Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Problematic social network use: Its antecedents and impact upon

classroom performance
J. Christopher Zimmer
University of Southern Mississippi, College of Business and Economic Development, School of Finance, 3090 Scianna Hall, 118 College Dr. #5021,
Hattiesburg, MS, 39406, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The impact of information technologies has radically transformed the classroom in less than a
Improving classroom teaching generation. One potentially not so welcome technology into the classroom has been social
Post-secondary education networking sites. While social networking sites can help foster relationships among students, too
Social media
much of a good thing can negatively impact course performance. This study surveys 219 college
aged students and investigates the impact of problematic social network use on final course
performance. Drawing from Social Cognitive Theory this paper develops a set of testable hy­
potheses and the data demonstrates that a negative relationship exists between problematic social
network use and course performance (as measured by final letter grade). Classroom strategies that
professors implement, and other remedies universities can employ to address this finding are
discussed.

The lesson of the day was about supply chain management. To demonstrate the detrimental effects of a lack of information
across a supply chain, the class was playing the MIT Beer Distribution Game (Sterman, 1989, 1992, pp. 40–44). At one table, one
of the players was checking their Instagram feed instead of participating. A reminder from the professor about the “no unau­
thorized technologies policy” successfully redirected the student to the task at hand–managing their part of the supply chain. A
few minutes later, that same student was back on Instagram, much to the annoyance of the rest of the players at the table.
Multiple reminders from the professor and other students were not enough to get this student to put away their phone for good.

1. Introduction

As the vignette above demonstrates, social networking sites (SNS) have revolutionized the way individuals communicate, connect,
and interact with others. While the impact of SNS has typically been viewed in a positive light (Gilmour, Machin, Brownlow, & Jeffries,
2020), a growing body of literature is investigating a dark underbelly of SNS use where the outcome is depression (Moqbel & Kock,
2018), anxiety (Baker, Krieger, & LeRoy, 2016), and addiction (Blackwell, Leaman, Tramposch, Osborne, & Liss, 2017). This study
adds reduced learning to the latter body of literature, drawing from Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) to inform a set of
testable hypotheses.
Millennials and their subsequent generation, Gen Z, which are starting to enroll in colleges and universities are generally touted as
being technologically savvy, always connected, and raised on technology. These groups have an information technology mindset and
are used to multitasking particularly multitasking with multiple SNSs keeping up with others’ activities, accomplishments, and

E-mail address: chris.zimmer@usm.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104368
Received 13 April 2021; Received in revised form 1 November 2021; Accepted 4 November 2021
Available online 11 November 2021
0360-1315/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

engaging in multiple conversations simultaneously (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHann, & Gladwell, 2013). These SNSs are important
tools for keeping strong ties with friends and creating new ties with acquaintances.
Despite the importance of SNSs in keeping students connected, some faculty find SNSs to be a detriment to course learning,
particularly in courses taught in computer labs or that require students to bring their own computer to class (Galagan, 2010). While it is
assumed students will use technology in class to process information from the professor, take notes, or help them engage in the growing
course discourse, often students are using their technology to stay current on SNSs. Attempting to multitask or share cognitive re­
sources between two disparate activities can have long term negative consequences (Ophira, Nass, & Wagner, 2009).
When not used for legitimate academic purposes, technology in the classroom is associated with reduced student outcomes and
dissatisfaction with one’s education (Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Wurst, Smarkola, & Gaffney, 2008). One solution, implemented by
many professors, is to simply ban the use of computers in class. This tactic can work in certain courses, but many courses are inex­
tricably intertwined with computers. Programming classes, analytics classes, and computer information systems classes are all
dependent upon computers being used in the classroom to teach course materials to students. Computers are so fundamental to these
types of courses that many universities offer them in dedicated computer labs and the professor simply cannot unilaterally ban
computers from class. The issue becomes, when computers are part and parcel to the educational experience in a class, what traits lead
to reduced academic performance?
At the heart of this research is the concept of SNS addiction, its antecedents, and its outcomes. While SNS addiction has not been
recognized as a formal diagnosis, excessive use of SNSs has been linked to negative life experiences, poor health, and low performance
in other areas of one’s life (Fox & Moreland, 2015). Overuse of social networks does share physical manifestations with other
behavioral addictions such as withdrawal, tolerance, relapse, conflict, and mood modification (Andreassen, 2015). While no clinical
definition of SNS addiction exists, the extant literature has come to define SNS addiction as a psychological dependence upon SNSs that
interferes with life activities and yields other undesired consequences (Andreassen, 2015; Fox & Moreland, 2015; Moqbel & Kock,
2018; Oberst, Wegmann, Stodt, Brand, & Chamarro, 2017; Serenko & Turel, 2015; Turel, Serenko, & Giles, 2011; Wurst et al., 2008).
Because SNS addiction has not been formally recognized, and because the term ‘addiction’ carries a negative connotation, this work
will use the term “problematic social network use” (PSNU) instead of SNS addiction. The purpose of this research is to draw upon
Bandura’s (1986) SCT to develop a theoretically derived model that investigates the dark side of SNS use. The proposed research model
will test the antecedents of PSNU, and the impact of PNSU on subsequent classroom performance thereby capturing a complete view of
PNSU that heretofore has been unaddressed in previous research.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the theoretical groundwork is laid for the research model and hypotheses,
which are presented in Section 3. Section 4 will discuss the research methodology. The results will be presented, and their implications
discussed in Section 5, and the paper concludes with suggestions for future research in Section 6.

