IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 1

THIS IT A PRE-PRINT VERSION THAT WAS ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION. THIS IS

NOT THE FINAL COPY-EDITED VERSION.
FOR FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION SEE:
Zell, A. L., & Moeller, L. (2017). Are you happy for me… on Facebook? The potential
importance of “likes” and comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 26-33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.050

Are You Happy for Me… on Facebook?

The Potential Importance of “Likes” and Comments

Anne L. Zell and Lisa Moeller

Augustana University

Author Note
Anne L. Zell, Department of Psychology, Augustana University; Lisa Moeller,
Watertown, SD.
This research was supported by grants from Augustana University’s Civitas program and
Augustana Research and Artist Fund.
Address correspondence concerning this article to Anne Zell, Department of Psychology,
Augustana University, 2001 S. Summit Ave, Sioux Falls, SD 57197. Email: anne.zell@augie.edu

Keywords: Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts (PRCA) scale; Facebook;

paralinguistic digital affordances; social support; subjective well-being; social networking (SNS)

Acknowledgements:
Thank you to Chris Schatsneider for generously sharing his time and statistical expertise.
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 2

Abstract: Sharing positive personal news—known as capitalization—with an enthusiastic listener

in personal interactions has been associated with positive outcomes (Gable & Reis, 2010). We

sought to extend this capitalization model to an online context involving masspersonal

communication (O’Sullivan & Carr, 2017). We surveyed participants (n = 311) about their

Facebook status updates from the previous two weeks. As hypothesized, participants perceived

as more positive and important and recalled better their status updates that had received more

responses. Receiving more likes and comments on one's status updates was also associated with

reporting greater happiness and self-esteem, greater satisfaction with the responses one's status

updates received, and perceiving one's Facebook community to be more interested in one's good

news. The present findings point to the potential importance of the likes and comments people

receive on their Facebook status updates.

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 3

Are You Happy for Me… on Facebook?

The Potential Importance of “Likes” and Comments

1. Introduction

Capitalization refers to the “social sharing of positive events” (Gable & Reis, 2010, p.

198). According to Gable and Reis’s (2010) model of capitalization processes, sharing news of

the positive events in one’s life increases subjective well-being (e.g., Lambert et al., 2013) and

fosters relational intimacy (MacGregor, Fitzsimons, & Holmes, 2013; Otto, Laurenceau, Siegel,

& Belcher, 2015). The model additionally states that the benefits of sharing one’s positive news

with others stem at least partly from the audience’s response, specifically how constructive vs.

destructive and active vs. passive it is (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). As Gable and Reis

(2010, p. 213) put it, “capitalization attempts create an opportunity for the partner to demonstrate

responsiveness to the self”. Consistent with this model, research has found that sharing positive

events with an enthusiastic audience compared to with a disinterested or negative audience

produced a greater increase in positive mood (Lambert et al., 2013; Gable et al., 2004) and

intimacy (Otto et al., 2015).

Initially, research on capitalization focused on face-to-face interactions. However,

interacting with others online using social networking sites is widespread, and the quality of

these online relationships seems potentially important, as feeling supported by one’s Facebook

community has been associated with greater subjective well-being (Grieve et al., 2013; Lee, Noh

& Koo, 2013). People post status updates containing positive news often in hopes of receiving

validation from others as a way of seeking support on Facebook (Blight, Jagiello, & Ruppel,

2015). Status updates posted on one’s Facebook wall are masspersonal communications
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 4

(O’Sullivan & Carr, 2017), as they are made available for any and all in one’s social network to

see rather than being transmitted directly and privately to a specific individual. Would

masspersonal capitalization attempts on Facebook yield the same positive effects as personal

capitalization attempts have been found to produce? Choi and Toma’s (2014) finding that

sharing positive events on Facebook was associated with experiencing greater positive affect

implies that they might. Going a step further, the present study focuses on the effect of the

responses people receive to their Facebook status updates in general. We propose that receiving

more (vs. fewer) “likes” and comments on one’s Facebook status updates is associated with

positive outcomes, detailed below in section 1.1 and subsections. To our knowledge, this is the

first study to apply capitalization theory (Gable et al., 2004; Gable & Reis, 2010) to an online

context such as Facebook.

1.1. Possible Benefits of Receiving Responses (i.e., Likes and Comments) to Facebook

Status Updates

How might sharing news with an enthusiastic audience on Facebook lead to positive

outcomes? Gable and Reis’s (2010) model, drawing upon Langston’s (1994) hypotheses,

proposes that capitalizing increases subjective well-being in part because it makes the personal

event seem more significant and increases its memorability and because it gives the audience an

opportunity to exhibit care and supportiveness. Applying this model to Facebook requires that

we first consider differences between offline and online contexts: Whereas Gable and Reis’s

(2010) model assumed that the capitalization attempt would be directed toward an individual, in

the case of Facebook status updates the target of communication is a group. Thus, the present

investigation looks at the perceived responsiveness of a group, not of an individual. Furthermore,

responses to status updates posted on Facebook will be affected by Facebook’s affordances:

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 5

people who wished to respond to a status update could post comments or employ a one-click

communication in the form of the thumbs-up “like” button. Facebook displays the total number

of comments and the total number of likes that each status update has received. With those

differences in mind, we generated specific hypotheses about how the capitalization processes

observed in personal interactions play out on Facebook walls.

1.1.1. Perceptions of one’s own news. The capitalization model states that telling a

supportive person about a positive personal event causes one to value that event more highly and

perceive it as more significant (Gable & Reis, 2010; Langston, 1994). Consistent with the model,

Reis et al. (2010) found that sharing news of a positive event with an enthusiastically responsive

(vs. passive) person face-to-face caused people to view their personal event even more

positively, perhaps because the audience’s excitement confirmed the event’s significance.

Generalizing this to an online context, we speculated that participants would value their

Facebook status update more highly the more responses that particular update had received.

Thus, we hypothesized that receiving more responses to a status update would be associated with

perceiving the update as more positive and more important.

1.1.2. Recall of one’s own news. The capitalization model also states that, because

capitalization conversations typically entail rehearsing and vividly describing the event, they

increase the memorability of that shared event. The increased memorability, in turn, helps to

explain capitalization’s positive effect on subjective well-being: Positive events may have a

greater impact if they are remembered than if they are forgotten. Supporting this line of the

capitalization processes model, Gable et al. (2004) found that people were more likely to

remember a positive personal event later the more people they had told about it, even while

accounting for the rated importance of the event.

