or social tendencies. The results could then be explained by the

fact that males with these communicative traits who choose to use Instagram receive more social

benefits and connection from their social media use as compared to females, who utilize

Instagram as a social tool which has become a norm among high school girls (Lenhart, 2016a).
 Brinster 6

A limitation of this study was the available sample of respondents. The survey was sent

via Canvas, a student grading system, and students voluntarily answered the questionnaire. More

females (n=76) responded to the survey than males (n=27). Because larger studies of teen social

media users have found that females use social media at higher rates than males (Lenhart,

2016b), male students may have decided not to respond to the survey because of a lack of

interest or involvement in social media. As a result, the sample had a disproportionate amount of

females, which could lead to skewed data, as discussed above.