2. Theoretical development

While Bandura is most famous for his development of the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), his development of Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT) is far more reaching. While self-efficacy is subsumed within SCT, this theory is meant to describe the whole of
human behavior—its myriad of causes in all its complexity. The principle of reciprocal determinism in SCT argues that a triad of
factors—the person, the behavior, and the environment—interact with one another to determine each other (see Fig. 1).
For example, reciprocal determinism would argue that an individual’s behavior (SNS use) is the result of the environment (relevant
other’s SNS use) and the person (their self-control). In turn that behavior (SNS use) can also influence the environment (their course
performance) and the person (reinforcing their perception of a lack of self-control). As seen in Fig. 1, these reciprocal relationships
exist among all three members of the triad.

Fig. 1. Reciprocal determination in SCT.

2
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

On the surface, it appears that the concept of reciprocal determinism would render using SCT ineffective for explaining a research
model, but Bandura directly addresses this arguing that reciprocal determinism is not the same as undecomposable wholism (Bandura,
1983). Rather than the person, environment, and behavior operating as a simultaneous wholistic interaction, Bandura (1983) argues
that there is a temporal element in reciprocal determinism and that the person, environment, and behavior have their effects upon each
other sequentially over time. While SCT and the principle of reciprocal determinism is presented as a single model of interactive
causation, it is not a wholistic causal model (Bandura, 1983, 1986). This means that the triad of factors do not operate simultaneously
and that understanding can be gained without having to investigate every single interactant at the same time. Any attempt to
investigate every single interactant would very quickly result in analysis paralysis and scientific inquiry would grind to a halt.
In this study, PSNU forms the core of the research model. As educators, we are all interested in how to improve learning in our
classrooms. Understanding the role of PSNU on class performance is of paramount interest. Recent work has investigated the Behavior
(PNSU) to Environment (performance) relationship (Moqbel & Kock, 2018), but it remains quiet on the Person side of the triad. This
study will look at all three aspects of reciprocal determinism, arguing the Person influences the Behavior which, in turn, influences the
Environment.

3. Hypothesis development

3.1. Self-control

Hoch and Loewenstein (1991) argue that there are two ways to self-regulate behavior in situations where certain behaviors are
unwarranted. The first is to avoid or distract oneself and the second is to exercise self-control. When students use computers in a class
and rely on the Internet to access course materials (e.g. Canvas, BlackBoard, OneDrive, Google Drive, Github, etc.) the first strat­
egy—avoid or distracting oneself is not feasible. Since students use the same technologies capable of accessing social networks as tools
to accomplish course work, the only other method to self-regulate behavior and avoid engaging in social media activities when it is not
appropriate to do so falls to the individual’s self-control.
Self-control can be defined as an individual’s ability to exercise intentionality over their own behavior (Hofmann, Friese, & Strack,
2009). Self-control varies among individuals and has been likened to a muscle. Like a muscle when placed under load, self-control
wears down, is used up, or otherwise is stressed to such a degree that it breaks down (Baumeister, 2012; Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice,
2007; Baumeister & Vonasch, 2015; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Prior work with middle school aged children demonstrated a
negative relationship between Internet addiction and self-control meaning those individuals with lower level of self-control had a
greater tendency to display internet addiction (Oh, 2003). This suggests the following hypothesis:
H1. There will be a negative relationship between self-control and PSNU.
Hofmann et al. (2009) talk about an individual’s reserves of self-control influencing their behavior, but it also makes sense to think
that self-control could also impact an individual’s environment. The principle of reciprocal determination in SCT does argue that
personal traits can impact the environment (Bandura, 1983, 1986). Many task distractions exist in the typical classroom, not the least
of which are SNS. An individual can marshal their self-control reserves to ignore or otherwise avoid being distracted by SNS and other
task distractions. Individuals with more self-control ought to be able to ignore task distractions and vice versa. This suggests the
following hypothesis:
H2. There will be a negative relationship between self-control and task distraction.

