CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 14, Number 6, 2011

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0374

The Facebook Paths to Happiness: Effects of the Number

of Facebook Friends and Self-Presentation
on Subjective Well-Being

Junghyun Kim, Ph.D.,1 and Jong-Eun Roselyn Lee, Ph.D.2

Abstract

The current study investigates whether and how Facebook increases college-age users’ subjective well-being by
focusing on the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation strategies (positive vs. honest). A structural
equation modeling analysis of cross-sectional survey data of college student Facebook users (N ¼ 391) revealed
that the number of Facebook friends had a positive association with subjective well-being, but this association
was not mediated by perceived social support. Additionally, we found that there was a negative curvilinear
(inverted U-shape curve) relationship between Facebook friends and perceived social support. As for self-
presentation strategies, whereas positive self-presentation had a direct effect on subjective well-being, honest
self-presentation had a significant indirect effect on subjective well-being through perceived social support. Our
study suggests that the number of Facebook friends and positive self-presentation may enhance users’ subjective
well-being, but this portion of happiness may not be grounded in perceived social support. On the other hand,
honest self-presentation may enhance happiness rooted in social support provided by Facebook friends. Im-
plications of our findings are discussed in light of affirmation of self-worth, time and effort required for building
and maintaining friendships, and the important role played by self-disclosure in signaling one’s need for social
support.

Introduction perceived social support using data collected from college-

age Facebook users.

S ince its debut in 2004, Facebook has achieved re-

markable growth as one of the world’s leading social
networking sites (SNSs). Among the 500 million active users
of Facebook,1 college-age users (between 18 and 25 years old)
constitute the biggest age group, accounting for approxima-
tely 30% of the total user population.2 It has been reported that
college-age users dedicate approximately 28 minutes per day
to Facebook, integrating it closely into their everyday lives.3
Although motivations behind Facebook use may vary,
Facebook could not have achieved the popularity it currently
enjoys had it not been able to provide users with some
pleasure or psychological benefits. Documenting the benefi-
cial effects of Facebook on young users’ lives, several studies
have found a positive association between Facebook use and
life satisfaction (e.g., Ellison et al.4 and Valenzuela et al.5).
However, how Facebook use contributes to psychological
well-being has yet to be understood. To address this ques-
tion, we investigate the effects of Facebook friends and self-
presentation on subjective well-being (SWB) and the role of
Our research extends past studies on the relationship be-
tween Facebook use and SWB in the following ways. First,
unlike past studies that included the number of Facebook
friends as part of the index of Facebook use (e.g., Ellison et al.4
and Valenzuela et al.5), we investigated its independent
contribution. Second, we examined the possible mediating
role of perceived social support. A survey study on Dutch
adolescents’ SNS use found that positive feedback from SNS
friends enhanced self-reported SWB, suggesting that social
support provided by SNS friends may mediate SNS use and
psychological well-being.6 We test this possibility in the con-
text of college students’ use of Facebook. Finally, we inves-
tigated the effects of different self-presentation strategies on
SWB, which has been relatively understudied in the context
of Facebook. SNSs are defined as websites that not only dis-
play visually articulated lists of one’s social connections, but
also provide technological features (e.g., public profiles)
through which users can present themselves to others.7
Facebook in particular offers ample opportunities for its users

1
School of Communication Studies, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
2
Department of Communication, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.

359
360
to engage in self-presentation through profile construc-
tion, status updates, photo album management, message-
posting, and so on.8,9 In doing these self-presentation activi-
ties, some users may be more inclined to present themselves
in a selective manner, highlighting the ‘‘favorable and ap-
propriate images’’ of themselves;10(p2540) by contrast, others
may prefer to present themselves in a true-to-self manner,
engaging in deeper levels of self-disclosure. We examined
how these self-presentation strategies affect perceived social
support and SWB.