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 6

We reasoned that this enhanced memory for more frequently shared positive events could

also occur on Facebook where receiving more responses on a status update might be partially

analogous to telling more people face-to-face. The feature on Facebook that gives “notifications”

each time someone responds to one’s status updates may additionally prompt people to look at or

think about their posts again. Therefore we hypothesized that participants will be more likely to

remember their own status update the more responses it had received. Following the practice in

prior capitalization research, we planned to control for the rated importance of the update in

order to minimize the influence of this confound.

1.1.3. Subjective well-being. Subjective well-being, although multifaceted, refers

broadly to how positively people evaluate and feel about their lives (e.g., Diener et al., 2017). As

predicted by the capitalization processes model, capitalization has been found to be associated

with higher subjective well-being (measured by positive affect and life satisfaction), particularly

when the target responded an in active-constructive way (Gable et al., 2004; Gable et al., 2008).

We hypothesized that on Facebook as well, people will experience higher subjective well-being

when the target of their communication (which in this case would be their group of Facebook

friends) is responsive.

In the present study, we were also interested in a construct closely tied to subjective well-

being: self-esteem. As predicted by sociometer theory, perceiving oneself to be popular leads to

higher self-esteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Reitz, Motti-Stefanidi, & Asendorpf, 2016). On

Facebook, information about one’s popularity is available via the open display of the number of

respondents on status updates. In prior research, perceiving that many people are reading one’s

status updates (Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield, 2012) and the number of responses received to

one’s last three status updates (marginally; Greitemeyer, Mugge, & Bollermann, 2014) have
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 7

been linked with higher self-esteem. Being assigned to receive no response to one’s status

updates (Tobin, Vanman, Verreynne, & Saeri, 2015) or to view the profile of someone else who

had received a great deal of response (Vogel, Rose, Robert, & Eckles, 2014) have been found to

lower self-esteem. On this basis, we predicted that receiving more responses to one’s status

updates on Facebook will be associated with greater subjective well-being, operationalized as

self-reported happiness and self-esteem.

1.1.4. Perceptions of one’s Facebook community. Supporting the capitalization

processes model (Reis & Gable, 2010), enthusiastic responses to face-to-face capitalization

attempts have been found to increase intimacy (Otto et al., 2015). Do similar processes operate

on Facebook? The small amount of existing research examining whether receiving responses to

status updates is linked to positive interpersonal outcomes has thus far yielded inconsistent

results: On one hand, Utz (2015) found that the likes and comments people received on their

Facebook status updates did not predict feeling connected to those reading their status updates.

Große Deters and Mehl (2012) found that, although being assigned to post more on Facebook

reduced loneliness, this reduction in loneliness was not attributable to the proportion of status

updates that had received a response. On the other hand, Burke and Kraut (2014) found that

receiving comments, messages, and wall posts from someone predicted increases in feelings of

closeness to that person. Furthermore, Stavrositu and Sundar (2012) found that receiving more

(vs. fewer) comments led bloggers to report a stronger sense of community. Our hypothesis was

that likes and comments—the more the better!—received on one’s status updates convey the

message that other people are interested and are happy that one has positive news. Therefore,

we wanted to examine those perceptions specifically.

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 8

The Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts (PRCA) scale was developed by

Gable et al. (2004) to measure perceptions that one’s close friend or romantic partner typically

responds with excitement rather than passivity, disinterest, or negativity to one’s news about

positive personal events. It assesses perceptions of responses that vary along two dimensions:

active/passive and constructive/destructive. Active-Constructive responses show high levels of

interest and excitement. Passive-Constructive responses are also positive but lack enthusiasm.

Passive-Destructive responses convey lack of attention, interest, or caring. Active-Destructive

responses criticize or undercut the good news. Gable et al. (2004) subtracted the mean of the

Passive-Constructive, Passive-Destructive, and Active-Destructive subscale scores from the

Active-Constructive subscale score, and they found this resulting composite PRCA score to be

associated with relationship satisfaction, trust, and intimacy.

Further validating the PRCA, Gable, Gonzaga, and Strachman (2006) report that

participants who responded to their partner’s good news in a highly active and constructive way,

as rated by coders viewing videotapes of the interaction, were also rated more highly on the

PRCA by their partners. Thus, they found that objectively observed behaviors such as

“elaboration of positives, linking to other positive events, smiling, laughing” (p. 908), gestures,

and speech in face-to-face interactions correlated with ratings on the PRCA.

We wanted to use the PRCA in a novel way, to measure the perceived responsiveness of

participants’ Facebook communities—hence, measuring the perceived responsiveness of a group

of people rather than an individual, and online rather than face-to-face. We hypothesized that

objectively observable behaviors—in this case, likes and comments on status updates—would be

positively associated with perceptions that one’s Facebook community is typically interested in

and excited about one’s good news, as measured by a modified version of the PRCA. In turn, we
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 9

expected perceptions that one’s Facebook community is interested in and excited about one’s

good news to be associated with greater subjective well-being, consistent with prior research on

the PRCA (Demir & Davidson, 2013; Gable et al., 2004).

1.1.5. Response types. Which are more important, comments or likes? In face-to-face

interactions, positive responses to capitalization attempts have been found to be more beneficial

if they are active than if they are passive (e.g., Reis et al., 2010). On Facebook, writing

comments takes more activity and effort than “clicking like” does. So if Facebook interactions

are similar to face-to-face interactions, we might expect comments, not likes, to correlate with

positive outcomes. Comments (compared to likes) might also prompt more elaboration, which

Gable et al. (2004) theorized is partly responsible for capitalization’s positive effects. Consistent

with this line of thinking, Burke and Kraut (2014, 2016) found that only “composed”

communications (defined as wall posts, messages, and comments), not “one-click”

communications (defined as likes and pokes), predicted positive outcomes.

On the other hand, Facebook interactions differ from face-to-face interactions in

potentially significant ways. When sharing good news with someone face-to-face, one can

usually tell if that person has received the message, and if so, a response is socially expected. By

contrast, when sharing one’s good news on Facebook, lack of response from a particular

individual could stem from that person having not seen the post, or having disapproved of the

post, or having approved of the post but preferring to “lurk” rather than be active on Facebook.

