CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 15, Number 2, 2012 RAPID COMMUNICATIONS

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0324

‘‘They Are Happier and Having Better Lives than I Am’’:

The Impact of Using Facebook
on Perceptions of Others’ Lives
Downloaded by Gothenburg University Library from [Link] at 10/08/17. For personal use only.

Hui-Tzu Grace Chou, Ph.D., and Nicholas Edge, B.S.

Abstract

Facebook, as one of the most popular social networking sites among college students, provides a platform for
people to manage others’ impressions of them. People tend to present themselves in a favorable way on their
Facebook profile. This research examines the impact of using Facebook on people’s perceptions of others’ lives. It
is argued that those with deeper involvement with Facebook will have different perceptions of others than those
less involved due to two reasons. First, Facebook users tend to base judgment on examples easily recalled (the
availability heuristic). Second, Facebook users tend to attribute the positive content presented on Facebook to
others’ personality, rather than situational factors (correspondence bias), especially for those they do not know
personally. Questionnaires, including items measuring years of using Facebook, time spent on Facebook each
week, number of people listed as their Facebook ‘‘friends,’’ and perceptions about others’ lives, were completed
by 425 undergraduate students taking classes across various academic disciplines at a state university in Utah.
Surveys were collected during regular class period, except for two online classes where surveys were submitted
online. The multivariate analysis indicated that those who have used Facebook longer agreed more that others
were happier, and agreed less that life is fair, and those spending more time on Facebook each week agreed more
that others were happier and had better lives. Furthermore, those that included more people whom they did not
personally know as their Facebook ‘‘friends’’ agreed more that others had better lives.

Introduction and Literature Review styles of their language,6,7,9,10 or providing a set of links to
other sites or associating themselves with certain people,
symbols, and material objects.11–13 Through these actions,
M ost people are concerned about others’ impressions
of them and try to manage these impressions in a fa-
vorable way.1–5 With the invention of computer-mediated
users of computer-mediated communication can leave better
impressions on others.
communication, social interactions can take place beyond One feature of Facebook is that it enables users to present
face-to-face. Computer-mediated communication differs from themselves in an online profile with pictures and life events
face-to-face communication in that it eliminates many of the that they would like to share with those listed as their Face-
subtle cues that people use to form their impressions of others. book friends. Although comments posted by others cannot be
Without these subtle cues, will the impressions formed online controlled, Facebook users can still select whom they will
differ from those formed through face-to-face interaction? allow to be Facebook friends; thus they can indirectly control
This research aims to answer this question by examining some the comments. Previous research has found that Facebook
perceptions of Facebook users. has affected the lives of its users, as well as their self-
Previous research has found that users of computer- perceptions. For example, it can help users maintain or create
mediated communication can employ several techniques to social capital,14–16 facilitate civic and political participation,17
optimize their self-presentation and promote desired rela- motivate students and establish a higher-level affective
tionships, such as spending more time with greater cognitive learning classroom climate,18 and increase users’ self-esteem
resources to edit the messages,6 carefully selecting photo- with positive comments posted by their Facebook friends.19
graphs,7 highlighting their positive attributes,7 presenting an Research also has found some negative impacts of Facebook.
ideal self,7 having a deeper self-disclosure,8 managing the For example, Facebook can cause jealousy issues in romantic

A previous version of this paper was presented at the Western Social Science Association Annual Meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah,
April 2011.
Department of Behavioral Science, Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah.