Number of Facebook friends, subjective well-being,
and social support
Defined as ‘‘a subset of peers who engage in mutual
companionship, support, and intimacy,’’11(p320) friends are an
important source of emotional and practical support12 and
are thereby considered a key element of happiness.13 In the
world of Facebook, however, it does not take much effort to
become ‘‘friends’’ with other Facebook users; once formed,
the ‘‘friendship’’ does not require strong attachment or close
connections.14 Nonetheless, the number of Facebook friends
may have positive effects on SWB. With Facebook visualizing
and displaying the ‘‘friends’’ connections, a large number of
Facebook friends could remind users of their social connec-
tions and boost their self-esteem,15 which could, in turn, en-
hance their SWB levels. Thus:
H1: There will be a positive association between the number
of Facebook friends and SWB.
An open question is whether the hypothesized positive
association between the number of Facebook friends and
SWB is mediated by perceived social support. Considering
that social support is an important source of happiness,13 it is
possible that social support provided by one’s Facebook
friends may also have a positive contribution to the user’s
SWB. However, it is unclear whether increases in the number
of Facebook friends will lead to increases in Facebook-based
social support. One possibility is that the more Facebook
friends one has, the more social support one is likely to re-
ceive from these friends on aggregate, which will in turn
make the user happier. However, it is also possible that Fa-
cebook friends, not as much being based on close attachment
and mutual connections as actual friends are, may not serve
as a substantial source of support; in this case, perceived so-
cial support will not be a significant mediator between the
number of Facebook friends and SWB. To test these two
possibilities, we ask:
RQ1: Does perceived social support mediate the relationship
between the number of Facebook friends and SWB?
Another possibility is that a non-linear relationship may
exist between the number of Facebook friends and social
support. With too few Facebook friends, users will receive
social support to a very limited extent. Having too many Fa-
cebook friends, on the other hand, will not necessarily increase
social support one can receive, for most of the ‘‘friendships’’
may be superficial at best. It takes much time and effort to
build and maintain mutual companionship with friends. Gi-
ven that the average number of close offline friends is only
nine,16 it is not surprising that Facebook users maintain close
KIM AND LEE
connections with less than 3% of their Facebook friends.17 It is
likely that the larger one’s Facebook network becomes, the less
time and effort can be invested in each individual.
It is also possible that a user with a large number of Fa-
cebook friends might have mindlessly expanded his/her
friends’ network without making any serious effort toward
making the relationships grow. Particularly in the case of
Facebook users with an extremely large number of Facebook
friends, many of these ‘‘friends’’ may be no more than a large
group of passive spectators for the content displayed on one’s
Facebook profile page.12 Research on the effects of Facebook
friends on social judgment also provides a ground for our
hypothesis. Tong et al.18 found that Facebook users with too
few friends or too many friends are perceived more nega-
tively than are those with ‘‘optimally large number of
friends.’’18(p545) Such negative perception may drive potential
supporters away from the extreme ‘‘friends-rich’’ and
‘‘friends-poor.’’ Therefore, the number of Facebook friends
may have a positive association with social support only up
to a certain point and possibly a negative association beyond
that.
H2: Number of Facebook friends will have a negative curvi-
linear relationship (i.e., inverted U-shape curve) with per-
ceived social support.
Positive versus honest self-presentation, perceived
social support, and subjective well-being
As an SNS, Facebook enables users to communicate with
other users through their profiles, private messaging, and
commenting.7 These modes of communication, which are
asynchronous and editable, allow people to engage in self-
presentation in a selective manner.10,19,20 At the same time,
because Facebook is inherently bound to users’ offline rela-
tionships,7 self-presentation on Facebook tends to be more
constrained than that in anonymous online environments
where there are almost no restrictions on how one presents
him/herself to others.19
Given the technological affordances and social constraints
co-present in Facebook, self-presentation may take different
forms depending on what aspects of the self are selected and
highlighted. The literature on impression management in
CMC (e.g., Tidwell and Walther20 and Kimmerle and Cress21)
and on self-presentation in online dating22 points to two types
of self-presentation strategies relevant to Facebook: positive
versus honest self-presentation. On one hand, the high
visibility of one’s behavior that can easily be identified by
others may lead a Facebook user to engage in positive self-
presentation,21 selectively revealing, ‘‘highly socially desir-
able’’ images of his/herself.19(p1830) On the other hand, as
research on self-presentation in online dating settings has
demonstrated, users anticipating long-term relationships
with their Facebook friends may choose to present them-
selves honestly without selectively putting their best face
forward.22,23 How, then, will these two self-presentation
strategies affect Facebook users’ SWB? We hypothesize that
while both positive and honest self-presentation may have
beneficial effects on Facebook users’ SWB, the mechanisms
behind these effects will differ.
