Journalof
P. Sheldon
Media©Psychology
: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
2008 Hogrefe
2008;
& Vol.
Huber
20(2):67–75
Publishers
The Relationship Between
Unwillingness-to-Communicate
and Students’ Facebook Use
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Pavica Sheldon
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Abstract. A survey with 172 students was conducted at a large southern research university to examine how unwillingness-to-communicate in interpersonal communication influences gratifications sought and gratifications obtained from Facebook use. The study investigated the relationship between two dimensions of unwillingness-to-communicate (approach-avoidance and reward) and different motives of Facebook use. In addition, it examined the relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and the behavioral and attitudinal
outcomes of Facebook use (e.g., the number of hours spent on Facebook, duration of use, the number of Facebook friends, satisfaction
with Facebook). Results of multiple regression analysis revealed that respondents who felt anxiety and fears in their face-to-face communication used Facebook to pass time and feel less lonely more than other respondents, but they had fewer Facebook friends. Overall,
this paper finds evidence that people who are involved in online relationships are those who are willing to communicate in real life, rather
than the opposite. Such results seem to justify the rich-get-richer hypothesis, which states that the internet primarily benefits extraverted
individuals. Our results are in contrast to findings that socially anxious individuals are more likely to form relationships online.
Keywords: unwillingness-to-communicate, Facebook, online relationships, uses and gratifications
Introduction
Created in February 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard
undergraduate student, Facebook, with its 21 million registered users and 1.6 billion page views each day, is one of
the fastest growing social network sites (Needham & Company, 2007). At the most basic level, online social networks
are internet communities where individuals interact, often
through profiles that represent themselves to others. A recent survey showed that 93% of college students had a
Facebook account. Most of them used Facebook on a daily
basis, spending on average 47 minutes a day on the site
(Sheldon, in press).
Although much has been published about the risk of being addicted to, and spending too much time on, Facebook,
little is known about personal characteristics of people who
use the website. Past research (Papacharissi & Rubin,
2000) showed that internet users who avoided face-to-face
interaction, or found it less rewarding, chose the internet as
a functional alternative channel to fulfill interpersonal
needs. Studying online relationships and networking is thus
important not only because of their growing prevalence,
but also because they provide opportunities to test existing
theories of interpersonal and mediated communication in
virtual environments. Lea and Spears (1995) write that
scholars have “concentrated primarily on romance, friendship, and marriage among young, white, middle-class, heterosexual Westerners whose relationships are conducted in
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
the open . . .” (x), and there is much research to be done in
“electronic relationships.” As college students spend more
time online than previous generations, it is important to
know about the gratifications they seek and obtain from the
new media. Similarly, Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) suggested that with the widespread use of computer-mediated
communication (CMC), we need better understanding of
personal and social attributes that affect why people use
CMC and the outcomes of CMC-related behavior. CMC
“blurs” traditional boundaries between interpersonal and
mass communication offering new opportunities for the
way individuals relate to one another (Parks & Floyd,
1996). Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) used the unwillingness-to-communicate concept in their internet-use research. Unwillingness-to-communicate is “a chronic tendency to avoid and/or devalue oral communication and to
view the communication situation as relatively unrewarding” (Burgoon, 1976, p. 60). Papacharissi and Rubin (2000)
found that internet users who were socially anxious and
avoided face-to-face interaction chose the internet as a
functional alternative channel.
This study examines how the unwillingness-to-communicate in interpersonal communication influences gratifications sought and gratifications obtained from Facebook
use. The study investigates the relationship between two
dimensions of unwillingness-to-communicate (approachavoidance and reward; Burgoon, 1976) and different motives of Facebook use. In addition, it examines the relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and the beJournal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75
DOI 10.1027/1864-1105.20.2.67
68
P. Sheldon: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
havioral and attitudinal outcomes of Facebook use (the
number of hours spent on Facebook, duration of use, the
number of Facebook friends, the number of people never
met in person, the number of times logging into account,
and satisfaction with Facebook). We assume that willingness to communicate offline will in some way be related to
willingness to communicate online, but no assumptions are
made concerning the direction of this relationship. Hence,
the present study is primarily exploratory in nature. The
study is grounded in uses and gratification theory and its
extensions – rich-get-richer and social compensation hypotheses.
