Psychology of Popular Media Culture 2012 American Psychological Association

2013, Vol. 2, No. 1, 38 50 2160-4134/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030277

Development and Validation of a Social Media Use

Integration Scale

Michael A. Jenkins-Guarnieri, Stephen L. Wright, and Brian Johnson

University of Northern Colorado

The present study developed a scale of online social media use that measures the
integration of the social behavior and daily routines of users, along with the importance
of and emotional connection to this use. Using a sample of 616 emerging adults in
college, exploratory factor analysis was conducted with a calibration sample of 308
participants and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using an equal hold-out
sample to yield a final 10-item two-factor Social Media Use Integration Scale (SMUIS).
Strong reliability evidence was found for data collected with the total scale ( .914),
the first 6-item subscale called Social Integration and Emotional Connection (SIEC)
( .893), and the second 4-item subscale entitled Integration into Social Routines
(ISR) ( .828). Testretest over a 3-week period suggested that SMUIS responses
remained stable, with reliability correlations of r .803 for total scale, r .804 for
subscale 1, and r .676 for subscale 2. In addition, high correlations with previously
published social media use measures provided convergent validity evidence, whereas
nonsignificant correlations between the SMUIS subscales and other measures unrelated
to online social media use offered discriminant validity evidence. The SMUIS was first
developed to measure Facebook use; however, it was purposefully designed to be
adapted to measure other forms of online social media use. Implications for future
research and practice are discussed.

Keywords: Facebook, online social media, college students, measurement scale

Internet use for communication and social
behavior is becoming increasingly integrated
into the lives of North Americans (Correa, Hin-
sley, & de Ziga, 2010; Ross et al., 2009), with
95% of young adults aged 18 to 33 years re-
porting activity online in recent years (Zickurh,
2010). One specific area that has seen a signif-
icant and rapid rise to prominence (Pempek,
Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009) has been social
networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook.com,
online social media through which to share ex-
periences and communicate within social rela-
tionships (Ross et al., 2009). Facebook has
This article was published Online First October 22, 2012.
Michael A. Jenkins-Guarnieri, Stephen L. Wright, and
Brian Johnson, Department of Counseling Psychology, Uni-
versity of Northern Colorado.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Michael A. Jenkins-Guarnieri, Department of
Counseling Psychology, University of Northern Colorado,
501 20th Street, McKee Hall 248, Campus Box 131, Gree-
ley, CO 80639. E-mail: Michael.JenkinsGuarnieri@gmail
.com
38
quickly become the most popular SNS for
young adults, especially those in college
(Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, 2011). As this online
social medium is increasingly integrated into
the daily lives and social behavior of young
adults (Correa et al., 2010; Steinfield, Ellison, &
Lampe, 2008), new research must seek to assess
and understand the nature of using this medium
and its potential implications, especially for so-
cial behavior and development (Brown, 2006).
It is imperative to use well-developed measures
to effectively investigate online social behavior;
however, recent research on online social media
has often used inadequate measures for opera-
tionalizing social media use and its integration
into social behavior. Furthermore, based on a
thorough literature review, to date, no published
scale has been developed following more for-
mal and rigorous methods of scale development
and validation for measuring how social media
is used and integrated into the daily lives of
users. Thus, the present study used methodolog-
ically rigorous techniques for scale develop-
ment (DeVellis, 2003) to create a novel measure
 SOCIAL MEDIA USE INTEGRATION SCALE
for social media use integration, and established
initial validity evidence for its use with emerg-
ing adult populations. Although intended to be
flexible enough to be adapted for use with mul-
tiple manifestations of online social media, this
study focused on Facebook, given its promi-
nence in North America, especially with col-
lege-aged adults.
Emerging Adults and Social Media Use
Boyd and Ellison (2007) highlighted the di-
versity and significant numbers of online social
media introduced since their emerging forms as
early as 1997, as these online communication
tools began to evolve with different features and
foci. In reviewing the development of SNS, they
highlight MySpace as the first major main-
stream service, with teenagers joining in record
numbers and later migrating to the incredibly
popular Facebook. In conjunction around this
time, other sites like Twitter, YouTube, and
LinkedIn emerged and began attracting users to
consume and share media. These users soon
reached college age and developed into an
emerging adult population, maintaining this
high level of social activity through social me-
dia to such an extent that developmental tasks
associated with this stage (Arnett, 2000) may be
enacted in part online. Key developmental ac-
tivities such as exploring individual identity
(Grasmuck, Martin, & Zhao, 2009), social iden-
tity (Manago, Graham, Greenfield, & Salim-
khan, 2008), and sense of self (Peluchette &
Karl, 2010) appear to be carried out through
social media and SNS such as Facebook. In
conjunction, emerging adulthood populations
often initiate and maintain meaningful relation-
ships through Facebook, for example, commu-
nicating with friends (Ellison, Steinfield, &
Lampe, 2007) and maintaining social connec-
tions (Subrahmanyam, Reich, Waechter, &
Espinoza, 2008). Social behavior and interper-
sonal relationships are essential to the develop-
ment of emerging adults, and social media ap-
pears to play an increasing role in these areas
(Reich, 2010).
Measuring Social Media Use
Perhaps because the concept of social media
use is relatively new and the rise to prominence
of its most popular manifestations is even
39
newer, most research on social media use thus
far has used psychometrically weak measures.
Based on scale development theory (DeVellis,
2003), even the most recent research published
in peer-reviewed journals used somewhat lack-
ing assessment measures to operationalize Fa-
cebook use. For example, researchers often use
a single item assessing factual information
about use, such as estimates of the average daily
activity of use in minutes or account logins per
week (e.g., Baker & Oswald, 2010; Litt &
Stock, 2011; Ong et al., 2011; Wilson, For-
nasier, & White, 2010). Additionally, the for-
mat and response scales for this type of question
varied considerably across studies. Single items
such as these often perform poorly in measuring
complex constructs, with poor reliability esti-
mates and high measurement error. In addition,
much previous research in this area focused on
the behavioral frequency of social media use,
yet the nature of these social media services
most likely involves a users emotional connec-
tion to and integration of use in their daily social
lives (Ellison et al., 2007). Therefore, we de-
fined online social media use as the degree to
which social media is integrated into the social
behavior and daily routines of users, and the
importance of and emotional connection to this
use. This focus represents a unique contribution
of our study to the literature in this area, as our
measure was developed to capture this broader
concept of engaged use.
Some researchers have developed novel mea-
surement scales for their studies involving so-
cial media, but did not conduct rigorous psy-
chometric analyses before using data collected
from their new measures to answer subsequent
research questions (e.g., Carpenter, Green, &
LaFlam, 2011; Kwon & Wen, 2010; Ong et al.,
2011; Pempek et al., 2009; Ross et al., 2009;
Underwood, Kerlin, & Farrington-Flint, 2011).
This method for operationalizing Facebook use
suffers from a lack of methodological rigor, as
these authors did not provide detailed documen-
tation of how they progressed through formal
procedures for scale development and valida-
tion. Few authors developing their own scale
used exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and
none completed a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) or provided detailed psychometric statis-
tics such as testretest reliability coefficient es-
timates. Other authors provided only vaguely
defined measures (e.g., Kujath, 2011) and did
40 JENKINS-GUARNIERI, WRIGHT, AND JOHNSON