117
 118 CHOU AND EDGE

relationships20 and decrease teachers’ credibility;18 users’ users avoid the trap of correspondence bias and recognize the
self-esteem might be negatively affected by including external factors at work: it is the occasions that make their
strangers on Facebook,21 or by receiving negative comments friends happy. Based on the research and arguments above,
posted on their Facebook page.19 In addition, people’s Face- the following two hypotheses are formulated:
book profiles affect others’ impression toward them. Previous
H1: Those who are more involved with using Facebook are
studies found that comments posted by users’ Facebook more likely to perceive that others are happier and are
friends,13 as well as the number of Facebook friends22 and the having better lives, and are less likely to agree that life is fair
attractiveness of Facebook friends,13 affect others’ impression (availability heuristic).
of users’ popularity or social attractiveness. Building on H2: Those who include more strangers on their Facebook are
previous research that has examined the impact of Facebook more likely to perceive that others are happier and are having
on users’ self-perceptions and others’ perceptions toward better lives, and are less likely to agree that life is fair (cor-
Downloaded by Gothenburg University Library from [Link] at 10/08/17. For personal use only.

them, this study fills a research gap by examining the impact respondence bias).
of Facebook on users’ perceptions toward others.
Data Collection
Theoretical Arguments and Hypotheses To test the hypotheses, a questionnaire that included the
It is argued here that Facebook users tend to employ some three perceptions—others have a better life, others are happier, and
heuristics when they form impressions of others, especially life is fair—was developed. The respondents were 425 under-
those whom they do not know personally. First, Facebook graduate students taking classes at a large state university in
deprives its users from observing their online partners’ non- Utah between the fall of 2010 and spring of 2011 across various
verbal expressions, thus compelling users to rely only on the academic disciplines, including sociology, psychology, math-
information they can get online. Second, Facebook social net- ematics, social work, family study, chemistry, criminal justice,
works grow faster than real-life social networks; therefore, it graphic design, astronomy, accounting, and dance. The in-
becomes nearly impossible for its users to interact closely with structors of these randomly chosen classes were contacted first
each of their network friends. Previous research found that an by e-mail. Appointments were then made to collect the sur-
average Facebook user has 217 network members,21 while the veys from their students during their class period, except for
average size of a real-life social network is expected to be two online classes where surveys were collected online.
around 125.23 With the rapid expansion of their online social
networks, especially of individuals whom they have never met Dependent variables
before, online users tend to become cognitive misers.24–26
Respondents were asked, ‘‘How much would you agree
One possible way to manage the vast size of online social
with the following statements? Many of my friends have a
networks is to employ an availability heuristic; that is, indi-
better life than me; many of my friends are happier than me;
viduals can base judgment on examples that they can easily
life is fair,’’ with 1 indicating ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 10 in-
recall.27,28 When forming impressions of others, it is easy for
dicating ‘‘strongly agree.’’ The means of the two statements
frequent Facebook users to recall the statements and pictures
were 3.86 and 3.89, while the mean of the third statement was
posted by their Facebook friends. Since people are motivated
5.93. In other words, most respondents tended to disagree
to make positive self-presentations, the information and im-
that others have better lives and others are happier, and tend
ages posted by Facebook friends tend to be socially desirable.
to believe that life is fair, which is consistent with the better-
Constantly reading others’ reported positive life events, as
than-average effect.33,34
well as frequently seeing others’ pictures of happy moments,
could give Facebook users an impression that others are
Independent variables
happy and have good lives. In contrast to their own life
events, which might not always be happy and positive, This research uses ‘‘years of using Facebook’’ and ‘‘number
frequent Facebook users might perceive that life is not fair. of hours spent on Facebook each week.’’ ‘‘Years of using
Although Facebook users are all prone to employ the avail- Facebook’’ can indicate the experiences users have with
ability heuristic, heavy Facebook users have more available Facebook, whereas ‘‘number of hours spent on Facebook each
examples from Facebook; thus they are more vulnerable to a week’’ can indicate the degree of current involvement with
distorted perception. the Facebook. When respondents were asked, ‘‘Have you
When making judgments or forming impressions about ever used Facebook?,’’ about 95% of them (400 out of 425
others, one common attribution error is the correspondence respondents) answered yes, while 5% (22 out of 425 respon-
bias; that is, the tendency to assume that others’ actions and dents) answered no. Among Facebook users, the average
words reflect their personality or stable personal disposition, number of years using Facebook was 2.55, and the average
rather than being affected by situational factors.29–32 When number of hours spent on Facebook each week was 4.83.
seeing others’ happy pictures posted on Facebook, users The means and standard deviations of all variables used in
might conclude that others are happy, while ignoring the the multivariate analysis are presented in the Appendix.
circumstances or situations that made others happy. The
correspondence bias is more likely to happen when Facebook
Data Analysis
users make attributions about people whom they have never
met before. They assume that happiness is a stable charac- The results of the multiple regression analysis of the three
teristic of their temperaments and that they are constantly perceptions others have a better life, others are happier, and life is
enjoying good lives. For those they do know personally, fair are presented in Table 1. After controlling for religiosity,
however, their past interactions with them help Facebook gender, and relationship status, the results show that those
 IMPACT OF USING FACEBOOK ON PERCEPTIONS OF OTHERS’ LIVES 119