Uses and Gratifications Theory
Uses and gratifications theory takes into account that audiences differ in the gratifications they seek from the mass
media. The most frequently found needs and gratifications
have been classified as follows: diversion (escape from
problems, emotional release), personal relationship (social
utility of information in conversation, substitute of the media for companionship), personal identity (value reinforcement, self-understanding), and information (McQuail,
Blumler, & Brown, 1972).
These classifications, however, were developed for audiovisual media use and must be extended for internet use.
During the last 15 years, researchers have developed different motivational scales for internet use. Morris and Ogan
(1996) found that the internet fulfills interpersonal and mediated needs. Needs traditionally fulfilled by media are social interaction, passing time, habit, information, and entertainment (Flaherty, Pearce, & Rubin, 1998). Interpersonal
needs fulfilled by media are a feeling of being less lonely,
relationship maintenance, problem-solving, and persuasion
(Flanagin & Metzger, 2001). Other researchers (LaRose,
Mastro, & Eastin, 2001) found that the expectation of finding enjoyable activities online predicted the amount of consumption. Song, La Rose, Eastin, and Lin (2004) identified
virtual community as a “new” gratification that emphasized
communication with people met through the internet. In
contrast to this definition of virtual community, relationship maintenance focused on maintaining relationships
with existing acquaintances (Song et al., 2004).
Research suggests that the patterns and motives behind
online communication usage are, in part, a function of demographic and personality variables. Ward and Tracey
(2004) hypothesized that persons who become involved in
online relationships are those with difficulties in face-toface communication. Online, they can communicate with
others anonymously at their own pace. Online relationships
provide minimized social risk, as one does not have to meet
other participants face-to-face (Curtis, 1997). McKenna
(1998) also found that socially anxious individuals were
more likely to form relationships online. Yet other studies
found that anxiety and loneliness were not in fact indicators
of who is more likely to form an online relationship (BoneJournal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75
brake, 2002; McCown, Fisher, Page, & Homant, 2001; Peter, Valkenburg, & Schouten, 2005). These results suggest
that individuals who form online relationships tend to be
no less socially skilled than those who do not form online
relationships (McCown et al., 2001). Introversion resulted
in less frequent, rather than more frequent, online communication (Peter et al., 2005). However, the more time people
spend online communicating with one other person, the
more new relationships they are likely to form with other
persons as well (Bonebrake, 2002).
Rich-Get-Richer Hypothesis and
Unwillingness-to-Communicate
These results are indicative of two general, opposing hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the relationship between internet use and psychological well-being
(Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay et al.,
1998). The first, the rich-get-richer hypothesis, states that
the internet primarily benefits extraverted individuals
(Kraut, Kiesler, Boneva, Cummings, Helgeson et al.,
2002). The social compensation hypothesis, in contrast,
proposes that the internet benefits introverts more (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). Studies based on the social compensations hypothesis showed that the anonymity and reduced cues prevalent on the internet might stimulate online
self-disclosure, because there is no fear of being ridiculed
or rejected (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Marqulis, 1993;
Pennebaker, 1989). This may be particularly appealing to
introverts when trying to open up. Morahan-Martin and
Schumacher (2003) found that lonely people perceive the
anonymity of the internet as liberating. In fact, Papacharissi
and Rubin (2000) concluded that unwillingness-to-communicate, a measure closely associated with alienation, introversion, communication apprehension, and reticence
(Burgoon, 1976), led to greater use and reliance on internet
communication tools.
Unwillingness-to-Communicate
Burgoon (1976) created a two-dimensional scale to measure unwillingness-to-communicate: (a) approach-avoidance, and (b) reward. Approach-avoidance (UCS-AA)
identifies the “degree to which individuals feel anxiety and
fears about interpersonal encounters” (p. 63). Reward reflects the “degree to which people perceive that friends and
family do not seek them out for conversation and opinion,
and that interactions with others are manipulative and untruthful” (Burgoon & Hale, 1983, p. 240). Papacharissi and
Rubin (2000) used unwillingness-to-communicate in their
internet use research. They found that internet users who
were socially anxious and avoided face-to-face interaction
chose the internet as a functional alternative channel. Armstrong and Rubin (1989) found that radio callers were less
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
P. Sheldon: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
69
willing to communicate in face-to-face interaction and perceived face-to-face communication to be less rewarding.