Because people can more easily “get away with” not responding on Facebook than they can face-

to-face, any response at all on Facebook represents more of a choice and therefore carries more

meaning. By this reasoning, we would expect likes, despite requiring minimal effort, to be

associated with positive outcomes. Furthermore, the number of responses (which typically are
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 10

predominantly likes) a person is able to garner on their post may be perceived as being an

indicator of their popularity or of the amount of social support offered by their community. Thus,

we planned to explore whether comments will be more strongly related than likes to the positive

outcomes under investigation and to satisfaction with the response received.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

After obtaining IRB approval, we administered a survey online using SurveyMonkey. We

emailed the survey link to students, faculty, and staff at a small college in the Midwestern U.S.,

and posted it on Facebook and on websites listing online psychology studies. Participants were

offered the opportunity to enter a raffle for a $50 gift card. The survey was begun by 373 and

completed by 311 participants, 77.4% female, 63.5% affiliated with our campus community,

M_age = 26.46, SD = 11.45.

2.2. Procedure and Measures

After participants gave informed consent, the opening instructions said, “The first set of

questions will be based on memory. **Please do NOT look at your Facebook account at this

time.**.” Participants then reported gender, age, and whether they had any affiliation with the

authors’ college. They also completed the NPI-13 (Gentile et al., 2013), but it will not be

discussed further because it is not relevant to the present hypotheses and because controlling for

it does not affect any of the results presented here (see Zell & Moeller, 2017, for additional

findings based on this dataset).

On the next page, participants read “IMPORTANT: You must NOT be on Facebook at

this time.” Then they were instructed to list all of the status updates they could remember

posting on their own Facebook page in the last two weeks and briefly described the subject of
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 11

each post. The instructions right before they began typing their response repeated, “Please rely

on your memory. Do not check Facebook.”

On the next page, participants were instructed to log in to their Facebook account before

advancing to the next page. On the following page, participants reported their number of

Facebook friends, M = 611.24, SD = 424.38, median = 549, range = 12–2711. Then participants

were asked to look at their Facebook page and list all their own status updates from present to

two weeks ago. Twenty-seven percent of participants reported having posted no status updates

within the prior two weeks. We set the maximum number of status updates that could be reported

arbitrarily at 24; a maximum was needed because participants had to scroll past all the blank

fields in order to advance to the next page. The mean number of status updates participants

reported having posted in the last two weeks was 3.41, SD = 4.84, median = 7. A total of 1035

Facebook status updates during the prior two weeks were reported (also reported but excluded

from analyses were an additional 211 status updates that were posted longer than two weeks ago

and 64 reports of Facebook activities other than posting status updates on one’s Facebook wall).

For each status update, participants reported the same information. First, they briefly

described the post. Later, two coders independently rated each post as having been completely

forgotten (0), slightly recalled (1) or fully recalled (2) by comparing it to the list of posts the

participant had reported from memory; M = 0.96, SD = 0.94. Agreement between the coders was

adequate (kappa = .77), and discrepancies were resolved by the first author in consultation with a

third rater.

Next, participants responded to “How positive do you consider the subject of this post?”

with a number from 1 (very negative) to 10 (very positive), M = 8.52, SD = 2.15. They

responded to “How important do you consider the subject of this post?” with a number from 1
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 12

(not at all important) to 10 (very important), M = 6.24, SD = 3.05. They reported the date of the

post. We compared the reported date of each status update to the date the survey was submitted

to calculate how many days earlier the status update was posted.

For each reported status update, participants reported how many likes it received (M =

12.87, SD = 20.11, median = 5, range = 0–175), how many comments it received that they

considered to be positive (M = 2.12, SD = 5.55, median = 0, range = 0–67), how many comments

it received that they considered to be neutral or negative (M = 0.23, SD = 1.12, median = 0, range

= 0–18), and how many comments they made on their own status update (M = 0.59, SD = 2.17,

median = 0, range = 0–32). Only 10% of` status updates were reported not to have received at

least one like or comment. Finally, participants rated how satisfied they were with the response

they received on that post with a number from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied), M =

7.26, SD = 2.51.

Several questions pertaining to a different set of hypotheses followed (for details, see Zell

& Moeller, 2017). Then, to measure subjective well-being with a focus on self-esteem and

happiness, we asked participants to rate how much they agree right now with items from the

Rosenberg (1965) trait self-esteem scale (“On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”, “I feel that

I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others”, “I have high self-esteem”, and

“At times I think that I am no good at all” [reverse scored]) and modified from Lyubomirsky and

Lepper’s (1999) Subjective Happiness Scale (“In general, I consider myself a very happy

person”, “I am generally not very happy” [reverse scored], and “I enjoy life regardless what is

going on, getting the most out of everything”), α = .90, M = 5.42, SD = 1.19. Our decision to put

only these seven subjective well-being items on the survey was motivated by concerns about

demanding too much time and effort from participants.

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 13

Participants completed the Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts scale (Gable

et al., 2004), with the simplified instruction, “Please rate how accurately each of the statements

below describe your Facebook experience” and the stem modified to refer to Facebook (“When I

post on Facebook about something good that has happened to me…”). The scale contains four

subscales, scored by averaging agreement with the items: Passive-Constructive (e.g., “My

Facebook friends say little, but I know they are happy for me”), α = .68, M = 3.90, SD = 1.18;

Active-Constructive (e.g., “My Facebook friends usually react to my good fortune

enthusiastically”), α = .51, M = 4.11, SD = 1.10; Passive-Destructive (e.g., “My Facebook

friends often seem disinterested”), α = .79, M = 2.89, SD = 1.25; and Active-Destructive (e.g.,

“My Facebook friends point out the potential down sides of the good event”), α = .73, M = 1.99,

SD = 1.06. Following Gable et al. (2004) we also computed a composite score by subtracting

from the Active-Constructive subscale the mean of the other three subscales, M = 1.19, SD =

1.33.

3. Results

3.1. Responses as Predictor of Perceptions of Status Update Positivity and Importance

We used linear mixed modeling (LMM) to test hypotheses focusing on status update-

level data because status updates varied in number and were nested within participants. We first

conducted a series of linear mixed models (LMM) separately testing number of likes and number

of positive comments as predictors of perceiving status updates as positive and as important.

Considered on its own, number of likes received predicted perceiving the subject of one’s status

update to be more positive (estimate = 0.012, SE = 0.003, t(1001.16) = 3.73, p < .001, 95% CI

[0.006, 0.019]) and important (estimate = 0.014, SE = 0.005, t(1003.73) = 2.95, p = .003, 95% CI

[0.005, 0.023]). Number of positive comments received, considered on its own, did not
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 14

significantly predict perceiving the subject of one’s status update to be positive (estimate =

0.010, SE = 0.012, t(1019.23) = 0.87, p = .39, 95% CI [-0.012, 0.033] or important (estimate =

0.031, SE = 0.017, t(1016.70) = 1.86, p = .06, 95% CI [-0.002, 0.063]). We then confirmed (see

Table 1) that likes remains a significant unique predictor of status update positivity and

importance even when accounting for other factors. Thus, participants’ perception of the

positivity and importance of one of their status updates was predicted by the number of likes that

status update had received but not by the number of comments it had received.