Some scholars note that positive self-presentation in face-
to-face interactions can bring affective benefits and put
FACEBOOK FRIENDS, SELF-PRESENTATION, AND HAPPINESS
people in a positive mood, as perceiving oneself in a positive
state or focusing on one’s positive aspect may serve as a
psychological buffer against negative life events.24 More
specific to the context of SNS use, Toma25 suggests that
Facebook users can emotionally benefit from self-affirmation,
that is, a psychological process through which one acquires a
buffer against information or events that are threatening to
the self,26,27 through self-enhancing construction of user
profiles. Along this line of reasoning, we hypothesize:
H3: Positive self-presentation will have a positive association
with one’s SWB.
We also predict that honest self-presentation will have
beneficial effects on SWB, but the mechanism might be dif-
ferent from that of positive self-presentation: the effect of
honest self-presentation on SWB will be mediated by per-
ceived social support. Research has demonstrated that blog-
gers who engage in deeper levels of self-disclosure (i.e.,
writing about their thoughts and feelings and sharing them
with others openly and honestly) are more likely to receive
social support and thereby experience higher levels of SWB.28
The positive association between self-disclosure via SNSs and
SWB has also been found in a study conducted in South
Korea.29 We speculate that honest self-presentation, which
involves unfiltered self-disclosure, will play a key role in
signaling Facebook users’ need for support to Facebook
friends. Hence, honest self-presentation will increase the
likelihood of receiving support, which will ultimately en-
hance Facebook users’ SWB. Thus:
H4: Honest self-presentation will have a positive indirect ef-
fect on SWB mediated by perceived social support.
Figure 1 shows our hypothesized path model.
Method
Participants and procedure
Recruitment messages, along with a hyperlink to the sur-
vey questionnaire, were e-mailed to undergraduate students
registered with a participant pool at a large Midwestern
university. Out of the 400 registrants who received the e-mail
invitation, 391 students with a Facebook account participated
Positive
self-presentation
Number of friends
Perceived Subjective
social support well-being
Quadratic term of
number of friends
Honest
self-presentation
FIG. 1. Hypothesized path model.
361
in the survey for extra course credit (28.1% males, 71.9%
females; Mage ¼ 19.57, SDage ¼ 2.88).
Measures
Number of Facebook friends (M ¼ 428.62, SD ¼ 240.53) was
measured by asking how many people were listed as
‘‘friends’’ in participants’ Facebook profiles. To increase the
accuracy of responses, this question specifically asked par-
ticipants to open another web browser to log into their Fa-
cebook accounts and report the exact number of Facebook
friends as shown in their profile pages.
Positive self-presentation (M ¼ 3.99, SD ¼ 0.98) was mea-
sured by a newly created index of six items designed to assess
the extent to which participants selectively show positive
aspects of themselves through Facebook (e.g., ‘‘I post photos
that only show the happy side of me’’; ‘‘I avoid writing about
negative things that happen to me when I update my status’’).
Participants rated their agreement to these statements on a 7-
point Likert scale, where 1 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and
7 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’. This index was reliable (Cronbach’s
a ¼ 0.72).