Recently, Ma and Leung (2005) investigated the effects of
unwillingness-to-communicate on self-disclosure in ICQ
(“I seek you”) conversations. They found opposite results.
People who were less willing to communicate in real life
also tended to be less open in disclosing their opinions and
beliefs online. How (un)willingness to communicate in real
life relates to (un)willingness to communicate in social networking sites, however, has yet to be addressed.
networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, and MyYearbook to make new friends and stay close to old friends and
family. They are the “Look at Me” generation who post
personal profiles with photos online.
Previous research, however, has mostly been theory-free
and has not systematically considered motives underlying
media use as they have been studied in the context of, for
instance, the uses and gratifications approach. Taking this
previous research and especially the concept of unwillingness-to-communicate into account, our first research question asks:
Social Networks and Facebook
– RQ1: What are the motives for Facebook use and how
does unwillingness-to-communicate in a real life context
relate to different motives of Facebook use?
Social networks represent one of three types of cyber communities (besides chat systems, such as instant messaging,
and blogs; Coley, 2006). The main purpose of social networks is making new friendships or to maintain those that
already exist.
Online social networks encompass online dating sites,
as well as popular social networking websites like MySpace, Xanga, Live Journal, and Facebook. The difference
between chat rooms and social networking sites is that the
majority of communication in online social networks takes
place asynchronously and within the network of “friends”
that the user has established (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe,
2007). Social network sites can be oriented toward workrelated contexts (e.g., LinkedIn.com), romantic relationship initiation (e.g., Friendster.com), or connecting those
with shared interests, such as music or politics (e.g., MySpace.com).
The Pew Research Center (2007) found that the internet’s major benefit is in helping people tap into social networks. One of these networks is Facebook, an internet site
created in February 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard
undergraduate student. Facebook enables its users to present themselves in an online profile, accumulate “friends”
who can post comments on each other’s pages, and view
each other’s profiles. Facebook members can also join virtual groups based on common interests, see what classes
they have in common, and learn about others’ hobbies, interests, tastes, and romantic relationship statuses through
the profiles (Ellison et al., 2007).
Motives for Facebook Use
Coley (2006) says that most students use Facebook for fun,
to organize parties, and to find dates. They like the opportunity to find others with similar interests, students with
whom they are in class together, and with whom feel a
sense of community and connectedness. Another motive
for Facebook use is that students are already online, and
checking Facebook thus becomes a routine matter.
According to the Pew Research Center (2007), young
adults who have grown up with personal computers, cell
phones, and the internet (“Generation Next”) use social
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes of Facebook
Use
According to the uses and gratifications approach, a person’s social and psychological characteristics influence not
only motives for communicating (their gratifications
sought), but also gratifications obtained. While gratifications sought are measured as what the audience’s reasons
are for using Facebook, gratifications obtained are measured by determining what audiences feel they get out of
using Facebook. In this study, we measure Facebook use
as the amount of Facebook use and the duration of Facebook use (Rubin, 1993) as well as the frequency of updating the Facebook profile. We measured the number of
friends people have on Facebook and the percentage of
friends they have never met in person. As Palmgreen and
Rayburn (1985) suggested, this study measured users’ satisfaction with Facebook gratifications and how much they
would miss the site if it suddenly disappeared. Following
these previous studies, our second research question asks:
– RQ2: To what extent can unwillingness-to-communicate
predict behavioral and attitudinal outcomes of Facebook
use?
Method
Sample
To address these questions, we conducted a survey with
172 students at a large research university. The sample for
the survey consisted of students enrolled in two large, interpersonal communication classes. Of the sample surveyed, 93% (N = 160) of students had a Facebook account
and 7% (12) currently did not have the account. Of those
who had an account, 43% (n = 74) were men and 57% (n
= 98) were women. The average age of respondents was
20 (M = 19.92, SD = 1.23).
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75
70
P. Sheldon: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Measurement
We asked participants to complete the questionnaire on
their Facebook use. Participation was voluntary, and students received credit if they filled in the survey. Overall,
they spent approximately 5–7 min on the survey. Students
who never had a Facebook account and stopped answering
questions after the first elimination also received credit but
were excluded from further analysis.