Table 1. Multiple Regression Analysis of Three Perceptions—(A) Others Have a Better Life, (B) Others
Are Happier, (C) Life Is Fair—on Selected Independent Variables (Standardized Coefficients)

A Others have B Others C Life

Independent variables a better life are happier is fair

Years of using Facebook 0.07 0.16** - 0.12*

Number of hours spent on Facebook each week 0.11 + 0.13* - 0.07
Number of people listed as Facebook friends - 0.07 - 0.16* 0.17**
Number of Facebook friends not personally known 0.16** 0.05 0.04
Number of hours going out with friends each week - 0.16* - 0.14* 0.09
Religiosity - 0.11 + - 0.11 + 0.13*
Downloaded by Gothenburg University Library from [Link] at 10/08/17. For personal use only.

Gender (male) 0.02 0.01 0.03

Single without a steady dating partner 0.21 + 0.15 - 0.10
Single with a steady dating partner 0.09 0.00 - 0.02
Married - 0.08 - 0.15 - 0.04
R2 0.12 0.12 0.07
F-value 4.38*** 4.22*** 2.36*
N 327 328 332
+
p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

who spent more hours on Facebook each week (b = 0.11, tend to perceive that others are constantly happy, while paying
p < 0.10) and those who included more people who they did little attention to the circumstances that affect others’ behavior.
not personally know as their Facebook friends (b = 0.16, One could argue that frequent Facebook users shall know
p < 0.01) agreed more that others had better lives than them- the tricks others use to manage the impression; therefore,
selves. Those who spent more time with their friends, how- experienced Facebook users could avoid the potential dis-
ever, agreed less that others had better lives than themselves torted perception. However, the results of the research sug-
(b = - 0.16, p < 0.05). gest that frequent Facebook users tend to perceive that others
Number of years of using Facebook also had a significant are happier. In other words, they are more likely to be af-
impact on people’s perceptions. Those who had used Facebook fected by the easily recalled content and tend to have the
longer tended to perceive that others were happier than them- correspondence bias, whether consciously or unconsciously.
selves (b = 0.16, p < 0.01) and had a lower degree of agreement The problems of relying on an availability heuristic and
with the statement that life is fair (b = - 0.12, p < 0.05). The more having correspondence bias can be alleviated by having more
hours people spent on Facebook, the stronger was their agree- balanced information, which can be gained through deeper
ment that others were happier. Those who had more friends on interactions with others. The results of this research found
their Facebook agreed less with the statement that others were that the more time people spent going out with their friends,
happier and agreed more with the view that life is fair. Those the less they agreed that others have better lives and are
that were out frequently with their friends tended to disagree happier. In other words, when people have more off-line in-
that others were happier than themselves. teractions with their friends, knowing more stories about
others’ lives, both positive and negative, they are less per-
Discussion and Conclusions suaded that others are happier than themselves. In this way,
they can avoid correspondence bias. Since becoming ‘‘Face-
The results of this research support the argument that using
book friends’’ usually starts with two people knowing each
Facebook affects people’s perceptions of others. For those that
other in person, it follows that those with more friends on
have used Facebook longer, it is easier to remember positive
their Facebook tend to have a more balanced view of others
messages and happy pictures posted on Facebook; these
because they know more people in person. Therefore, they
readily available examples give users an impression that others
are more likely to agree that life is fair, and less likely to agree
are happier. As expected in the first hypothesis, the results
that others are happier, as the results of this research indi-
show that the longer people have used Facebook, the stronger
cated.
was their belief that others were happier than themselves, and
the less they agreed that life is fair. Furthermore, as predicted
Acknowledgments
in the second hypothesis, this research found that the more
‘‘friends’’ people included on their Facebook whom they did The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous
not know personally, the stronger they believed that others reviewers for their valuable feedback on previous drafts of
had better lives than themselves. In other words, looking at the paper.
happy pictures of others on Facebook gives people an im-
pression that others are ‘‘always’’ happy and having good Disclosure Statement
lives, as evident from these pictures of happy moments. In
No competing financial interests exist.
contrast to their own experiences of life events, which are not
always positive, people are very likely to conclude that others
References
have better lives than themselves and that life is not fair. The
correspondence bias is more likely to occur when people make 1. Goffman E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. New
inferences about people whom they do not know well. They York: Anchor Books.
 120 CHOU AND EDGE