Note. Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright, & Johnson (2012) refers to the present studys data. Cronbachs alpha coefficient; SMUIS Social Media Use Integration Scale; SIEC
Social Integration and Emotional Connection subscale; ISR Integration into Social Routines subscale; OSF Online Sociability Functions subscale; SMUIS total score testretest

Two factual items and six items using the 5-point Likert scale. b Indicates subscale. c Items used variable response formats that included: yes/no, 5-point Likert scale, and
not offer detailed psychometrics (e.g., Kwon &

EFA and CFA

Methods
Wen, 2010; Peluchette & Karl, 2010), making
evaluations of their instruments difficult.
On the other hand, some researchers have

EFA

EFA
used measures of Facebook use based on pre-
viously published scales (see Table 1 for over-

Number of items

Attitudesb 7
view). One commonly used measure created by

SMUIS 10
SIECb 6

OSFb 5
Ellison et al. (2007) is the Facebook Use Inten-

ISRb 4
FIS 8
sity scale, which has been used by a number of
researchers (e.g., Orr et al., 2009; Valenzuela,
Park, & Kee, 2009). Although developed for the
purposes of their study, Ellison and colleagues

Attitudesb .85
Testretest .80
(2007) created their scale using college student

SMUIS .91
SIECb .89
Reliability

OSFb .74
ISRb .83
participants, and reported item means and inter-
nal consistency reliability estimates from these

.83
data. However, they did not report any addi-
tional analyses in developing this scale, and no
additional psychometric evidence has been pub-

a
lished on data collected using this scale. Addi-

5-point Likert scale

6-point Likert scale

Response format
tionally, its usage is far from uniform across the
literature; for example, Kalpidou, Costin, and
Morris (2011) treated the first two items assess-

Variablec
ing behavioral frequency of usage as two dis-
tinct variables and the mean of the six remain-

over a 3-week interval; EFA exploratory factor analysis; CFA confirmatory factor analysis.
ing items assessing emotional connection to
Facebook Intensity

active Facebook use as another variable. Thus,

subscale names

Questionnaire
Measure and

even the popular Facebook Use Intensity scale

Scale (FIS)

suffers from a lack of methodological rigor in

Attitudesb
Facebook

development, strong psychometric evidence,

SMUIS
SIECb

and administration standardization, suggesting OSFb

ISRb

multiple-choice formats that ranged from a 4-item to a 9-item multiple choice.

it may be a weak measure of Facebook use.
Another scale that has been used by others
Undergraduate college

Undergraduate college

Undergraduate college

(e.g., Ryan & Xenos, 2011) is the Facebook

Questionnaire developed by Ross et al. (2009)
Sample

during the course of their study on Facebook

students

students

students

use and personality factors (see Table 1). This

28-item survey included the six attitudinal items
adapted from Ellison et al. (2007) and an addi-
tional item created by the authors, along with a
number of items assessing behavioral usage of
Mean

20.1

18.4

21.7
age

Facebook and its various features (e.g., the

Tag function and Wall posts). Items were
Female 188

Female 389

rated by participants on a mixture of Likert-type

Female 82
Participants

Male 162
Male 98

Male 15

rating scales and dichotomous responses (e.g.,

n 286

n 552
Measures of Facebook Use

n 97

yes/no). Ross and colleagues (2009) performed

principal components factor analysis with a va-
rimax rotation to yield latent variables instead
Ellison et al., 2007