Honest self-presentation (M ¼ 4.20, SD ¼ 1.29) was measured
by a newly created index of four items designed to assess the
extent to which participants honestly share their thoughts,
feelings, and life events through Facebook (e.g., ‘‘I freely re-
veal negative emotions I feel—for example, sadness, anxiety,
or anger’’; ‘‘I don’t mind writing about bad things that hap-
pen to me when I update my status’’). Participants rated their
agreement on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 ¼ ‘‘strongly
disagree’’ and 7 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’. This index was very re-
liable (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.86).
Perceived social support (M ¼ 3.81, SD ¼ 0.68) was measured
by a seven-item index. These items, adapted from the Inter-
personal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) scale,30,31 were re-
worded to specifically reflect the contexts of Facebook use
(e.g., ‘‘Remembering my birthday and leaving Happy Birth-
day messages for me’’; ‘‘Providing help with solving my
problems’’; ‘‘Congratulating me on my accomplishments’’).
Participants rated the availability of social support on a 5-
point Likert scale, where 1 ¼ ‘‘not available at all’’ and
5 ¼ ‘‘extensively available’’. This index was very reliable
(Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.86).
Subjective well-being (SWB: M ¼ 5.28, SD ¼ 1.17) was mea-
sured by the four-item Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)32
based on a 7-point Likert scale (e.g., ‘‘In general, I consider
myself: 1 ‘‘Not a very happy person’’ vs. 7 ‘‘A very happy
person’’). This index was reliable (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.86).
Results
We used AMOS 6.033 to conduct a structural equation
modeling analysis of the hypothesized path model (Figure 1).
In evaluating the goodness of fit of the path model, CFI and
NFI >0.95 indicate a good fit,34,35 while a RMSEA value <0.06
indicates a good fit.36,37 The curvilinear relationship between
the number of Facebook friends and perceived social support
(H2) was reflected in the model by inserting a squared term of
the number of Facebook friends.36 When a linear term and a
squared term are included in the same path model, multi-
collinearity between these two variables is very high and
should be addressed. To resolve the multicollinearity issue,
Lance’s procedure38 was used. First, a quadratic term—the
362
observed product variable—was created by squaring the
number of Facebook friends. This variable was regressed on
its component variable (i.e., the number of Facebook friends).
Then, the unstandardized regression weights produced from
the regression analysis was used for deriving the predicted
number of the quadratic term. These predicted product scores
were then subtracted from the observed product scores. The
final results were residualized product scores that should be
perfectly uncorrelated with the number of Facebook friends.
Using these residual scores addressed the multicollinearity
problem.36 For significance testing of direct and indirect ef-
fects, which cannot be done in AMOS, we used the SPSS
macro program developed and updated by Preacher and
Hayes.39
The hypothesized model showed a good fit with the data:
w2 (5) ¼ 5.05, p ¼ 0.41, NFI ¼ 1.00, CFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.005.
Supporting H1, the number of Facebook friends and SWB
showed a significant positive association (b ¼ 0.13, p < 0.05).
When we further tested whether perceived social support
was a mediator (RQ1) between the number of Facebook
friends and SWB, the path from the number of Facebook
friends and perceived social support was not significant
(b ¼ 0.06, p ¼ 0.24); the significance testing analysis further
showed that the indirect effect was not significant (b ¼ 0.0001,
z ¼ 1.28, p ¼ 0.20), indicating that perceived social support
was not a significant mediator. Rather, we found that the
quadratic term of number of Facebook friends had a signifi-
cant negative association with perceived social support
(b ¼ 0.13, p < 0.01), supporting H2, which predicted an in-
verted U-shaped relationship between the two variables.
As for self-presentation strategies, positive self-presenta-
tion showed a positive association with SWB (b ¼ 0.12,
p < 0.05), supporting H3. Honest self-presentation, on the
other hand, showed a significant positive indirect effect on
SWB (b ¼ 0.06, p < 0.01) through perceived social support.