The survey measured:
– Basic demographics
– Unwillingness-to-communicate (Burgoon, 1976)
– Gratifications of Facebook use: entertainment, escape,
passing time, coolness, relationship maintenance, social
interaction, virtual community, companionship
– Facebook use: the amount of use, duration of use, the
number of Facebook friends, the number of people never
met in person, the frequency of logging into one’s account, satisfaction with Facebook
Demographics
Respondents indicated whether they were male or female,
and were asked to give their age.
Unwillingness-to-Communicate
In this study, we used a 20-item unwillingness-to-communicate scale (Burgoon, 1976). Two dimensions, approachavoidance (UCS-AA) and reward (UCS-R), each contained
10 items. Items were measured with a 5-point Likert scale,
with 5 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree. We then
summed items into two scales. High scores implied that the
respondents were anxious or fearful about interpersonal encounters. The mean score of all the items for the UCS-AA
dimension was 2.52 (SD = .76, Cronbach’s α = .88), whereas the mean score for the UC-R dimension was 1.76 (SD =
.59, Cronbach’s α = .85).
Motives
A pool of gratification items was assembled from prior internet gratifications studies (Flaherty et al., 1998; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Flanagin & Metzger, 2001). However,
items were redefined so that they fit Facebook users’ needs
(e.g., “To post a message on my friend’s wall,” “To see
which of the people I know joined Facebook”). In the questionnaire, respondents were asked how much they use
Facebook for the given reasons. A 5-point Likert scale was
used in rating 38 gratifications items, ranging from “5” (exactly) to “1” (not at all). Factor analyses extracted factors
related to gratifications of the internet. The factor analysis
used a principal component solution and varimax rotation
and specified the retention of factors with eigenvalues
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75
greater than 1.0. This resulted in six factors that accounted
for 60% of the variance (Table 1).
Facebook Use and Attitudes
Facebook use was measured as the amount of Facebook use
and the duration of Facebook use (Rubin, 1993), as well as
the frequency of logging into one’s account and of updating
the Facebook profile. The measure of relationship development was the number of friends that respondents had on Facebook (and the percentage of friends they had never met in
person). Users’ satisfaction with Facebook gratifications was
assessed with a single item: “Overall, how satisfied are you
with the job that Facebook does in providing you with the
things you are seeking?” Response options ranged from extremely satisfied (5) to not at all satisfied (1).
Results
The goal of this study was to examine the motives for Facebook use and how motives relate to two dimensions of unwillingness-to-communicate, approach-avoidance, and reward. The study also investigated to what extent unwillingness-to-communicate could predict the behavioral and
attitudinal outcomes of Facebook use.
Students in this sample reported that, on average, they
spent 47 min a day on Facebook. The majority of students
(50%) changed their profile every few months. 19%
changed their profile every day, and another 19% changed
it one-to-three times per week. The majority of students had
between 200 and 350 Facebook friends.
RQ1: Unwillingness-to-Communicate and
Facebook Motives
The first research question asked for the motives of Facebook use and about the relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate in a real life context and various motives of Facebook use. Results of factor analysis yielded
six interpretable factors or motives for Facebook use (see
above and Table 1).
– Factor 1 was labeled Relationship Maintenance (eigenvalue = 10.73). It contained six items (e.g., “To send a
message to a friend,” “To post a message on my friend’s
wall”) and accounted for 31% of the total variance after
rotation. This factor depicted a use of Facebook to maintain relationships with existing acquaintances (Song et
al., 2004).
– Factor 2, Passing Time (eigenvalue = 3.94), contained four
items (e.g., “To occupy my time,” “To pass time when
bored”) and accounted for 11.2% of the total variance. In
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
P. Sheldon: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
71
Table 1. Motives for Facebook use: primary factor loadings
Loading
Eigenvalue
Variance
α
10.73
31
.90
3.94
11.2
.83
1.84
5.2
.80
1.62
4.6
.84
1.48
4.2
.76
1.41
4
.76
Factor 1: Relationship Maintenance
To send a message to a friend
.74
To post a message on my friend’s wall
.70
To communicate with my friends
.83
To stay in touch with friends
.78
Get in touch with people I know
.72
Get through to someone who is hard to reach
.58
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Factor 2: Passing Time
To pass time when bored
.67
It is one of the routine things I do when online
.61
To occupy my time
.74
To check my wall after I receive e-mail from Facebook
.74
Factor 3: Virtual Community
Develop a romantic relationship
.77
Find more interesting people than in real life
.70
Find companionship
.86
Meet new friends
.65
To feel less lonely
.52
Factor 4: Entertainment
To see other people’s pictures
.59
It is entertaining
.56
To read other people’s profiles
.67
To enjoy it
.61
To see which of the people I know who joined the Facebook
.62
Factor 5: Coolness
It makes me cool among my peers
.76
Have fun
.66
It is cool
.60
Factor 6: Companionship
To feel less lonely
.51
No one to talk or be with
.75
So I won’t be alone
Total variance explained = 60%
.83
a previous study, the motive has been found to be particularly salient to the internet (Flaherty et al., 1998).