3.2. Responses as Predictor of Status Update Memorability

Using LMM, we tested separately number of likes and number of positive comments as

predictors of remembering status updates. Ability to recall a status update later on was predicted

by the number of likes it received (estimate = 0.007, SE = 0.001, t(968.81) = 4.65, p < .001, 95%

CI [0.004, 0.010]) and by the number of positive comments it received (estimate = 0.018, SE =

0.005, t(1013.31) = 3.36, p = .001, 95% CI [0.008, 0.029]). However, when we considered likes

and positive comments together in a model that also included control variables (see Table 2),

only likes continued to uniquely predict status memorability; positive comments did not. Thus,

participants’ ability to recall a particular status update was uniquely predicted by the number of

likes that status update had received, but was not uniquely predicted by the number of comments

it had received.

3.3. Responses as Predictors of Satisfaction with the Response Received

Using LMM, we tested separately likes and positive comments as predictors of

satisfaction with the responses to one’s status updates. Satisfaction with the response received to

a status update was significantly predicted by number of likes it received (Estimate = 0.036, SE =

.003, t(1034.19) = 10.69, p < .001, 95% CI [0.030, 0.043]) and by number of positive comments
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 15

it received (Estimate = 0.066, SE = .012, t(924.57) = 5.63, p < .001, 95% CI [.043, .088]) when

each predictor was examined separately. When likes and positive comments were considered

simultaneously while also controlling for other variables, likes remained a significant unique

predictor of satisfaction but positive comments did not, as shown in Table 2. Thus, participants’

satisfaction with the responses to each of their status updates depended upon the amount of likes

those status updates received, and more so than it depended on the amount of positive comments

they received.

3.4. Responses as Predictor of Subjective Well-Being

We had hypothesized that reporting receiving more likes and positive comments would

be associated with reporting higher subjective well-being. Subjective well-being was correlated

with mean number of likes received (r = .14, p = .03) and with mean number of positive

comments received (r = .17, p = .01). On an exploratory basis, we computed a new variable, the

total number of likes and positive comments each participant received on his/her most popular

post. We found that subjective well-being also correlated with the total number of likes and

comments received on the person’s most popular status update (r = .21, p = .002).

Using regression, we examined whether the relationship between the response received to

one’s Facebook status updates and subjective well-being would remain when we also accounted

for other factors. As shown in Table 3, the total number of likes and positive comments on the

participant’s most popular post was a significant unique predictor of subjective well-being even

when accounting for gender, age, number of Facebook friends, and frequency of posting on

Facebook. We found a similar but weaker pattern of results when we replaced total number of

likes and comments on the person’s most popular status update with mean number of likes

received (β = .14, t(216) = 2.12, p = .04) or with mean number of positive comments received (β
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 16

= .14, t(213) = 2.04, p = .04). Thus, the more likes and positive comments participants reported

having received on their recent status updates (and particularly on their most popular one), the

higher in self-esteem and happiness they then described themselves as being.

3.5. Responses as Predictor of Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts on Facebook

Before conducting further analyses with the PRCA-F, we first factor analyzed its items to

check that they loaded onto four subscales as expected. Principal component analysis with

varimax rotation did yield four factors: Passive-Destructive (Eigenvalue = 3.25, 27.08% of the

variance), Active-Destructive (Eigenvalue = 2.06, 17.2% of the variance), Passive-Constructive

(Eigenvalue = 1.45, 12.08% of the variance) and Active-Constructive (Eigenvalue = 1.05, 8.77%

of the variance).

The PRCA-F composite score was not significantly related to mean likes (r = .10, p =

.15) or mean positive comments (r = .11, p = .12), but was correlated with the total likes and

comments on the person’s most popular post (r = .16, p = .02). Using regression (see Table 3),

we confirmed that the association between the total likes and positive comments on participants’

most popular status updates and their PRCA-F composites scores remained when accounting for

other factors.

Because the PRCA-F composite score did not correlate as strongly and consistently as we

had expected with the responses received, we carried out exploratory analyses looking at each

PRCA-F subscale separately. The Active-Constructive subscale was not significantly correlated

with mean likes (r = .10, p = .14), mean positive comments (r = .08, p = .27) or total likes and

comments on the participant’s most popular post (r = .11, p = .11) as we had assumed it would

be. The Passive-Constructive subscale showed no significant correlations (ps > .10), as we

expected. The Active-Destructive subscale, to our surprise, correlated positively with mean likes
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 17

(r = .13, p = .05) and mean positive comments (r = .17, p = .002), but not with mean neutral or

negative comments (r = .04, ns).

Finally consistent with our predictions, the Passive-Destructive subscale correlated

negatively with mean positive comments received (r = -.21, p = .002) and with the total number

of likes and comments received on one’s most popular status update (r = -.21, p = .002), though

not significantly with the mean number of likes received (r = -.11, p = .12). As shown in Table 3,

we confirmed that the association between total likes and positive comments on participants’

most popular posts and their scores on the Passive-Destructive subscale remained when we

account for other factors. Replacing this variable with the other measures of response to one’s

status updates, we found that mean number of positive comments received also uniquely

predicted scores on the Passive-Destructive subscale (β = -.17, t(213) = -2.52, p = .01) but mean

number of likes received did not (β = -.13, t(216) = -1.93, p = .06).

Thus, participants’ perception that their Facebook friends are interested in and care about

their good news (as measured by low scores on the Passive-Destructive subscale of the PRCA-F)

was predicted by the average number of comments their status updates had been receiving and

also by the amount of likes and comments received on their most popular status update, but not

by the average number of likes received. The PRCA-F composite scale score showed a more

modest relationship with the amount of likes and comments received on participants most

popular status update, and was not predicted by mean likes or mean comments. The weaker

associations with the composite score appear to be due to the fact that the Active-Constructive

and Active-Destructive subscales did not relate to likes and comments received in the way we

had expected.
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 18

3.5.1. PRCA-F and satisfaction with responses. Mean satisfaction with the responses

received to one’s status updates correlated with the composite PRCA-F score (r = .23, p < .001)

and with the Passive-Destructive subscale (Passive-Destructive r = -.27, p < .001; Active-

Destructive r = -.13, p = .05; Passive-Constructive r = -.08, p = .25; Active-Constructive r = .12,

p = .08).