of using single indicators in their analyses. This

Authors and year

Jenkins-Guarnieri,

Ross et al., 2009

Johnson, 2012

produced two distinct factors that they called

Attitudes ( .85), which comprised the six
Wright, &

items adapted from Ellison et al. (2007), and

Table 1

Online Sociability Functions ( .74), which

comprised items assessing behavioral frequency
a
 SOCIAL MEDIA USE INTEGRATION SCALE
of Facebook use. However, the varimax rotation
assumes an orthogonal/uncorrelated relation-
ship between factors, and using this rotation
with correlated factors may yield overestimated
loadings as well as inappropriate retention and
rejection of items (Worthington & Whittaker,
2006), which risks a solution that is an artifact
of the methods used. Thus, this measure did not
benefit from strong psychometric analyses, and
future research must determine whether similar
results are an artifact of the specific methods
used.
In addition, the Ross et al. (2009) scale es-
sentially used Ellison and colleagues (2007)
Facebook Use Intensity scale items (which cap-
tured integration of usage into social behavior
and the emotional connection to this use), and
developed behavioral frequency items that rep-
resented a different latent construct. Although
these results present a possible measurement
scale of behavioral frequency specific to Face-
book.com, they do not present strong psycho-
metric evidence for the Ellison et al. (2007)
scales data collected from a sample of college
students. In this way, the novel part of this scale
involved behavioral frequency items only spe-
cific to one SNS (i.e., Facebook), and did not
present a measure of the degree to which social
media use is integrated into overall social be-
havior. Thus, this measure also fails to present
strong psychometric evidence for its use with
emerging adults.
Study Rationale
Given the call for further research on the
potential for Internet use to influence interper-
sonal relationships and social skills (Thayer &
Ray, 2006), researchers have focused on the
integration of social media into the daily lives
and social behavior of users (Steinfield et al.,
2008). As Internet use increases in emerging
adults (Zickurh, 2010), researchers have urged
further investigations into social media use
(Brown, 2006; Ross et al., 2009), as well as the
role of this use in social behavior (Raacke,
2008), especially Facebook.com. For the cur-
rent study, we chose to use a college sample
because college students between the ages of 18
and 25 years are described as emerging adults
(Arnett, 2000), and emerging adults often use
Facebook to initiate and maintain relationships
(Ellison et al., 2007) and social connections
41
(Subrahmanyam et al., 2008). As recent meth-
ods of assessing Facebook use appear to suffer
from a lack of methodological rigor, the present
study developed the Social Media Use Integra-
tion Scale (SMUIS), a measure of social media
use integration with detailed psychometric evi-
dence for an emerging adult population. In ad-
dition, we presented preliminary evidence for
the internal structure as well as convergent and
discriminant validity of the SMUIS. This instru-
ment was designed to assess Facebook use in-
tegration but was intended to be flexible enough
to be adapted to other SNS and online social
media.
Methods
Participants
All participants were undergraduate students
between the ages of 17 and 25 years recruited
from a medium-sized (N 12,000) Rocky
Mountain region university. Using a conve-
nience sampling method, we invited all 3,022
first-year students to participate in this research
through their university e-mail accounts and
directed them through a hyperlink to the studys
online survey. A total of 627 participants re-
sponded to the invitation e-mail and began the
online survey (20.74% response rate), and the
616 (98%) who reported using a Facebook ac-
count were included in this study. The mean age
of participants was 18.42 (standard deviation
[SD] 0.996) years, and 71.1% reported being
female, with 72.6% identifying as Caucasian,
11% multiracial, 9.6% Hispanic/Latino, 4.5%
African American, 1.3% Asian, 0.5% Native
American, and 0.3% Pacific Islander. From this
total sample (N 616), 482 participants chose
to enter their e-mail address after completing
the survey and were e-mailed again 3 weeks
later with an invitation to retake the same 22-
item scale for use with calculating testretest
reliability. Ninety-five of these participants re-
sponded within 5 days to complete all the items
a second time, and the demographics of this
sample did not differ significantly from the
larger sample.
Procedures
After receiving institutional review board ap-
proval, data were collected through a secure
42 JENKINS-GUARNIERI, WRIGHT, AND JOHNSON
Web-based survey site hosted by SurveyMon-
key.com (SurveyMonkey, 2011); the first 25
participants who completed the survey earned a
small Amazon.com gift card ($2) as an incen-
tive. We randomly split the full sample in half
to form a calibration sample (n 308) for an
EFA and a hold-out sample (n 308) for a
CFA to test the proposed scales fit to the data.
The calibration sample had similar demo-
graphic characteristics as the full sample
(70.1% female, mean age of 18.4 [SD 1.05]
years, 72.1% Caucasian, 11.7% multiple races,
8.4% Hispanic, 4.9% African American, 1.6%
Asian, 0.6% Pacific Islander, and 0.6% Native
American). The hold-out CFA sample also had
similar demographics to the full sample (72.4%
female, mean age of 18.37 [SD 0.938] years,
73.4% Caucasian, 10.5% multiple races, 10.1%
Hispanic, 4.2% African American, 1% Asian,
and 0.3% Native American). The testretest
sample of 95 reported being 67.4% female, had
a mean age of 18.4 (SD 0.795) years, and
identified as 69% Caucasian, 9.5% Hispanic,
9.5% multiple heritages, and 1.1% Asian.
Measures
Social media use integration. A pool of
potential scale items for the SMUIS was created
through collaboration with two psychologists
familiar with current research on social media
use and emerging adult populations. In addition,
we adapted items from previously published
scales such as Ellison et al.s (2007) and Ross et
al.s (2009) measures. Our final scale had one
item (i.e., using Facebook is part of my every-
day routine) related to social routines that over-
lapped with two items on Ellison et al.s scale
that included: (1) Facebook has become part of
my daily routine and (2) Facebook is part of
my everyday activity, and this last item was
also included on Ross et al.s scale. Finally, an
informal focus group that consisted of three
psychologists, two doctoral students, and three
undergraduate students was conducted to deter-
mine the appropriateness and usefulness of the
proposed items (DeVellis, 2003) by comparing
the new items with previously published items
(e.g., Ellison et al., 2007; Ross et al., 2009); no
new original items were created from this
group. These procedures yielded an initial 34-
item pool that then underwent a process of
revisions by the workgroup of collaborators to
yield a scale composed of 22 potential items.
Items 15, 22, and 9 were removed because the
content of these statements was redundant with
items 13, 10, and 4, respectively, and the items
did not add to the psychometric strength of the
measure. The first three items focused on fre-
quency of social media use, such as average
minutes spent using these services per day, and
the remaining items were created to capture a
users integration of the site into social behav-
iors and routines, as well as emotional invest-
ment in the sites use. The instructions for the
participants stated Please indicate how much
you agree or disagree with the following state-
ments, and a Likert-type response scale was
created for participants to indicate their level of
agreement or disagreement with each items
statement using anchors ranging from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree),
with numbers two through five listed sequen-
tially and spaced evenly in between. EFAs re-
sulted in a 13-item two-factor solution (see
Table 2), and subsequent scale development
analyses (i.e., CFAs) resulted in a final 10-item
two-factor scale (see Table 3 for scale items),
with higher scores reflecting more engaged use
and integration of social media. For our data,
the Cronbachs alpha coefficient for total scale
scores was .914, and for scores on the sub-
scale 1 and 2 were, .893 and .828, respectively.
Facebook use intensity. Ellison et al.
(2007) created an 8-item scale called Facebook
Use Intensity. The first two items asked about
the average number of minutes spent actively
using Facebook per week and about the number
of people connected to a users account (i.e.,
Facebook friends), on which participants could
elect one of the nine custom answers (e.g., 0
10 or less, 1 1150). The remaining six
items asked users about their emotional connec-
tion to the site and its role in their social rela-
tionships, and participants used a Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree) to indicate their level of
agreement or disagreement. Ellison et al. (2007)
reported a Cronbachs alpha estimate of .83 for
data obtained from a sample of emerging adults
in college. This scale was administered in our
study to provide convergent validity evidence
for the SMUIS.
Five-factor model personality traits. The
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness subscales
of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Naumann,
 SOCIAL MEDIA USE INTEGRATION SCALE 43