– Factor 3, Virtual Community (eigenvalue = 1.83), consisted of five items (e.g., “To feel less lonely,” “To meet
new friends”) and explained 5.2% of the total variance.
This factor, as opposed to maintaining relationships with
existing acquaintances, emphasized communication
with people met through the internet. It was named “virtual community” following the terminology Song et al.
(2004) introduced
– Factor 4, Entertainment (eigenvalue = 1.62), consisted
of five items (e.g., “To read other people’s profiles,” “It
is entertaining”) and explained 4.6% of the total variance. However, the factor had a high mean score, suggesting that entertainment is a strong gratification sought
in Facebook use.
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
– Factor 5, Coolness (eigenvalue = 1.48), consisted of
three items (e.g., “It is cool,” “Have fun”) and explained
4.2% of the total variance. Like “Passing Time,” this
factor has also been found to be pertinent to internet use
in previous research. Charney and Greenberg (2001) introduced this terminology.
– Factor 6, Companionship (eigenvalue = 1.41), consisted
of three items (e.g., “To feel less lonely,” “No one to talk
or be with”), and explained 4% of the total variance. It
is connected with loneliness and regarded as mediated
interpersonal needs (Flanagin & Metzger, 2001).
Passing Time (M = 3.88, SD = 1.23) and Relationship
Maintenance (M = 3.64, SD = 1.24) factors had the highest
mean scores. Entertainment (M = 3.23, SD = 1.19) was also
a salient factor for using Facebook. Less important reasons
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75
72
P. Sheldon: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
Table 2. Internet Motives Scale
“I use the Facebook for the following reasons”
M
SD
To send a message to a friend
3.62
1.19
To post a message on my friend’s wall
3.61
1.31
To communicate with my friends
3.84
1.22
To stay in touch with friends
3.92
1.22
Get in touch with people I know
3.49
1.19
Get through to someone who is hard to reach
3.37
1.31
To pass time when bored
4.10
1.07
It is one of the routine things I do when online
4.04
1.24
To occupy my time
3.52
1.33
To check my wall after I receive an e-mail from
Facebook
3.85
1.29
Develop a romantic relationship
1.15
.51
Find more interesting people than in real life
1.22
.58
Find companionship
1.18
.49
Meet new friends
1.60
.87
To feel less lonely
1.30
.55
To see other people’s pictures
3.67
1.18
It is entertaining
3.58
1.21
To read other people’s profiles
3.05
1.24
To enjoy it
3.61
1.19
To see which of the people I know who joined
the Facebook
2.25
1.15
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Factor 1: Relationship Maintenance
Factor 2: Passing Time
Factor 3: Virtual community
Factor 4: Entertainment
Factor 5: Coolness
It makes me cool among my peers
1.52
1.12
Have fun
2.62
1.23
It is cool
2.22
1.22
To feel less lonely
1.28
.57
No one to talk or be with
1.50
.92
So I won’t be alone
1.26
.64
Factor 6: Companionship
were Coolness (M = 2.12, SD = 1.19), Companionship (M
= 1.35, SD = .78), and Virtual Community (M = 1.29, SD
= 0.6) (Table 2). The internal consistency of the factors,
assessed by Cronbach’s α, ranged from .75 to .90 and thus
can be considered satisfactory (Table 1).
Next, we looked at the relationship between motives for
Facebook use and the two dimensions of unwillingness-tocommunicate. Pearson product moment correlations were
computed. Results (Table 3) revealed a positive correlation
between UCS-AA and the passing time motive, and revealed a positive correlation between UCS-AA and going
on Facebook to feel less lonely. A positive association was
also found between UCS-reward and the companionship
motive, and a negative association was found between
UCS-AA and the virtual community motive. Overall, results thus show that respondents who were unwilling to
communicate offline tended to go to Facebook to pass time
when bored or to feel less lonely but not to meet new
friends.
