Optimistic bias and facebook use: Self-other discrepancies about potential risks and benefits of facebook use

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 214-220

  Kim, Sunny Jung ^a   Hancock, Jeffrey T ^b  

^a DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Cornell University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE; BULLYING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INTERNET; MALE; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL NETWORK; STATISTICAL BIAS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BULLYING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; PERCEPTION; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL NETWORKING; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84928028183     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0656     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society 2011; 13:873-892.
2. Gonzales AL, Hancock JT. Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2011; 14:79-83.
3. Ko HC, Kuo FY. Can blogging enhance subjective wellbeing through self-disclosure? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2009; 12:75-79.
4. Nabi RL, Prestin A, So J. Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2013; 16:721-727.
5. Wright KB, Rosenberg J, Egbert N, et al. Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: A model of facebook and face-to-face support network influence. Journal of Health Communnication 2013; 18:41-57.
6. Chou H-TG, Edge N. ? ?They are happier and having better lives than I am'': The impact of using facebook on perceptions of others' lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 201 2; 15:117-121.
7. Chen W, Lee KH. Sharing, liking, commenting, and distressed? The pathway between Facebook interaction and psychological distress. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 201 3; 16:728-734.
8. Muise A, Christofides E, Desmarais S. More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the greeneyed monster of jealousy? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networkin g 2009; 12:441-444.
9. Clayton RB Nagurney A Smith JR. Cheating breakup, and divorce: Is Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2013 16 717-720.
10. Clayton RB. The third wheel: The impact of Twitter use on relationship infidelity and divorce. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2014; 17:425-430.
11. O'Keeffe GS, Clarke-Pearson K. The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics 2011; 127:800-804.
12. Selkie EM, Kota R, Chan YF, et al. Cyberbullying, depression, and problem alcohol use in female college students: A multisite study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2015; 18:79-86.
13. Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1980; 39:806-820.
14. Chapin J, De las Alas S, Coleman G. Optimistic bias among potential perpetrators and victims of youth violence. Adolescence 2005; 40:749-760.
15. Cho H, Lee J-S, Chung S. Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: Testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior 2010; 26:987-995.
16. Zhao X, Cai X. The role of risk, efficacy, and anxiety in smokers' cancer information seeking. Health Communication 2009; 24:259-269.
17. Fishbein M, Yzer MC. Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory 2003; 13:164-183.
18. Chambers JR, Windschitl PD. Biases in social comparative judgments: The role of nonmotivated factors in aboveaverage and comparativ e-optimism effects. Psychological Bulletin 2004; 130:813-838.
19. Helweg-Larsen M, Shepperd JA. Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature. Personality & Social Psychology Review 2001; 5:74-95.
20. Gunther AC, Mundy P. Biased optimism and the thirdperson effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 1993; 70:58-67.
21. Lench HC, Ditto PH. Automatic optimism: Biased use of base rate information for positive and negative events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2008; 44:631-639.
22. Moreno Ma, Jelenchick La, Egan KG, et al. Feeling bad on Facebook: Depression disclosures by college students on a social networking site. Depression & Anxiety 2011; 28:447-455.
23. Toma CL, Hancock JT. Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 2013; 39:321-331.
24. Harris PR, Griffin DW, Murray S. Testing the limits of optimistic bias: Event and person moderators in a multilevel framework. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 2008; 95:1225-1237.
25. Chapin J, Coleman G. Optimistic bias: What you think, what you know, or whom you know? North American Journal of Psychology 2009; 11:121-132.
26. Pahl S, Eiser JR. The focus effect and self-positivity in ratings of self-other similarity and difference. British Journal of Social Psychology 2006; 45:107-116.
27. Klein CTF, Helweg-Larsen M. Perceived control and the optimistic bias: A meta-analytic review. Psychology & Health 2002; 17:437-446.
28. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ. Changing inaccurate perceptions of health risk: Results from a randomized trial. Health Psychology 1995; 14:56-63.
29. Rothman AJ, Klein WM, Weinstein ND. Absolute and relative biases in estimations of personal risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1996; 26:1213-1236.
30. Perloff RM. The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis Media Psychology 1999 1 353-378.
31. Zhao X, Cai X. From self-enhancement to supporting censorship: The third-person effect process in the case of internet pornography. Mass C ommunication & Society 2008; 11:437-462.
32. Rojas H, Shah DV, Faber RJ. For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 1996; 8:163-186.
33. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Ps ychology 1986; 51:1173-1182.
34. Preacher K, Hayes A. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 2004; 36:717-731.
35. Jelenchick LA, Eickhoff JC, Moreno MA. Facebook depression? Social networking site use and depression in older adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 2013; 52:128-130.
36. Weinstein ND, Klein WM. Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychology 1995; 14:132-140.
37. Bevan JL, Cummings MB, Kubiniec A, et al. How are important life events disclosed on facebook? Relationships with likelihood of sharing and privacy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2015; 18:8-12.
38. Lee CC, Chiou WB. Keep logging in! Experimental evidence showing the relation of affiliation needs to the idea of online social networking. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2 013; 16:419-422.
39. Metcalfe J. Cognitive optimism: Self-deception or memorybased processing heuristics? Personality & Social Psychology Review 1998; 2:100-110.
40. Stieger S, Burger C, Bohn M, et al. Who commits virtual identity suicide? Differences in privacy concerns, Internet addiction, and personality between Facebook users and quitters. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2013; 16: 629-634.
41. Basil MD, Brown WJ, Bocarnea MC. Differences in univariate values versus multivariate relationships. Human Communication Research 2002; 28:501-514.