The significance testing results showed that while the indirect
effect was significant (b ¼ 0.05, z ¼ 3.28, p < 0.01), the direct
effect between honest self-presentation and SWB was not
significant (b ¼ 0.07, t ¼ 1.61, p ¼ 0.11), which indicated a
complete mediation by perceived social support; therefore,
the data supported H4. Figure 2 shows the results of the path
model analysis.
Positive
self-presentation
.13
.07
Number of friends
.06
06
Perceived
-.45 social support
-.13
.07
Quadratic term of
number of friends
.25
.00
Honest
self-presentation
FIG. 2. SEM results of the hypothesized path model.
KIM AND LEE
Discussion
Summary of findings and implications
Our study revealed that the number of Facebook friends
and self-presentation had positive associations with SWB but
the underlying mechanisms varied with respect to the role of
perceived social support provided by Facebook friends. First,
perceived social support did not mediate the positive asso-
ciation between the number of Facebook friends and SWB.
From this, we could infer that happiness derived from the
number of Facebook friends may be due to visualization of
Facebook friends, which reminds the users of their social
connections, and to subsequent affirmation or enhancement
of self-worth.15
Interestingly, we found a negative curvilinear association
(i.e., an inverted U-shape curve relationship) between the
number of Facebook friends and perceived social support.
Friendship ‘‘takes the form of various commitments centered
around a personalized interest in the other person, along with
time, energy, and other personal resources expended in their
interaction.’’40(p198) Facebook friendships, just as traditional
friendships, may serve as a meaningful source of social sup-
port, but only up to the point in which Facebook users can
devote a sufficient amount of time and effort to developing
and maintaining close connections with friends.
In relation to self-presentation issues, from the direct posi-
tive effect of positive self-presentation on SWB, we could infer
that Facebook users’ happiness would be enhanced when
their positive self-images are better preserved and affirmed
through self-presentation. This finding could also be ex-
plained by positive illusion theory.41,42 The theory posits that
biased or aggrandized perceptions of the self can help people
cope with self-threatening or stressful situations41 and pro-
mote the ability to feel happy.42 It is possible that the act of
positive self-presentation may closely reflect people’s ten-
dency to hold positive beliefs about themselves, from which
the psychological benefits of self-enhancement are derived.43
By contrast, honest self-presentation had an indirect posi-
tive effect on SWB mediated by perceived social support. This
result highlights the importance of self-disclosure, which
plays a key role in development of social relationships in
online environments.44 Facebook friends are more likely to
provide support when they know that the user is in need for
support; only when such need is properly communicated
through self-disclosure facilitated by honest self-presentation
are users likely to receive support from Facebook friends,
which could be beneficial to their SWB.45 While hiding be-
hind a smiling Facebook mask, one may still ‘‘feel’’ happy;
such happiness, however, may not be rooted in meaningful
.12
social support provided by Facebook friends.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
.22 Subjective
well-being Our study has several limitations. First, our use of cross-
sectional data could limit validating the causal relationships
.08
proposed by the path model. Future studies should use lon-
-.03 gitudinal data for more rigorous examination of causal rela-
tionships. Second, although self-report SWB measures are
widely used and considered adequate,46 these measures, as
with other self-report measures, may be subject to errors or
biases caused by response artifacts such as social desir-
ability.47 Social desirability, a tendency to present one’s most
FACEBOOK FRIENDS, SELF-PRESENTATION, AND HAPPINESS
favorable image possible to others,48 may pose a particular
challenge to understanding the relationship between self-
presentation and SWB. Because respondents with a strong
social-desirability bias can also have a high need for positive
self-presentation, it is possible that the positive association
between positive self-presentation and SWB is partly due to
social desirability as a response style.47 Findings of the ex-
isting research on the relationship between social desirability
and SWB are not consistent: while some scholars have found
that social desirability accounts for a significant amount of
variance in SWB (e.g., Carstensen and Cone49), others have
not supported such a pattern (e.g., Diener46 and McCrae50).