Table 2
Scale Items and Pattern Coefficients for 13-Item Two-Factor Model
Two-factor solution
Item Item text Factor 1 Factor 2
8 I get upset when I cant log on to Facebook 0.886 0.147
10 I prefer to communicate with others mainly through Facebook 0.873 0.172
13 Facebook plays an important role in my social relationships 0.697 0.092
6 I would like it if everyone used Facebook to communicate 0.685 0.137
5 I feel disconnected from friends when I have not logged into Facebook 0.683 0.084
7 I would be disappointed if I could not use Facebook at all 0.630 0.190
18 I share many of my day to day activities through Facebook 0.594 0.075
12 I check Facebook immediately when I am alerted of new activity on my account 0.501 0.153
2 On average, how many days per week do you use Facebook? 0.163 0.839
14 Using Facebook is part of my everyday routine 0.067 0.786
4 I enjoy checking my Facebook account 0.108 0.703
11 I dont like to use Facebook (r) 0.020 0.597
17 I respond to content that others share using Facebook 0.319 0.491
Note. n 279. Item 2 was standardized owing to a different scale being used for the item that consisted of the numbers
1 through 7. Factor 1 social integration and emotional connection; factor 2 integration into social routines. (r) item
11 reverse coded. Bold items were retained for respective factors.

& Soto, 2008) were developed to measure those
two constructs from the Five-Factor Model.
These subscales each consist of nine items on
which participants indicated their disagreement
or agreement with item statements on a Likert-
type rating scale ranging from 1 (Disagree
strongly) to 5 (Agree strongly). John et al.
(2008) previously found adequate reliability es-
timates with U.S. adults, ranging from 0.75 to
0.90, and also presented evidence for conver-
gent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. Pre-
vious research has found that Agreeableness
(Wilson, Fornasier, & White, 2010) and Con-
scientiousness (Ross et al., 2009) were unre-
lated to Facebook use, and were chosen for use
with establishing discriminant validity evidence
for our new scale.
Data Analyses
Using the data collected from 308 partici-
pants in the calibration sample, all 19 proposed
items were submitted to an EFA using maxi-
mum likelihood extraction method and a pro-
max (oblique) rotation (k 4) with Kaiser
normalization using IBM SPSS Statistics (re-
lease 19). Mundfrom, Shaw, and Ke (2005)
recommended a minimum sample size of 200