When entered into six regression equations, one for each
motive, UCS-AA and UCS-reward were, in line with the
correlational results, significant predictors of three motives
for Facebook use. UCS-AA was the predictor of going on
Facebook to pass time when bored (B = .29, SE = .10, β =
.22, p < .01, R = .22, R² = .05, F(1, 161) = 8.12) and to feel
less lonely (B = .20, SE = .10, β = .16, p < .05, R = .25, R²
= .06, F(2, 160) = 10.94). UCS-reward was the significant
predictor of going on Facebook to feel less lonely (B = .43,
SE = .13, β = .26, p < .001). Results thus reveal that students
who were anxious about face-to-face communication went
to Facebook to pass time or to not be alone, but were less
likely to expect to meet new people.
RQ2: Unwillingness-to-Communicate and
Facebook Attitudes and Behaviors
The second research question asked to what extent unwillingness-to-communicate can predict behavioral and attitudinal outcomes of Facebook use. Results revealed a negative correlation between UCS-AA and the number of Facebook friends, r(172) = –.23, p < . 01, suggesting that those
who were fearful of interpersonal encounters tended to
have fewer Facebook friends. A positive but weak correlation existed between UCS-reward and the frequency of logging into the Facebook account, r(172) = .19, p < .05, indicating that respondents who found interpersonal communication to be less rewarding logged on to the Facebook
Table 3. Correlations for unwillingness-to-communicate and Facebook motives
Relationship maintenance
Passing time
Virtual community Entertainment
Coolness
Companionship
.13
.25*
Students (n = 172)
UCS – AA
–.05
.22*
–.03
–.03
UCS – R
–.12
.12
–.16*
–.06
.09
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level, one-tailed; **correlation is significant at the .01 level, one-tailed.
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75
.31**
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
P. Sheldon: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
73
Table 4. Correlations for unwillingness-to-communicate and Facebook attitudes and behaviors
Subscale
No. hours on Facebook
No. of loggings
No. of Facebook friends
No. of strangers
Changing profile
Satisfaction
.05
.05
.09
Students (n = 172)
UCS-AA
–.07
.01
–.23**
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
UCS – R
–.13
.19*
–.12
.12
.04
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level, one-tailed; **correlation is significant at the .01 level, one-tailed.
account more often. Unwillingness-to-communicate in real
life did not correlate with the number of hours students
spent on Facebook, the number of strangers they had
amongst their friends, or how satisfied they were with the
site. These results were again supported by stepwise multiple regression analysis; results revealed UCS-AA as being a predictor of the number of Facebook friends respondents had (B = –.37, SE = .12, β = –.23, p < .01, F(1, 169)
= 9.34, R = .23, R² = .05). UCS-reward was the predictor
of the frequency of logging into Facebook accounts (B =
.39, SE = .15, β = .20, p < .01, F(1, 169) = 6.84, R = .20,
R² = .04).
In addition to the research question posed in this study,
results revealed a positive correlation between the number
of hours spent on Facebook and the number of Facebook
friends, r(172) = .22, p < .01. Students who spent more time
on Facebook tended to have more Facebook friends (Table
4).
Discussion
Because little is known about the characteristics of people
who use Facebook, we administered a survey with 172 students to examine how unwillingness-to-communicate in
real life influences gratifications sought and gratifications
obtained from Facebook use. Of the sample surveyed, 93%
of students had a Facebook account and 7% did not have
the account. Students in this sample reported that, on average, they spent 47 min a day on Facebook. Overall, 81% of
students logged into Facebook on a daily basis. The majority of students had between 200 and 350 Facebook friends.