3.5.2. PRCA-F and subjective well-being. Subjective well-being correlated with the

composite PRCA-F score (r = .28, p < .001) and particularly with the Passive-Destructive

subscale (Passive-Destructive r = -.36, p < .001; Active-Destructive r = -.24, p < .001; Passive-

Constructive r = -.02, p = .68; Active-Constructive r = .13, p = .02). Five simultaneous

regressions accounting for participant gender, age, number of Facebook friends, and number of

posts in the last 2 weeks revealed the same pattern, with subjective well-being significantly

predicted by the composite PRCA-F score (β = .27, t(301) = 4.71, p < .001 ) and the Passive-

Destructive (β = -.35, t(301) = -6.20, p < .001), Active-Destructive (β = -.23, t(301) = -4.06, p

< .001), and Active-Constructive (β = .12, t(301) = 2.09, p = .04), but not Passive-Constructive

(β = .01, t(301) = .17, p = .87) subscales. Thus, participants who reported viewing their

Facebook friends as being interested, supportive, and excited for their good news also reported

being relatively high in self-esteem and happiness.

4. Discussion

4.1. Do responses to Facebook status updates matter?

Results supported our primary hypotheses. First, we found that receiving more responses

to one’s status update was associated with perceiving that status update as more positive and

more important. Second, participants exhibited better recall of their status updates that had

received more (vs. fewer) responses. Third, the more responses participants reported having
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 19

received on their status updates, the greater happiness and self-esteem they subsequently

reported. Fourth, the more responses participants reporting having received, the more they

perceived their Facebook friends to be interested in and care about their good news. As we

hypothesized, then, receiving more responses to one’s Facebook status updates was associated

with more positive outcomes.

4.2. Is receiving comments more strongly related than receiving likes to positive outcomes?

The capitalization processes model asserts that the positive effects of capitalization

attempts depend at least somewhat on the perceived responsiveness (Reis et al., 2004) of the

partner, in other words, the extent to which the person perceives their partner as paying attention

to them, understanding them, supporting them, and feeling pleased for them. This model was

developed with interpersonal communication in mind. Applying this model to Facebook raises

the question, what kind of reaction to a status update–an online masspersonal communication

(O’Sullivan & Carr, 2017)—would be perceived as responsive?

Clicking like takes so little effort that one might doubt that likes are valued by their

recipient or have any impact. Consistent with that idea, Carr, Wohn, and Hayes (2016) had found

that the more automatic and mindless likes were perceived to be, the less supportive they were

perceived to be. Burke and Kraut (2014) also found that participants reported being closer to

individuals the more messages, posts, and comments they had received from those individuals,

but that likes received from those individuals did not correlate with changes in closeness.

Aligning with those findings, in the present study it was the number of comments received (not

the number of likes received) that correlated with thinking that one’s Facebook community cares

about and is interested in one’s good news. The greater effortfulness of comments might lead
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 20

them (relative to likes) to be perceived as more meaningful indicators of genuine care and

interest.

However, our other findings suggest that we should not be too quick to dismiss likes as

unimportant. We found that number of likes was actually a better predictor than number of

comments was of perceiving a status update as positive and important, remembering it, and being

satisfied with the response received to it. Great numbers of likes may convey a signal of social

proof affirming the positivity and importance of one’s post. Additionally, the receipt of many

likes on a status update may repeatedly call the author’s attention back to it.

We also found that the amount of response (likes and positive comments) participants

received on their most popular posts was a particularly strong correlate of subjective well-being

and of perceiving one’s Facebook community to be interested in one’s good news. This

exploratory finding implies that people’s global impression that they are well-liked and cared

about by their Facebook community may be more closely related to the greatest amount of

response they received than to the average amount of response that they received, consistent with

peak-end theory (e.g., Fredrickson, 2000). In light of these intriguing but exploratory findings,

we encourage any future researchers in this area to look at the various ways of measuring

responsiveness on Facebook.

4.3. Assessing the modified version of the Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts

scale (PRCA-F)

The Perceived Responses to Capitalization Scale was designed by Gable et al. (2004) to

measure perceptions of a partner’s tendency to respond with enthusiasm rather than passivity,

disinterest, or negativity when one shares positive personal events. In the present study we

modified it to assess participants’ perceptions of how supportively their Facebook community

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 21

responds when they share their good news. The present study provides initial evidence for the

validity of this version modified for Facebook (PRCA-F). First, we observed a four-factor

structure that matched the subscales of the original PRCA (Gable et al.., 2004). The subscales

showed fairly good reliability (with the exception of the Active-Constructive, α = .51). Second,

we found that the composite score correlated with subjective well-being and that the Passive-

Destructive subscale showed a particularly strong (negative) relationship with subjective well-

being, consistent with findings obtained with the original PRCA (Demir & Davidson, 2013;

Gable et al., 2004). Third, we found that the PRCA-F composite score correlated with

objectively observable behavior: the total likes and positive comments given on participants’

most popular status updates. Fourth, the PRCA-F composite score correlated with participants’

mean satisfaction with the responses they received.

That being said, we recommend that any future users of the PRCA-F look at the

individual PRCA-F subscales, rather than only at the composite score. In the present study, the

Passive-Destructive subscale (which measures perceptions of one’s Facebook friends as

inattentive, disinterested, and uncaring) was the subscale most strongly related to subjective

well-being, amount of responses received, and satisfaction with responses received. Participants

seemed to make inferences about how interested and caring their Facebook community is based

on the amount of responses (especially comments) they received on their status updates. The

other three subscales, however, showed diverging patterns of relationships with our outcomes

variables. For researchers who might be interested in using the PRCA-F in future work, we

provide additional analyses regarding the PRCA-F in the Supplemental Materials.

4.4. Theoretical Implications

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 22

Receiving more responses to one’s Facebook status updates was linked with valuing and

remembering what one had posted about, reporting higher happiness and self-esteem, and

perceiving one’s Facebook network to be a more interested and caring community. These results

parallel prior findings obtained in research on capitalization processes in personal

communication. This suggests that Gable and Reis’s (2010) model of capitalization processes

can be fruitfully applied to online masspersonal communications—Facebook status updates—if

one redefines the audience as a group and redefines an active-constructive response as a higher

number of likes and comments.

Although the present study was specifically designed to investigate whether the

capitalization processes model (Gable & Reis, 2010) could be applied to an online context, the

present findings may also accord well with other theories. For example, the Motivation

Technology model (Sundar, Jia, Waddell, and Huang, 2015) suggests that to the extent that

technologies afford people opportunities to meet their needs for competence, relatedness, and

autonomy (drawing upon Self-Determination Theory – Ryan & Deci, 2000), people will feel

intrinsically motivated to use the technology. This model states that to the extent that technology

affords opportunity for interaction, people will feel a sense of connection and relatedness.