Table 3
The Final 10-Item Scale and Descriptive Statistics Using the Total Sample
Item Item text Mean SD ITC
a
5 I feel disconnected from friends when I have not logged into Facebook 3.24 2.56 0.691
6a I would like it if everyone used Facebook to communicate 3.30 1.52 0.758
7a I would be disappointed if I could not use Facebook at all 3.61 1.69 0.750
8a I get upset when I cant log on to Facebook 2.70 1.55 0.701
10a I prefer to communicate with others mainly through Facebook 2.58 1.39 0.642
13a Facebook plays an important role in my social relationships 2.96 1.42 0.709
4b I enjoy checking my Facebook account 4.70 1.24 0.692
11b I dont like to use Facebook (r) 4.99 1.22 0.533
14b Using Facebook is part of my everyday routine 4.07 1.50 0.683
17b I respond to content that others share using Facebook 3.84 1.42 0.670
Note. n 552. SD standard deviation; ITC corrected item-total correlation. Scale range for items: 1 strongly
disagree to 6 strongly agree. (r) item 11 reverse coded.
a
Social Integration and Emotional Connection subscale. b Integration into Social Routines subscale.
44 JENKINS-GUARNIERI, WRIGHT, AND JOHNSON
for EFA with a variables-to-factors ratio of six,
wide communality, and a coefficient of congru-
ence K .98 (excellent criteria); our sample
size met these minimum requirements. Items 1
through 3 were standardized before being in-
cluded in analyses, given the nature of their
content and large ranges and variances. Multi-
ple criteria were used to determine retention of
factors, including eigenvalues 1, a visual
analysis of the produced Scree plot, and inter-
pretability of the factor solutions. Factor analy-
sis was conducted over a number of iterations,
and items were removed if they displayed a
pattern coefficient of .45 or if they loaded on
more than one factor with a pattern coefficient
of .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Based on these results, we followed a Model
Generating (MG) approach (Jreskog, 1993) to
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in con-
ducting a CFA using EQS software (release 6.1)
to evaluate the fit of the observed indicators
selected by the EFA (the a priori model) to the
data on the same scale items from the separate
hold-out sample. Following this method, the
hypothesized models fit to the data was first
tested, and then, the results from these analyses
were used to respecify the model to yield a
statistically plausible and practically meaning-
ful model (Byrne, 2001); this approach matches
the purpose of the current study in developing a
scale from novel items that adequately measures
the construct of social media use integration.
The hold-out sample meets the minimum size
requirements of 200 for most applications of
SEM (Kline, 2011; Weston & Gore, 2006), al-
though greater numbers are always recom-
mended. Following Klines (2011) guidelines in
conducting SEM analyses, hypothesized models
were identified using a unit loading constraint
for the first indicator of each factor, data were
screened for any evidence of collinearity by
examining the squared multiple correlations for
values .9 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), and
skew and kurtosis statistics with absolute values
2 and 7 (Hoyle, 1995), respectively, were
examined for indications of deviation from the
assumption of normality underlying SEM.
Owing to the imbalance in the gender and
ethnicity of study participants, SMUIS subscale
mean scores were examined simultaneously for
potential differences by gender and ethnicity
(Caucasian and non-Caucasian) using a multi-
variate analysis of variance (alpha level with
Bonferroni adjustment: .05/2 .025). Skew
and kurtosis statistics and plots of standardized
residuals were examined to evaluate whether
these data met the assumptions of homoscedas-
ticity, independence of observations, and mul-
tivariate normality underlying this analysis.
Results
There was no evidence of collinearity in the
data, and all items displayed skew and kurtosis
values within acceptable ranges. Both Bartletts
Test of Sphericity (p .001) and the Kaiser
MeyerOlkin measure (KMO .920) sup-
ported the factorability of these data (Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 2001). Using the calibration
sample, the 19 items were subjected to an EFA
with data from 268 participants (40 participants
were excluded using listwise deletion owing to
missing data from omitted responses), and three
factors were retained using the aforementioned
criteria after the first iteration. Items 20 and 21
loaded on their own factor, and were removed
because of conceptually different item content
concerning social media uses interference in
daily functioning, and because they grouped
into a factor of only two items (Worthington &
Whittaker, 2006). In addition, items 1, 3, 16,
and 19 were removed because of low pattern
coefficient loadings (.45). With data from 279
participants available, the remaining items were
subjected to a second iteration of EFA, which
produced a clear and interpretable rotated factor
structure: a 13-item solution with two factors
that we named SIEC (factor 1) and ISR
(factor 2). Factor 1 had an eigenvalue of 6.738
and accounted for 51.833% of the variance,
whereas factor 2 had an eigenvalue of 1.281 and
accounted for 9.854% of the variance; the pat-
tern coefficients for the included items are dis-
played in Table 2. Cronbachs alpha reliability
estimates calculated from this scales data were
.901 for factor 1, .843 for factor 2, and .921 for
the total scale; the interfactor correlation was
r .713.
There were 273 participants from the hold-
out sample after using listwise deletion to ad-
dress omitted responses. The 13-item two-factor
model of the SMUIS suggested by earlier EFA
analyses was titled model 1 and subjected to a
CFA using the MG approach to SEM; skew
(ranging from 1.444 to 0.747) and kurtosis
(ranging from 1.188 to 1.845) statistics fell
 SOCIAL MEDIA USE INTEGRATION SCALE 45

within acceptable ranges for all items, and the
largest standardized residual was .495. Maxi-
mum likelihood (Bentler & Chih-Ping, 1987)
estimation methods were used with the robust
SatorraBentler 2 statistic (Satorra & Bentler,
1988) to avoid potential bias in the 2 statistic
with non-normally distributed data (Hutchinson
& Olmos, 1998). The 2 statistic for exact
model fit can be overly sensitive and biased by
a number of model characteristics (Kline,
2011), and thus, the revised criterion of 2/df
3 (Iacobucci, 2010) was used. Based on pub-
lished model evaluation guidelines, the follow-
ing approximate fit statistics and cutoff criteria
were used: .08 for the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR), close to .06 for the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
(Hu & Bentler (1999), and .95 for the non-
normed fit index (NNFI) and comparative fit
index (CFI) (Beauducel & Wittmann, 2005).
These statistics were selected owing to consid-
erations of sample size, model size, and the
potential for non-normality in the data
(Hutchinson & Olmos, 1998).
Based on the CFA analysis, fit statistics for
model 1 are shown in Table 5, and suggested
that model 1 did not demonstrate good fit to the
data. Following the MG approach to SEM,
modifications were made to model 1 based on
low R2 values and large univariate Lagrange
multiplier test statistics that indicated high error
covariances and cross-loadings for some items,
which suggested that items 2 and 12 be removed
from model 1, resulting in model 2 that con-
sisted of 11 items. Analyses of fit statistics for
model 2 also did not demonstrate a good fit to
the data and item 18 was removed, based on the
aforementioned procedures for model 1. Spe-
cific item content for removed items 2, 12, and
18 are listed in the footnote of Table 5. Model
3s final 10-item two-factor structure demon-
strated good fit to the data, with approximate fit
statistics falling within acceptable ranges:
SRMR 0.041, RMSEA 0.075 (90% confi-
dence interval of 0.056 0.095), CFI 0.96,
and NNFI 0.95. Although the 2SB was statis-
tically significant, suggesting inexact fit, the
2SB/df ratio of 2.53 was 3. In addition, stan-
dardized and unstandardized parameter esti-
mates were all statistically significant and prac-
tically meaningful (see Table 6), suggesting
strong validity evidence for the internal struc-
ture of the SMUIS. A CFA conducted on the
alternate one-factor 13-item model produced in-
adequate fit, even after multiple model modifi-
cations, which retained only nine items (SRMR
0.051, RMSEA 0.102, CFI 0.94, and
NNFI 0.92, 2 127.284, and 2SB
102.951 [p .001]).
Convergent validity evidence was established
between the SMUIS and the Facebook Use In-
tensity Scale. Using the final 10-item two-
subscale SMUIS and the full data set (N 552
after listwise deletion), both subscales and total
mean scores demonstrated significant (p
.001) moderately large and positive correlations
with the Facebook Use Intensity Scales total
mean score (items standardized), and are dis-
played in Table 4 along with Cronbachs reli-
ability estimates calculated from the final
scales data, which fell within acceptable
ranges. In addition, the two original items as-
sessing behavioral frequency of social media
use (one and three) were significantly (p
.001) and positively correlated with the SMUIS
SIEC subscale (r .303 and r .198) and the