The largest proportion of students go to Facebook to
maintain relationships with people they know, for instance,
by sending a message to a friend, posting a message on their
friend’s wall, staying in touch with them, or getting in touch
with someone who is difficult to reach. A larger proportion
of students go to Facebook to pass time when bored or after
they receive an e-mail notifying them of a wall posting. A
significant number of students use Facebook for entertainment reasons. A smaller number of people use it to develop
new relationships or to meet new people. This supports
what Tewksbury and Althaus (2000) suggested: that entertainment and passing time – gratifications typically associated with television and newspaper use – prove to be significant predictors of using Facebook, an internet social
network website. Generally, the findings of this study are
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
–.02
also consistent with findings of Flaherty et al. (1998) that
people use computers to satisfy needs traditionally fulfilled
by media (i.e., pass time, habit, information, and entertainment). It supported LaRose et al. (2001) in that the expectation of finding enjoyable activities online predicted the
amount of consumption.
Next, results indicate that respondents who feel anxiety
and fears in their face-to-face communication use Facebook more to pass time and to feel less lonely than other
respondents. However, those individuals tend to have fewer Facebook friends rather than more. These findings are
inconsistent with McKenna’s (1998) study, which found
that socially anxious individuals are more likely to form
relationships online. In our case, the types of people who
are involved in online relationships tend to be those who
are willing to communicate in real life rather than the opposite. These individuals also have more Facebook friends
and initiate new relationships online more than do individuals who view face-to-face communication as relatively rewarding. Hence, our results also differ from the findings by
Ward and Tracey (2004) and Wolak, Mitchell, and Finkelhor (2003), who suggest that people involved in online relationships are those with difficulties in face-to-face communication.
Our results seem to justify the rich-get-richer hypothesis, which states that the internet primarily benefits extraverted individuals (Kraut et al., 2002), and that introverts
communicate online less often (Peter et al., 2005; Bonebrake, 2002).
Although the results reveal that persons unsatisfied with
their face-to-face interactions tend to have fewer Facebook
friends, those individuals log into Facebook more often
than others. One of the explanations may be that they do
not self-disclose on Facebook enough to form new relationships, although they visit the site more often. As we know,
self-disclosure is central to relationship development, and
Ma and Leung (2005) found that people who are less willing to communicate in real life also tend to be less open
online. Future studies should investigate to what extent respondents disclose on Facebook.
In our study, less satisfaction with face-to-face communication does not significantly correlate with the number
of hours students spend on Facebook, the number of strangers students have among their friends, or how satisfied they
are with the site. This is opposite to what Papacharissi and
Rubin (2000) found, that users who feel more valued by
their friends and family and score lower on an unwillingness-to-communicate scale feel more satisfied with the inJournal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
74
P. Sheldon: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
ternet. This is an interesting finding and, once again, it suggests that reasons for Facebook use may be more similar to
reasons for face-to-face communication rather than for mediated communication.
This study has several limitations. First, we used a convenient student sample of students enrolled in interpersonal
communication classes. This increases the chance that students may be more willing to communicate face to face
and, thus, score lower on unwillingness-to-communicate
than other samples. The use of a convenience sample also
limits the generality of the findings. The relationship between unwillingness to communicate and Facebook use is
interpreted based upon previous studies that investigated
similar or parallel constructs (e.g., the relationship between
loneliness and internet use, and between introversion and
internet use). Second, we cannot establish the causal relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and Facebook use. Finally, most correlation coefficients indicate only weak relationships between unwillingness-to-communicate and Facebook use.
Future studies should include other personal predictors
for Facebook use, such as locus of control, and should test
for relationships between self-disclosure and relationship
development on Facebook. Studies should be conducted
using other theoretical approaches, such as the social penetration theory. As Facebook has a great influence on college students and other adults around the world, more multi-method studies are needed to explain how and why Facebook is used, who uses it and other social networking sites,
and, finally, what the consequences are of spending hours
on the site. A structural equation model, with motives as
endogenous and unwillingness-to-communicate dimensions as exogenous constructs, can be tested for significance of relationships between the two.
As it is, we have learned that college students use Facebook in the same way they use interpersonal communication, primarily to maintain their relationships or pass time
when bored. There is no evidence that students who are
unwilling-to-communicate offline would develop more relationships online. Rather, it seems that the rich-get-richer
hypothesis holds true.
References
Armstrong, C.B., & Rubin, A.M. (1989). Talk radio as interpersonal communication. Journal of Communication, 39, 84–94.
Bonebrake, K. (2002). College students’ internet use, relationship
formation, and personality correlates. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5, 551–557.
Burgoon, J.K. (1976). The unwillingness to communicate scale:
Development and validation. Communication Monographs,
43, 60–69.