Consonant with that, we found that receiving more likes and comments from others was

associated with feeling more satisfied with the response received and with perceiving one’s

Facebook community as more interested and caring.

4.5. Limitations

Several limitations pertain, including use of a non-representative sample. Another is the

fact that we relied upon our participants’ honesty and accuracy in reporting numbers of likes and

comments and in reporting their status updates from memory without looking at Facebook.
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 23

Additionally, participants answered questions about how many people liked and

commented on their status updates before answering questions about their subjective well-being.

This may have influenced participants to base their sense of well-being on the number of people

who responded to their Facebook posts more than they normally do in their day-to-day lives. On

the other hand, the fact that Facebook visibly lists the number of people who clicked like or

commented may already encourage its users to focus on numbers.

It is important to note that the present study used a correlational design and cannot

demonstrate causation. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the amount of response

received to a status update affects how positive and important it is perceived to be and how well

it is remembered. Furthermore, we attempted to account for the influence of potentially

confounding variables of participant age, gender, number of Facebook friends, and frequency of

posting, as well as status update age, positivity, and importance. However, as we did not use an

experimental design, we cannot entirely rule out other explanations for these associations. For

example, the present findings are consistent with our idea that seeing that one’s status update

receive many likes enhances the seeming positivity and importance of one’s post. However,

status updates about more (vs. less) important and positive events also seem likely to accrue

more likes and comments, and we speculate that the causal influence runs both ways. Similarly,

although we found that amount of response received correlated with subjective well-being and

with perceiving one’s Facebook community to be more interested and caring, we cannot

determine whether these are causal relationships. Possible confounds include extraversion

(Lonnqvist & große Deters, 2016) and differences in perceived offline support (Trepte, Dienlin,

& Reinecke, 2015).

4.6. Conclusion
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 24

Prior research (Gable et al., 2004; Lambert et al., 2013; Otto et al., 2015) has found that

receiving active-constructive responses to one’s capitalization attempts in face-to-face

interactions leads to positive outcomes. This study supports and extends that work by showing

that receiving likes and comments from one’s Facebook community is also associated with

positive intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. On a practical note, the present findings,

though correlational, are consistent with the idea that clicking like might help to affirm the

positivity and importance of someone’s news and increase their likelihood of later remembering

that event. Or, that typing a comment on someone’s status update may help to allay the

recipient’s fears that their Facebook community is not actually interested in reading about their

good news. When people share personal news, it is important to them that their audience display

interest and enthusiasm: This seems to be the case on Facebook walls just as it is in face-to-face

interactions.
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 25

References

Blight, M. G., Jagiello, K., & Ruppel, E. K. (2015). ‘‘Same stuff different day:’’ A mixed-

method study of support seeking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 53, 366–

373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.029

Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2014). Growing closer on Facebook: Changes in tie strength through

social network site use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in

computing systems (pp. 4187e4196). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557094.

Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2016). The relationship between Facebook use and well-being

depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 21, 265-281. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12162

Carr, C. T., Wohn, D. Y., & Hayes, R. A. (2016). [Like image] as social support: Relational

closeness, automaticity, and interpreting social support from paralinguistic digital

affordances in social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 385-393.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.087

Choi, M., Toma, C. L. (2014). Social sharing through interpersonal media: Patterns and effects

on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 530-541.

http://proxy.augie.edu:2264/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.026

Demir, M., & Davidson, I. (2013). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between

friendship and happiness: Perceived responses to capitalization attempts, feelings of

mattering, and satisfaction of basic psychological needs in same-sex best friendships as

predictors of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 525-550. doi:10.1007/s10902-

012-9341-7
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 26

Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., & Oishi, S. (2017).

Findings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being.

Canadian Psychology, 58, 87-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000063

Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go

right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 91, 904-917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904

Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. R. (2010). Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an

interpersonal context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 195-257.

doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42004-3

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go

right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245.

Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K.. (2013).

A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The Narcissistic Personality

Inventory-13 and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory-16. Psychological Assessment,

25, 1120-1136. doi:10.1037/a0033192

Greitemeyer, T., Mugge, D. O., & Bollermann, I. (2014). Having responsive Facebook friends

affects the satisfaction of psychological needs more than having many Facebook friends.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 252-258. doi:10.1080/01973533.2014.900619

Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Tolan, A. G., & Marrington, J. (2013). Face-to-face or

Facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online? Computers in Human Behavior,

29, 604-609.
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 27

große Deters, F., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). Does posting Facebook status updates increase or

decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 4, 579-586. doi:10.1177/1948550612469233

Lambert, N. M., Gwinn, A. M., Baumeister, R. F., Strachman, A., Washburn, I. J., Gable, S. L.,

& Fincham, F. D. (2013). A boost of positive affect: The perks of sharing positive

experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 24-43.

http://proxy.augie.edu:2264/10.1177/0265407512449400

Langston, C. A. (1994). Capitalizing on and coping with daily-life events: Expressive responses

to positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1112-1125.

Leary, M, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer

theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1-62. doi:10.1016/S0065-

2601(00)80003-9

Lee, K-T., Noh, M-J., & Koo, D-M. (2013). Lonely people are no longer lonely on social

networking sites: The mediating role of self-disclosure and social support.

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 413-418.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0553

Lonnqvist, J. E., & große Deters, F. (2016). Facebook friends, subjective well-being, social

support, and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 113-120.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.002

Lyubomirsky, S. & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary

reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27522363
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 28

MacGregor, J. C. D., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Holmes, J. G. (2013). Perceiving low self-esteem in

close others impedes capitalization and undermines the relationship. Personal

Relationships, 20, 690-705.

Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of

college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being.

Developmental Psychology, 48, 369-380.