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for the Final 10-Item SMUIS and Other Measures
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean SD
1. SMUIS factor 1 .893 3.06 1.23
2. SMUIS factor 2 0.705 .828 4.39 1.10
3. SMUIS total 0.959 0.878 .914 3.59 1.09
4. Facebook use intensitya 0.697 0.750 0.772 .852 0.009 0.71
5. Conscientiousness 0.022 0.079 0.017 0.031 .737 3.70 0.55
6. Agreeableness 0.006 0.106 0.038 0.038 0.387 .759 4.01 0.54
Note. n 552 using listwise deletion. SMUIS Social Media Use Integration Scale, mean scores used to calculate
correlations; factor 1 social integration and emotional connection; factor 2 integration into social routines.
a
Items standardized before any calculations owing to differing item ranges.

p .01.
46 JENKINS-GUARNIERI, WRIGHT, AND JOHNSON

Table 5
Overall Model Fit Statistics for Two-Factor Baseline and Nested Models
Model 2 SB2 df 2 difference RMSEA SRMR CFISB NNFISB
1 240.110 213.290 64 0.101 0.055 0.91 0.90
2 141.301 124.858 43 98.432 0.084 0.047 0.94 0.93
3 97.892 86.335 34 43.409 0.075 0.041 0.96 0.95
Note. n 273. SB2 SatorraBentler scaled chi-square statistic; RMSEA root mean square error of approximation;
SRMR standardized root mean square residual; CFI comparative fit index; NNFI non-normed fit index. Model 1
included all 13 items; model 2 excluded items 2 (on average, how many days per week do you use Facebook) and 12 (I check
Facebook immediately when I am alerted of new activity on my account); model 3 excluded items 2, 12, and 18 (I share
many of my day to day activities through Facebook).

p .01.

SMUIS ISR subscale (r .368 and r .196).
From a conceptual point of view, it is unlikely
that individuals levels of conscientiousness
or agreeableness would determine their Face-
book use. Therefore, evidence of discriminant
validity was demonstrated using the BFI Con-
scientiousness and Agreeableness subscale
mean scores, given previous research suggest-
ing that they were not significantly related to
Facebook use (e.g., Ross et al., 2009). These
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness sub-
scales displayed nonsignificant correlations
with the SMUIS-SIEC subscale (p .611 and
p .883, respectively) and SMUIS-ISR sub-
scale (p .062 and p .013, respectively);
results are presented in Table 4. In consider-
ing the frequently published critical p values
of .05 and .01 (Thompson, 2000), we decided
to use a critical value of .01 to determine
significance to help provide very strong ev-
idence against the null (Royall, 1986, p. 313)
and to reduce type I errors with our larger
sample size.
Using data from the 95 participants who re-
took the final 10-item SMUIS 3 weeks after the
first administration, the testretest reliability es-
timate was r .804 for subscale 1s mean score
and r .676 for subscale 2s mean score; the
testretest correlation for the 10-item total mean
score was r .803 (p .001 for all correlation
statistics). Results from a multivariate analysis
of variance using all 616 participants investigat-
ing potential differences in the two subscale
mean scores for gender and ethnicity (aggre-
gated into white and nonwhite owing to the low
number of people of color) indicated no main
effects (based on Wilks criterion) due to gender
( .999, F(2, 544) 0.129, p .879, 2p