2. Jones EE. Pittman TS. (1982) Toward a general theory of 18. Mazer JP, Murphy RE, Simonds CJ. I’ll see you on Facebook:
strategic self-presentation. In Suls J. ed. Psychological per- The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on
spectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Vol. 1, student motivation, affective learning, and classroom cli-
pp. 231–62. mate. Communication Education 2007; 56:1–17.
3. Schlenker BR. (1985) Identity and self-identification. In 19. Valkenburg PM, Peter J, Schouten AP. Friend networking
Schlenker BR, ed. The self and social life. New York: McGraw- sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and
Hill, pp. 65–99. social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2006; 9:584–
4. Schlenker BR, Pontari BA. (2000) The strategic control of 90.
information: Impression management and self-presentation 20. Muise A, Christofides E, Desmarais S. More information
in daily life. In Tesser A, Felson RB, Suls JM, eds. Psycholo- than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-
gical perspectives on self and identity. Washington, DC: eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior
Downloaded by Gothenburg University Library from [Link] at 10/08/17. For personal use only.

American Psychological Association, pp. 199–232. 2009; 12:441–4.

5. Snyder MR. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal 21. Acar A. Antecedents and consequences of online social
of Personality & Social Psychology 1974; 30:526–73. networking behavior: The case of Facebook. Journal of
6. Walther JB. Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated Website Promotion 2008; 3:62–83.
communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, 22. Tong ST, Van Der Heide B, Langwell L. Too much of a good
language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior thing? The relationship between number of friends and in-
2007; 23:2538–57. terpersonal impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-
7. Ellison N, Heino R, Gibbs J. Managing impressions online: Mediated Communication 2008; 13:531–49.
Self-presentation processes in the online dating environ- 23. Hill RA, Dunbar RIM. Social network size in humans.
ment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2006; Human Nature 2003; 14:53–72.
11. [Link] (ac- 24. Lea M, Spears R. (1995) Love at first byte? Building personal
cessed March 1, 2011). relationships over computer networks. In Wood JT, Duke S,
8. Tidwell LC, Walther JB. Computer-mediated communica- eds. Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track. Thousand
tion effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 197–233.
evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. 25. Spears R, Lea M. Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power
Human Communication Research 2002; 28:317–48. in computer-mediated communication. Communication Re-
9. Adkins M, Brashers D. The power of language in computer- search 1994; 21:427–59.
mediated groups. Management Communication Quarterly 26. Wallace P. (1999) The psychology of the Internet. New York:
1995; 8:289–322. Cambridge University Press.
10. Lea M, Spears R. Paralanguage and social perception in 27. MacLeod C, Campbell L. Memory accessibility and proba-
computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organiza- bility judgments: An experimental evaluation of the avail-
tional Computing 1992; 2:321–41. ability heuristic. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
11. Dominick J. Who do you think you are? Personal home 1992; 63:890–902.
pages and self-presentation on the World Wide Web. Jour- 28. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: A heuristic for
nalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 1999; 76:646–58. judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology
12. Schau HJ, Gilly MC. We are what we post? Self-presentation 1973; 5:207–32.
in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research 2003; 29. Jones EE. The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American
30:385–404. Psychologist 1979; 34:107–17.
13. Walther JB, Van Der Heide B, Kim S, et al. The role of 30. Jones EE. (1990) Interpersonal perception. New York: Mac-
friends’ appearance and behavior: Are we known by the millan.
company we keep? Human Communication Research 2008; 31. Jones EE, Harris VA. The attribution of attitudes. Journal of
3:28–49. Experimental Social Psychology 1967; 3:1–24.
14. Ellison N, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook 32. Snyder M, Jones EE. Attitude attribution when behavior is
‘‘Friends’’: Social capital and college students’ use of online constrained. Journal of Experimental & Social Psychology
social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com- 1974; 10:585–600.
munication 2007; 12:1143–68. 33. Alicke MD. Global self-evaluation as determined by the
15. Madge C, Meek J, Wellens J, et al. Facebook, social inte- desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of
gration and informal learning at university: ‘‘It is more for Personality & Social Psychology 1985; 3:1621–30.
socializing and talking to friends about work than for ac- 34. Brown JD. Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement
tually doing work.’’ Learning, Media & Technology 2009; biases in social judgments. Social Cognition 1986; 4:353–76.
34:141–55.
16. Steinfield C, Ellison NB, Lampe C. Social capital, self-esteem,
and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal anal- Address correspondence to:
ysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2008; Hui-Tzu Grace Chou
29:434–45. Utah Valley University
17. Park N, Kee KF, Valenzuela S. Being immersed in social 800 W. University Parkway
networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and grati- Orem, UT 84058
fications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior
2009; 12:729–33. E-mail: chougr@[Link]