O'Sullivan, P. B., & Carr, C. T. (2017). Masspersonal communication: A model bridging the

mass-interpersonal divide. new media & society, 1-20. doi:10.1177/1461444816686104

Otto, A. K., Laurenceau, J-P., Siegel, S. D., & Belcher, A. J. (2015). Capitalizing on everyday

positive events uniquely predicts daily intimacy and well-being in couples coping with

breast cancer. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 69-79.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000042

Fredrickson, B. (2000). Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: The importance of

peaks, ends, and specific emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 577-606.

http://dx.doi.org.augie.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/026999300402808

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an

organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Reis, H. T., Smith, S. M., Carmichael, C. L., Caprariello, P. A., Tsai, F-F., Rodrigues, A., &

Maniaci, M. R. (2010). Are you happy for me? How sharing positive events with others

provides personal and interpersonal benefits. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 99, 311-329. doi:10.1037/a0018344

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 29

Reitz, A. K., Motti-Stefanidi, F., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2016). Me, us, and them: Testing

sociometer theory in a socially diverse real-life context. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 110, 908-920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000073

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Stavrositu, C., & Sundar, S. S. (2012). Does blogging empower women? Exploring the role of

agency and community. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 369-386.

doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01587.x

Sundar, S. S., Jia, H., Waddell, T. F., Huang, Y. (2015). Toward a theory of interactive media

effects (TIME): Four models for explaining how interface features affect user

psychology. In S. Sundar (Ed.), The Handbook of the psychology of communication

technology, pp. 47-86. Wiley-Blackwell.

Tobin, S. J., Vanman, E. J., Verreynne, M., & Saeri, A. K. (2014). Threats to belonging on

Facebook: Lurking and ostracism. Social Influence, 10, 1-12.

doi:10.1080/15534510.2014.893924

Trepte, S., Dienlin, T., & Reinecke, L. (2015). Influence of social support received in online and

offline contexts on satisfaction with social support and satisfaction with life: A

longitudinal study. Media Psychology, 18, 74-105. doi:10.1080/15213269.2013.838904

Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but

also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection.

Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076

IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 30

Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media,

and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3, 206-222.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000047\

Zell, A. L., & Moeller, L. (2017). Narcissism and “Likes”: Entitlement/Exploitativeness predicts

both desire for and dissatisfaction with responses on Facebook. Personality and

Individual Differences, 110, 70-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.029

 IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 31

Table 1
Linear mixed models predicting perception of status updates subjects as positive and as important.
Status Update Perceived as Positive Status Update Perceived as Important
Parameter Estimate (SE) t 95% CI Estimate (SE) t 95% CI
Intercept 8.384 (.231) 36.27** [7.928, 8.841] 5.880 (.351) 16.76** [5.188, 6.573]
Level 1 (status update-specific)
Likes .016 (.004) 4.13** [.009, .024] .012 (.006) 2.12* [.001, .024]
Positive Com. -.027 (.016) -1.66 [-.059, .005] .037 (.024) 1.55 [-.010, .083]
Neutral/Negative Com. -.397 (.058) -6.87** [-.510, -.283] -.174 (.083) -2.09* [-.337, -.011]
Participant’s Own Com. .072 (.039) 1.85 [-.005, .149] -.031 (.057) -0.55 [-.143, .081]
Days old -.023 (.016) -1.41 [-.055, .009] -.022 (.024) -0.94 [-.068, .024]
Level 2 (participant-specific)
Age .017 (.008) 1.97 [.000, .033] -.003 (.013) -0.25 [-.028, .022]
Gender .203 (.245) 0.83 [-.280, .686] .479 (.370) 1.29 [-.251, 1.209]
# of Facebook friends .000 (.000) -1.11 [-.001, .000] <.001 (<.001) 0.68 [<.001, .001]
# of status updates -.030 (.015) -2.03* [-.060, -.001] -.046 (.023) -2.02* [-.092, -.001]
Note. All predictors mean-centered, except gender (scored as female = 1, male = 0).
Com. = Comments.
* p < .05, ** p < .01
 IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 32

Table 2
Linear mixed models predicting recall of status updates and satisfaction with responses received to status updates
Recall of Status Update Satisfaction with Response to Status Update
Parameter Estimate (SE) t 95% CI Estimate (SE) t 95% CI
Intercept .888 (.092) 9.67** [.707, 1.070] 6.755 (.339) 19.92** [6.086, 7.425]
Level 1 (status update-specific)
Likes .007 (.002) 3.82** [.003, .010] .037 (.004) 9.06** [.029, .045]
Positive Com. -.005 (.008) -0.64 [-.020, .010] -.003 (.016) -0.17 [-.034, .029]
Neutral/Negative Com. -.005 (.026) -0.20 [-.057, .046] -.037 (.058) -0.65 [-.150, .076]
Participant’s Own Com. .072 (.025) 2.86** [.023, .121] .101 (.041) 2.44* [.020, .182]
Days old -.078 (.007) -11.13** [-.092, -.064] -.007 (.016) -0.43 [-.039, .025]
Positivity .019 (.014) 1.38 [-.008, .046] .229 (.032) 7.11** [.166, .292]
Importance .009 (.010) 0.95 [-.010, .028] -.047 (.022) -2.08* [-.091, -.003]
Level 2 (participant-specific)
Age .001 (.003) 0.36 [-.005, .008] .021 (.012) 1.75 [-.003, .045]
Gender .086 (.098) 0.88 [-.108, .281] .581 (.350) 1.66 [-.109, 1.270]
# of Facebook friends .000 (.000) -0.58 [.000, .000] <.001 (<.001) 0.05 [-.001, .001]
# of status updates -.029 (.006) -5.01** [-.041, -.017] .024 (.024) 1.03 [-.022, .071]
Note. All predictors mean-centered, except gender (scored as female = 1, male = 0).
Com. = Comments.
* p < .05, ** p < .01
 IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 33

Table 3
Simultaneous regressions predicting subjective well-being and perceptions of how supportively one’s Facebook
community responds to one’s good news
Passive-Destructive
Subjective Well-Being PRCA-F Composite
subscale of PRCA-F
Zero-order Zero-order Zero-order
β β β
Predictor correlation correlation correlation
Gender (female = 1, male = 0) .01 -.10 .14* .09 -.10 -.04
Age .15** .19** .11 .03 -.23** -.16*
Number of Facebook friends .05 .03 .07 .06 <.01 .02
Number of status updates
.04 -.03 .14 .04 -.19** -.11
posted in last 2 weeks
Number of likes + comments
received on most popular .21** .20** .16* .14* -.21** -.19**
status update in last 2 weeks
F(5, 218) = 4.00** F(5, 218) = 1.83 F(5, 218) = 4.35**
Note. PRCA-F refers to Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts scale (Gable et al., 2004) modified for
Facebook. For correlations that involve ratings of specific status updates n = 219-224; for correlations that do not
involve ratings of status updates n = 307.
* p < .05, ** p < .01
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 34

Are You Happy for Me… on Facebook?

The Potential Importance of “Likes” and Comments

Supplemental Materials

Anne L. Zell and Lisa Moeller

In this supplemental file, we provide additional detailed information about the Perceived
Responses to Capitalization Attempts scale (original: PRCA, by Gable et al., 2004) that we
modified for a Facebook context (PRCA-F).