Table 6
Unstandardized and Standardized Coefficients for the Final 10-Item Model
Latent construct/ Standardized
Item subscale B SE R2 error variances
8 1 1 .785 .617 0.619
10 1 0.770 .702 0.067 .493 0.712
13 1 0.889 .756 0.067 .571 0.655
6 1 1.001 .811 0.065 .658 0.585
5 1 0.935 .743 0.062 .552 0.670
7 1 1.067 .784 0.066 .615 0.620
14 2 1 .789 .623 0.614
4 2 0.849 .787 0.060 .620 0.617
11 2 0.693 .695 0.065 .483 0.719
17 2 0.919 .741 0.064 .549 0.672
F1F2 1.147 .831 0.119
Note. n 273. All unstandardized parameter estimates and error variances statistically significant at p .05. Robust
statistics used with robust ML estimation method. Latent construct/subscale 1 Social Integration and Emotional
Connection; latent construct/subscale 2 Integration into Social Routines. Critical ratios (C.R.) can be calculated by
dividing unstandardized estimates by standard errors. C.R. 1.96 are significant at p .05.
 SOCIAL MEDIA USE INTEGRATION SCALE
.001) or ethnicity ( .995, F(2, 544) 1.419,
p .243, 2p .005); therefore, there were no
gender or ethnic differences in the SMUIS sub-
scale mean scores.
Discussion
Previous measurement instruments for social
media use in emerging adults have suffered
from a lack of detailed psychometric support
and validity evidence. Authors developing
scales of social media use have focused mainly
on behavioral frequency of use (e.g., Ross et al.,
2009), used inadequate measures such as single
items (e.g., Baker & Oswald, 2010), or failed to
present adequate psychometric and validity ev-
idence for data collected (e.g., Carpenter et al.,
2011; Ellison et al., 2007). Ellison and col-
leagues have also suggested that measures of
social media use should capture the integration
of its use into the daily lives and social behavior
of users, as well as the emotional connection a
user develops to the media rather than simply
frequency-of-use estimates. To address these
limitations, we developed a brief 10-item scale
of social media use integration called the
SMUIS.
Reliability and Validity Evidence for the
SMUIS
The SMUIS was designed to assess engaged
use of a variety of social media in emerging
adult populations. In its development, we fo-
cused on the social media site Facebook.com;
however, the SMUIS was designed to be
adapted to other forms of social media by re-
placing the word Facebook in the item state-
ments with the name of other social media ser-
vices. It was developed using rigorous scale
development methods (DeVellis, 2003), and
benefits from detailed information about the
scales psychometric properties. We conducted
an EFA followed by a CFA with a different
sample to establish validity evidence for the
instruments internal structure, and produced a
two-factor model with subscale 1 called SIEC
and subscale 2 called ISR (see Tables 2 and 3).
Scores from the 10-item two-subscale SMUIS
demonstrated adequate internal consistency es-
timates in this sample (0.914 for total scale
scores, 0.893 for subscale 1 scores, 0.828 for
subscale 2 scores), and strong testretest reli-
47
ability was established over a 3-week interval.
Validity evidence was demonstrated in a num-
ber of different ways. Significant positive cor-
relations were found between the SMUIS and
Facebook Use Intensity Scale, and nonsignifi-
cant correlations between the SMUIS and two
scales from the BFI provided evidence for con-
vergent and discriminant validity. In addition,
both subscales scores exhibited significant pos-
itive correlations with the two factual items
measuring minutes spent using the site and
number of Facebook friends, although at lower
levels than correlations with the Facebook Use
Intensity scale scores.
It is important to note that three items from
the original scale development item pool fo-
cused on more factual information about Face-
book use, such as number of average daily
minutes spent using the site and number of
Facebook friends. EFA analyses suggested that
these items were not strong measures of Face-
book use integration, and that they were weaker
than other items assessing the integration of
Facebook use into ones daily routines or emo-
tional attachment to this use. These results sug-
gested either that social media integration is a
separate construct from behavioral frequency of
use, or that behavioral measures may be weaker
means of operationalizing social media use and
its integration. It is likely that although the
quantity of social media use (frequency/
intensity) will vary depending on various fac-
tors in ones life, perceptions of social medias
importance in ones life and the emotional con-
nection one forms with it will be more stable
over time. This may be an important area of
study for future research. Finally, an analysis of
potential differences between the mean scores
for both subscales for different genders and
ethnicities suggested that no significant group
differences were evident in the data. Thus, the
present study developed a novel measurement
scale for assessing social media use integration,
with detailed psychometric data from a college
student sample, and preliminary validity evi-
dence for its use with this population and the
social media service Facebook.com.
Practical Implications
Similar to the original efforts of Ellison et al.
(2007), our results suggested that measuring
social media use should focus on the integration
48 JENKINS-GUARNIERI, WRIGHT, AND JOHNSON
of a site into ones social behavior and routines,
as well as the emotional connection users expe-
rience with their use. In the present study, items
reflecting this type of content were retained in
the final model, whereas items assessing the
more quantitative aspects of social media usage
were removed because they did not fit well in
the model. These results are also consistent with
research by Reich (2010) and Raacke (2008),
which suggested that emerging adults are in-
creasingly incorporating social media into their
daily lives and social behavior. As this level of
incorporation increases, it is not surprising that
items assessing integration and emotional con-
nection would be stronger indicators than be-
havioral frequency of use. Although previous
scales of Facebook use have been published
(e.g., Ross et al., 2009), currently no scales have
benefited from rigorous methods in their devel-
opment, detailed psychometric support, or
strong validity evidence. Our results support the
conclusions of Ellison et al. (2007), suggesting
that assessment of social media use would ben-
efit from a focus on the integration of media into
ones life and the emotional connection to this
integration, rather than behavioral frequency or
intensity of use. Thus, the SMUIS can be used
in research that calls for measuring social media
use integration in emerging adult populations.
Limitations and Directions for Future
Research
Given the underrepresentation of racially
and ethnically diverse students in this study,
these results may have limited generalizabil-
ity. However, the data collected with the
SMUIS did not exhibit gender or ethnicity
differences for the subscale or full-scale mean
scores. The sample used was nonrandom, and
composed of voluntary participants, which
may have produced significant selection bi-
ases. It is also possible that traits associated
with study participation may have influenced
the manner in which they responded to the
scale items and thus biased the results. Fur-
thermore, data were collected only from par-
ticipants who had a Facebook account, and
research on the use of our SMUIS scale with
other social media services is needed.
To establish evidence for the validity and
utility of any new scale, further research is
needed to confirm the strong psychometric
properties we have reported and to identify the
measures appropriateness with noncollege stu-
dent samples. Additional work is needed to
amass validity evidence, including support for
convergent, discriminant, and concurrent valid-
ity. In addition, given the prevalence of Face-
book and other social media in the United
States, further research must seek to determine
this scales appropriateness for use with other
populations of social media users. Although our
scale was developed focusing exclusively on
Facebook, it is intended to be flexible enough to
be adapted for use with other types of social
media. However, given our focus on Facebook
in development, more research is needed to
establish validity evidence when adapting the
SMUIS to other types of social media, such as
YouTube, Twitter, Vimeo, Flickr, and so forth.
Similarly, when using this new scale, future
researchers may want to examine the various
media platforms that are frequently used to ac-
cess social media (e.g., desktops, laptops,
phones, and tablets) to test for differences
among platforms.
Conclusions
Social media is becoming increasingly more
prominent in our lives. More and more individ-
uals, groups, and organizations are joining and
using social media networks as a primary means
for communication. Although previous research
has attempted to understand the impact of social
media and characteristics of its early users,
measurement issues and poor scale develop-
ment have hindered progress in this emerging
area of research. Social media use is often de-
fined and measured by looking at quantity
indicators focusing on behavioral frequency of
use and amount of interaction with social me-
dia. However, our results suggest that the quan-
tity of social media use is not as useful as
measuring how one integrates this use into
social routines as well as ones emotional con-
nection thereto. The SMUIS provides a brief
instrument with psychometric and validity evi-
dence that is adaptable to a variety of social
media. With the SMUIS, researchers and clini-
cians can better measure and operationalize so-
cial media use integration in research focusing
on emerging adults.
 SOCIAL MEDIA USE INTEGRATION SCALE
References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of
development from the late teens through the twen-