That said, future research should investigate the extent to
which positive self-presentation involves the social desir-
ability bias, and should attempt to rule out such a bias when
assessing the relationship between positive self-presentation
and SWB. Lastly, the investigation should be extended to
non-college-age samples. Facebook in its earlier phase pri-
marily served college student populations, limiting its
membership to those with valid college e-mail accounts.7
Since September 2006 when Facebook opened its member-
ship to the general public, the number of younger and older
age users has increased dramatically.51 Given this trend, it
will be important to investigate how non-college-age users’
Facebook use behaviors are similar to, or different from, those
of college-age users in relation to their SWB levels.
Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Zuckerberg M. (2010) 500 million stories. The Facebook blog.
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post ¼ 409753352130
(accessed July 25, 2010).
2. Inside Facebook. (2010) December data on Facebook’s US
growth by age and gender: Beyond 100 million. www
.insidefacebook.com/2010/01/04/december-data-on-face-
book%E2%80%99s-us-growth-by-age-and-gender-beyond-
100-million/ (accessed June 1, 2010).
3. Pempek TA, Yermolayeva YA, Calvert SL. College students’
social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Ap-
plied Developmental Psychology 2009; 30:227–38.
4. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook
‘‘friends’’: Social capital and college students’ use of online
social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-
munication 2007; 12:1143–68.
5. Valenzuela S, Park N, Kee K. Is there social capital in a social
network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satis-
faction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 2009; 14:875–901.
6. Valkenburg P, Peter J, Schouten A. Friend networking
sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and
social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2006; 9:
584–90.
7. Ellison NB, Boyd D. Social network sites: Definition, history,
and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu-
nication 2007; 13:210–30.
8. Grasmuck S, Martin J, Zhao S. Ethno-racial identity displays
on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion 2009; 15:158–88.
9. Strano MM. User descriptions and interpretations of self-
presentation through Facebook profile images. CyberPsy-
363
chology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace
2008; 2:article 1.
10. Walther JB. Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated
communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology,
language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior
2007; 23:2538–57.
11. Santrock J. (1987) Adolescence: An introduction. Dubuque, IA:
Brown.
12. Boyd D. Friends, friendsters, and myspace top 8: Writing
community into being on social network sites. First Monday
2006; 11.
13. Myers DG. The funds, friends, and faith of happy people.
American Psychologist 2000; 55:56–67.
14. Boogart V. (2006) Uncovering the social impacts of Facebook
on a college campus. Unpublished master’s thesis, http://krex
.k-state.edu/dspace/handle/2097/181 (accessed May 2, 2010).
15. Gonzales A, Hancock JT. Mirror, mirror on my Facebook
wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cy-
berPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2010; in
press 10.1089/cyber.2009.0411.
16. Carroll J. (2004) Americans satisfied with number of friends,
closeness of friendships. Gallup. www.gallup.com/poll/
10891/americans-satisfied-number-friends-closeness-friend-
ships.aspx?version¼print (accessed June 1, 2010).
17. Marlow C. (2009) Maintained relationships on Facebook.
http://overstated.net/2009/03/09/maintained-relationships-
on-facebook (accessed April 10, 2000).
18. Tong ST, Van Der Heide B, Langwell L, et al. Too much of a
good thing? The relationship between number of friends and
interpersonal impressions on Facebook. Journal of Compu-
ter-Mediated Communication 2008; 13:531–49.
19. Zhao S, Grasmuck S, Martin J. Identity construction on Fa-
cebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships.
Computers in Human Behavior 2008; 24:1816–36.
20. Tidwell L, Walther J. Computer-mediated communication
effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evalu-
ations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human
Communication Research 2002; 28:317–48.
21. Kimmerle J, Cress U. Group awareness and self-presentation
in computer-supported information exchange. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
2008; 3:85–97.
22. Gibbs J, Ellison N, Heino R. Self-presentation in online
personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-
disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Com-
munication Research 2006; 33:152.
23. Ellison NB, Heino R, Gibbs J. Managing impressions online:
Self-presentation processes in the online dating environ-
ment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2006;
11:415–41.