Burgoon, J.K., & Hale, J.L. (1983). A research note on the dimensions of communication reticence. Communication Quarterly,
31, 238–248.
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75
Charney, T., & Greenberg, B. (2001). Uses and gratifications of
the internet. In C. Lin & D. Atkin (Eds.), Communication,
technology and society: New media adoption and uses and
gratifications (pp. 383–406). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Coley, T. (2006). Students and cyber communities. University of
South Carolina.
Curtis, P. (1997). Mudding: Social phenomena in text-based
virtual realities. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the internet
(pp. 121–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Derlega, V.L., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Marqulis, S.T. (1993).
Self-disclosure. London: Sage.
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
Communication, 12, 1143–1168.
Flaherty, L.M., Pearce, K., & Rubin, R.B. (1998). Internet and
face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives.
Communication Quarterly, 46, 250–268.
Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M.J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153–181.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V.,
& Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of
Social Issues, 58, 49–74.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social
technology that reduces social involvement and psychological
well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031.
LaRose, R., Mastro, D., & Eastin, M.S. (2001). Understanding
internet usage: A social-cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 395–414.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In J.T. Wood &
S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten
track (pp. 197–233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ma, M.L., & Leung, L. (2005). Unwillingness-to-communicate,
perceptions of the internet and self-disclosure in ICQ. Telematics and Informatics, 23, 22–37.
McCown, J.A., Fischer, D., Page, R., Homant, M. (2001). Internet
relationships: People who meet people. CyberPsychology and
Behavior, 4, 593–596.
McKenna, K.Y.A. (1998). The computers that bind: Relationship
formation on the internet. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Ohio University.
McKenna, K., & Bargh, J. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The
implications of the internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 57–75.
McQuail, D., Blumler, J.G., & Brown, J.R. (1972). The television
audience: Revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology
of mass communications (pp. 135–165). Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin.
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2003). Loneliness and social
uses of the internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 659–671.
Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996). The internet as mass medium.
Journal of Communication, 46, 39–50.
Needham & Company (2007). Needham Capital Partners. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://www.needhamcapital.com
Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J.D., II. (1985). A comparison of gratification models of media satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 52, 334–346.
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
P. Sheldon: Unwillingness-to-Communicate
Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. (2000). Predictors of internet use.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 75–196.
Parks, M.R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace.
Journal of Communication, 46, 80–97.
Pennebaker, J.W. (1989). Confession, inhibition, and disease. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 221–244). New York: Academic Press.
Peter, J., Valkenburg, P.M., & Schouten, A.P. (2005). Developing
a model of adolescent friendship formation on the internet. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8, 423–430.
The Pew Research Center for the People & The Press (January 9,
2007). How young people view their lives, futures and politics.
Retrieved January 16, 2007, from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/
278/a-portrait-of-generation-next.
Rubin, A.M. (1993). The effect of locus of control on communication motivation, anxiety, and satisfaction. Communication
Quarterly, 41, 161–171.
Song, I., LaRose, R., Eastin, M.S., & Lin, C.A. (2004). Internet
gratifications and internet addiction: On the uses and abuses
of new media. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 384–393.
Sheldon, P. (in press). Student favorite: Facebook & motives for
its use. Southwestern Journal of Mass Communication.
Tewksbury, D., & Althaus, S.L. (2000). An examination of motivations for using the World Wide Web. Communication Research Reports, 17, 127–138.
Ward, C.C., & Tracey, T.J.G. (2004). Relation of shyness with
aspects of online relationship involvement. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 21, 611–623.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K.J., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or
connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online
relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 105–119.
75
Pavica Sheldon is a doctoral
student at Louisiana State University (LSU) in Baton Rouge,
LA, USA. Originally from
Croatia, Pavica received a Masters in mass communication at
LSU in May 2006 and is now
working toward a PhD in the
Department of Communication
Studies. Her research interests
include media psychology, social networking, uses and gratifications, and intercultural communication.
Pavica Sheldon
Department of Communication Studies
Louisiana State University
136 Coates Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
USA
Tel. +1 225 573 5342
Fax +1 225 578 4828
E-mail pjuric1@lsu.edu
Date of acceptance: 14 November, 2007
© 2008 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Journal of Media Psychology 2008; Vol. 20(2):67–75