ties. American Psychologist, 55, 469 480. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Baker, L. R., & Oswald, D. L. (2010). Shyness and
online social networking services. Journal of So-
cial and Personal Relationships, 27, 873 889. doi:
10.1177/0265407510375261
Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simula-
tion study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with
slightly distorted simple structure. Structural
Equation Modeling, 12, 4175. doi:10.1207/
s15328007sem1201_3
Bentler, P. M., & Chih-Ping, C. (1987). Practical
issues in structural modeling. Sociological Meth-
ods & Research, 16, 78 117.(Retrieved from
EBSCOhost).
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network
sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210
230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Brown, J. (2006). Emerging adults in a media-
saturated world. In J. Arnett, & J. Tanner (Eds.),
Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the
21st century (pp. 279 299). New York: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11381-
012
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling
with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Carpenter, J. M., Green, M. C., & LaFlam, J. (2011).
People or profiles: Individual differences in online
social networking use. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 538 541.
Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011).
Online social networks: Why do students use Fa-
cebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
13371343.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Ziga, H. G.
(2010). Who interacts on the web? The intersection
of users personality and social media use. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 26, 247253. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory
and application (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007).
The benefits of Facebook friends: social capital
and college students use of online social network
sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion, 12, 11431168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101
.2007.00367.x
Grasmuck, S., Martin, J., & Zhao, S. (2009). Ethno-
racial identity displays on Facebook. Journal of
49
Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 158
188. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01498.x
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (Retrieved from
www.csa.com)
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for
fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 155. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Hutchinson, S. R., & Olmos, A. (1998). Behavior of
descriptive fit indexes in confirmatory factor anal-
ysis using ordered categorical data. Structural
Equation Modeling, 5, 344 364. doi:10.1080/
10705519809540111
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling:
Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90 98. doi:
10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008).
Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait tax-
onomy: History, measurement, and conceptual is-
sues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology: The-
ory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114 158). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Jreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation
models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),
Testing structural equation models (pp. 294 316).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The
relationship between Facebook and the well- being
of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychol-
ogy, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 183
189. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0061
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of struc-
tural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford Press. (Retrieved from www.csa.com)
Kujath, C. L. (2011). Facebook and MySpace: Com-
plement or substitute for face-to-face interaction?
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Network-
ing, 14, 7578. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0311
Kwon, O., & Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of
the factors affecting social network service use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 254 263. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.011
Litt, D. M., & Stock, M. L. (2011). Adolescent alco-
hol-related risk cognitions: The roles of social
norms and social networking sites. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 25, 708 713. doi:10.1037/
a0024226
Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., &
Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gen-
der on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmen-
tal Psychology, 29, 446 458. doi:10.1016/j
.appdev.2008.07.001
50 JENKINS-GUARNIERI, WRIGHT, AND JOHNSON
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005).
Minimum sample size recommendations for con-
ducting factor analyses. International Journal of
Testing, 5, 159 168. doi:10.1207/
s15327574ijt0502_4
Ong, E. Y. L., Ang, R. P., Ho, J. C. M., Lim, J. C. Y.,
Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., & Chua, A. Y. K. (2011).
Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents self-
presentation on Facebook. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 50, 180 185. doi:10.1016/j
.paid.2010.09.022
Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G.,
Arseneault, J. M., & Orr, R. R. (2009). The influ-
ence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an
undergraduate sample. CyberPsychology & Be-
havior, 12, 337340. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0214
Peluchette, J., & Karl, K. (2010). Examining stu-
dents intended image on Facebook: What were
they thinking?! Journal of Education for Busi-
ness, 85, 30 37. doi:10.1080/08832320903217606
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L.
(2009). College students social networking expe-
riences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Develop-
mental Psychology, 30, 227238. doi:10.1016/j
.appdev.2008.12.010
Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying
the uses and gratifications theory to exploring
friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Be-
havior, 11, 169 174. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0056
Reich, S. M. (2010). Adolescents sense of commu-
nity on MySpace and Facebook: A mixed- meth-
ods approach. Journal of Community Psychology,
38, 688 705. doi:10.1002/jcop.20389
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M.,
Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personal-
ity and motivations associated with Facebook use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 578 586. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
Royall, R. M. (1986). The effect of sample size on
the meaning of significance tests. The American
Statistician, 40, 313315.
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook?
An investigation into the relationship between the
big five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Face-
book usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
1658 1664. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling correc-
tions for chi-square statistics in covariance struc-
ture analysis. Proceedings of the Economics and
Statistics Section, 308 313. Alexandria, VA:
American Statistical Association
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008).
Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social
network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434 445.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., &
Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social net-
works: Use of social networking sites by emerging
adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 29, 420 433. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07
.003
SurveyMonkey. (2011). SurveyMonkeyAbout us.
Retrieved from http://www.surveymonkey.com/
AboutUs.aspx
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using
multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Al-
lyn & Bacon/Pearson Education. (Retrieved from
www.csa.com)
Thayer, S. E., & Ray, S. (2006). Online communica-
tion preferences across age, gender, and duration
of Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9,
432 440. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.432
Thompson, B. (2000). AERA editorial policies re-
garding statistical significance testing: Three sug-
gested reforms. Educational Researcher, 25(2),
26 30.
Underwood, J. D. M., Kerlin, L., & Farrington-Flint,
L. (2011). The lies we tell and what they say about
us: Using behavioural characteristics to explain
Facebook activity. Computers in Human Behavior,
27, 16211626. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.01.012
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is
there social capital in a social network site? Face-
book use and college students life satisfaction,
trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 14, 875901. doi:
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide
to structural equation modeling. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 719 751. doi:10.1177/
0011000006286345
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010).
Psychological predictors of young adults use of
social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behav-
ior, and Social Networking, 13, 173177. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2009.0094
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale
development research: A content analysis and rec-
ommendations for best practices. The Counseling
Psychologist, 34, 806 838. doi:10.1177/
0011000006288127
Zickurh, K. (2010). Generations online in 2010. Re-
trieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project
website http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1831/
generations-online-2010.
Received December 14, 2011
Revision received August 6, 2012
Accepted August 29, 2012