24. Dunn E, Biesanz J, Human L, et al. Misunderstanding the
affective consequences of everyday social interactions: The
hidden benefits of putting one’s best face forward. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology 2007; 92:990–1005.
25. Toma C. (2010) Affirming the self through online profiles:
Beneficial effects of social networking sites. Proceedings of
the 28th international conference on Human factors in
computing systems, Atlanta, GA.
26. Steele CM. (1988) The psychology of self-affirmation: Sus-
taining the integrity of the self. In Berkowitz L, ed. Advances
in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press, pp. 261–302.
27. Sherman DK, Cohen GL. Accepting threatening informa-
tion: Self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive
364
biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2002;
11:119–23.
28. Ko H, Kuo F. Can blogging enhance subjective well-being
through self-disclosure? CyberPsychology & Behavior 2009;
12:75–9.
29. Lee G, Lee J, Kwon S. Use of social-networking sites and
subjective well-being: A study in South Korea. CyberPsy-
chology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2010; in press
10.1089/cyber.2009.0382.
30. Cohen S, Mermelstein R, Kamarck T, et al. (1985) Measur-
ing the functional components of social support. In Sarason
I, Sarason B, eds. Social support: Theory, research and appli-
cations. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martines Niijhoff,
pp. 73–94.
31. Cohen S, Hoberman HM. Positive events and social sup-
ports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 2006; 13:99–125.
32. Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. A measure of subjective hap-
piness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. So-
cial Indicators Research 1999; 46:137–55.
33. Arbuckle JL. (2005) Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS
Inc.
34. Bentler P. Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin 1990; 107:238–46.
35. Bollen K. Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two
types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin 1990;
107:256–9.
36. Kline R. (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
37. MacCallum-Stewart. Real boys carry girly epics: Normal-
ising gender bending in online games. Eludamos 2008; 2:
27–40.
38. Lance C. Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory
moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path
models containing interactions. Applied Psychological
Measurement 1988; 12:163–75.
39. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strate-
gies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multi-
ple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 2008; 40:
879–91.
40. Wright PH. Toward a theory of friendship based on a con-
ception of self. Human Communication Research 1978;
4:196–207.
KIM AND LEE
41. Taylor S, Armor D. Positive illusions and coping with ad-
versity. Journal of Personality 1996; 64:873–98.
42. Taylor S, Brown J. Illusion and well-being: A social psy-
chological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bul-
letin 1988; 103:193–210.
43. Robins R, Beer J. Positive illusions about the self: Short-term
benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology 2001; 80:340–52.
44. Joinson A. Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communi-
cation: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity.
European Journal of Social Psychology 2001; 31:177–92.
45. Greene K, Derlega V, Mathews A. (2006) Self-disclosure in
personal relationships. In Vangelisti AL, Perlman D, eds.
Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 409–28.
46. Diener E. Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and
opportunities. Citation Classics from Social Indicators Re-
search 2005: 421–75.
47. Diener E, Sandvik E, Pavot W, et al. Response artifacts in the
measurement of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Re-
search 1991; 24:35–56.
48. Edwards A. (1957) The social desirability variable in personality
assessment and research. New York: Dryden.
49. Carstensen L, Cone J. Social desirability and the measure-
ment of psychological well-being in elderly persons. Journal
of Gerontology 1983; 38:713–15.
50. McCrae R. Well-being scales do not measure social desir-
ability. Journal of Gerontology 1986; 41:390–2.
51. Smith J. (2009) Fastest growing demographic on Facebook:
Women over 55. www.insidefacebook.com/2009/02/02/
fastest-growing-demographic-on-facebook-women-over-55/
(accessed April 30, 2010).
Address correspondence to:
Junghyun Kim, Ph.D.
School of Communication Studies
Kent State University
149 Taylor Hall
P.O. Box 5190
Kent, OH 44242
E-mail: jkim23@kent.edu