(Appendix follows/)
 IMPACT OF USING FACEBOOK ON PERCEPTIONS OF OTHERS’ LIVES 121

Appendix
Appendix Table A1. Operationalization of Variables, Mean, and Standard Deviation

Survey items and coding Min. Max. Mean S.D.

1. Others are having a How much would you agree with this 1 10 3.86 2.32
better life statement? ‘‘Many of my friends have a
better life than me’’ (1: strongly disagree;
10: strongly agree)
2. Others are happier How much would you agree with this 1 10 3.89 2.32
Downloaded by Gothenburg University Library from [Link] at 10/08/17. For personal use only.

statement? ‘‘Many of my friends are

happier than me’’ (1: strongly disagree; 10:
strongly agree)
3. Life is fair How much would you agree with this 1 10 5.93 2.78
statement? ‘‘I believe that life is fair’’ (1:
strongly disagree; 10: strongly agree)
4. Years of using How many years have you been using 0 8 2.55 1.36
Facebook Facebook?
5. Number of hours How many hours do you spend on Facebook 0 80 4.83 7.77
spent on Facebook each week?
each week
6. Number of people Questions about your Facebook friends: 3 1400 317.67 239.77
listed as Facebook ‘‘How many people do you currently have
friends on your Facebook?’’
7. Number of Facebook Questions about your Facebook friends: 0 700 46.53 105.87
friends not personally ‘‘How many people you do not personally
known know?’’
8. Number of hours How many hours do you usually go out with 1 4 2.62 1.01
going out with friends each week? 1: Never; 2: 1–3 hours;
friends each week 3: 4–6 hours; 4: 7 hours or more
9. Religiosity How much do you agree with this statement? 1 10 7.02 3.13
‘‘I am a very religious person’’ (1: strongly
disagree; 10: strongly agree)
10. Gender (male) Your gender is: 1: male; 0: female 0 1 .43 .50
11. Single without a Your current marital status is: 1: single 0 1 .35 .48
steady dating without a steady dating partner; 0: other
partner
12. Single with a steady Your current marital status is: 1: single with a 0 1 .20 .40
dating partner steady dating partner; 0: other
13. Married Your current marital status is: 1: married; 0: 0 1 .39 .49
other