Factor Analysis. As mentioned in the main manuscript, we submitted the PRCA-F items
to a principal component analysis with varimax rotation, and found the expected four factors.
We provide the SPSS output from that analysis here, for anyone who might be interested in
seeing the factor loadings.
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 35

Intercorrelations among the PRCA-F Subscales. Using the original PRCA in reference
to face-to-face interactions, Pagani, Donato, and Iafrate (2013) found that the Active-
Constructive subscale correlated negatively with the Active-Destructive, Passive-Constructive,
and Passive-Destructive subscales. In our sample using the PRCA-F, the Active-Constructive
subscale correlated negatively with the Passive-Destructive subscale (r = -.14, p = .02) but not
with the Passive-Constructive subscale (r = .26, p < .001) or with the Active-Destructive
subscale (r = .07, p = .23). We did match Pagani et al. (2013) in finding that the other subscales
all correlated positively with each other: Passive-Constructive and Passive-Destructive (r = .25,
p < .001), Passive-Constructive and Active-Destructive (r = .25, p < .001), and Passive-
Destructive and Active-Destructive (r = .35, p < .001).
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 36

The instructions that we provided our participants for the PRCA-F stated, “Please rate
how accurately each of the statements below describe your Facebook experience.” The stem
said, “When I post on Facebook about something good that has happened to me…” and then the
PRCA-F items followed, each rated on a scale from 1 to 7. The Supplementary Table below
shows how each of the individual items correlate with our outcome variables: subjective well-
being, the total number of likes and positive comments received on the participant’s most
popular post, the mean number of likes the participant received on status updates, the mean
number of positive comments the participant received on status updates, and the participant’s
mean satisfaction with the responses to his/her status updates.

Passive-Constructive Subscale. As expected based on prior research, the Passive-

Constructive subscale shows no consistent relationship with subjective well-being. We were
also unsurprised to find that it showed no consistent relationship with the amount of responses
received.

Active-Constructive Subscale. The Active-Constructive scale correlated positively with

subjective well-being (r = .13, p = .02) but was not significantly related to any of the measures
of responses or satisfaction with responses. Looking at the individual subscale items, we see that
participants seem to have responded differently to one of the items of the Active-Constructive
subscale than they did to the other items in that subscale. Item 4 in the Supplementary Table
tends to correlate negatively with subjective well-being and with measures of responses. By
contrast, items 5 and 6 in the Supplementary Table tend to correlate positively with subjective
well-being and measures of responses. This leads us to wonder if some participants were
interpreting item 4 differently than intended. The items says, “I sometimes get the sense that my
Facebook friends are even more happy and excited than I am”. Our best guess is that only some
participants interpreted this, as we intended, to mean that their friends are happy and excited for
the participant and the participant’s good news. Other participants may have interpreted this
item simply to mean they perceive their friends to be happier than they are. Removing item 4
improves the reliability of this subscale only slightly (from α = .51 to α = .58). When we remove
item 4 and average together the other Active-Constructive items (5 and 6 in the table), we find
that the resulting shorter Active-Constructive measure correlates with subjective well-being (r =
.22, p < .001), total likes and comments on the most popular post (r = .19, p = .004), mean likes
IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 37

(r = .16, p = .02), and mean positive comments (r = .17, p = .01), and mean satisfaction with
responses (r = .20, p = .002).

Passive-Destructive Subscale. The Passive-Destructive subscale’s three items are

consistent in correlating negatively with subjective well-being, correlating negatively with the
amount of response received (particularly as measured by the total number of likes and positive
comments received on one’s most popular post and by the mean number of comments one
receives), and correlating negatively with satisfaction with responses.

Active-Destructive Subscale. The Active-Destructive subscale does correlate as

expected with subjective well-being (r = -.24, p < .001). However it does not correlate as
expected with amount of positive responses (likes and/or positive comments) received. We think
this may be because more and more active Facebook interaction includes more negative
Facebook interaction. We suggest that any future researchers who want to relate some measure
of responses on Facebook to the Active-Destructive subscale try asking participants to report
numbers of comments they found “hurtful, offensive, or unsupportive”.
 IMPORTANCE OF LIKES AND COMMENTS 38

Supplementary Table: PRCA-F items descriptive information and correlations with subjective well-being, measures of amount of responses received to
status updates, and satisfaction with responses received to status updates
Correlations (r)
Likes + Positive Mean Mean Mean
Subjective Comments on Likes / Positive Satisfaction
Well- Most Popular Status Comments / with
PRCA-F Item M (SD) Being Status Update Update Status Update responses
Passive-Constructive Subscale:
My Facebook friends say little, but I know they are
1 4.39 (1.55) .10 -.17* -.10 -.13* .01
happy for me
My Facebook friends try not to make a big deal out
2 3.44 (1.50) .00 .04 .07 .09 -.11
of it, but are happy for me.
My Facebook friends are usually silently supportive
3 3.88 (1.48) -.05 -.10 -.09 -.11 -.08
of the good things that occur to me.
Active-Constructive Subscale:
I sometimes get the sense that my Facebook friends
4 3.26 (1.57) -.08 -.08 -.04 -.12 -.08
are even more happy and excited than I am.
My Facebook friends usually react to my good
5 5.15 (1.46) .21** .11 .08 .12 .22**
fortune enthusiastically.
My Facebook friends often ask a lot of questions and
6 3.93 (1.62) .16** .20** .17* .16* .12
show genuine concern about the good event.
Passive-Destructive Subscale:
My Facebook friends don’t pay much attention to
7 3.05 (1.37) -.26** -.21** -.10 -.19** -20**
me.
Sometimes I get the impression that my Facebook
8 2.78 (1.62) -.35** -.16* -.07 -.13* -.26**
friends don’t care much.
9 My Facebook friends often seem disinterested. 2.84 (1.48) -.29** -.17* -.09 -.20** -.21**
Active-Destructive Subscale:
10 My Facebook friends often find a problem with it. 1.66 (1.06) -.32** -.07 -.06 -.06 -.21**
My Facebook friends remind me that most good
11 2.28 (1.52) -.13* .12 .17* .22** -.05
things have their bad aspects as well.
My Facebook friends point out the potential down
12 2.03 (1.31) -.17** .11 .16* .18** -.09
sides of the good event.
Notes: For correlations with subjective well-being, n = 307. For correlations with measures of responses, n ranges from 219-224.
* p < .05, ** p < .01