3.2. Fear of missing out

Being social creatures, individuals have always wanted to be with their selected in-group. So, the fear of missing out on some sort of
fun event has always been a real concern. However, in an always connected age with individuals able to announce to their network
exactly what they are doing via SNS, the fear of missing out (FoMO) takes on an increased relevance to how individuals interact in their
social network. FoMO is formally defined as a pervasive apprehension that something more exciting or interesting is taking place
somewhere else (Przybylski et al., 2013). This is particularly important for individuals who are often out on their own for the first time,
such as college students, and who are forming relationships with others away from their parents’ direct influence, such as college
students. Nearly 75% of college students report feeling some level of FoMO (Alt, 2017). Przybylski et al. (2013) showed that FoMO is
associated with greater SNS use. FoMO has been associated with physical symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and shortness of
breath, and it has also been associated with increased symptoms of depression (Baker et al., 2016). In a longitudinal study, a vicious
cycle between SNS use and FoMO was demonstrated (Buglass, Binder, Betts, & Underwood, 2017). SNS use lead to greater feelings of
FoMO which lead to increased self-promoting behaviors online which lead to greater SNS use and the cycle begins anew.
While the previous literature demonstrated a clear relationship between FoMO and SNS use, there are fewer studies investigating
FoMO and PSNU. Most of the FoMO extant literature discuses increased SNS use as an outcome of FoMO but remains largely silent on
maladaptive or problematic SNS use. Oberst et al. (2017) demonstrated that FoMO was positively related to the amount of time spent
using SNSs and that it leads to undesirable social outcomes such as reduced academic performance. FoMO and pathological internet
use were negatively associated with general psychological well-being (Stead & Bibby, 2017). The single study that did investigate
FoMO and SNS addiction found that FoMO was positively related to SNS addiction and the amount of time spent using SNS sites
(Blackwell et al., 2017). This suggests the following hypothesis:

3
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

H3. There will be a positive relationship between FoMO and PSNU.

3.3. Computing engagement

Computing engagement, more frequently referred to as engagement, is rooted in early studies on computer anxiety and apathy
(Charlton & Birkett, 1995). Engagement, from this perspective, is the polar opposite of apathy and is viewed as an individual being
heavily involved with technology. Students typically have large amounts of unstructured time while enrolled in classes. Part of that
time should be devoted to studying and engaging with course material outside of the formal classroom environment. However, SNS
also compete for students’ attention and engagement.
When explicitly investigated, engagement has demonstrated mixed results when looking at course performance. Some studies claim
engagement does not impact course performance (Griffiths & Hunt, 1998; Shotton, 1991). However, other studies found evidence that
engagement does adversely impact course performance (Young, 1996a, 1996b). While the relationship between engagement and
course performance is unclear, engagement, reflective of the amount of time spent engaging with SNS, would be expected to be related
to PSNU. The more time spent engaging with SNS, the more likely it is to become problematic use. This suggests the following
hypothesis:
H4. There will be a positive relationship between engagement and PSNU.

3.4. Problematic social network use

Research into PSNU has only recently begun (Spraggins, 2009). Only in the last decade have researchers begun to extricate PSNU
from the more generalized concept of Internet addiction. Since SNS are organized around a person, they are an ideal way for in­
dividuals to construct a social identity, particularly those individuals who are still forming their social identities (Oberst et al., 2017).
The impact of PSNU on the individual’s environment is developed in this section.
A SNS “… allows individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other
users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the
system” (boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 211). The benefits of SNS are well documented in the literature. SNSs have been shown to increase
the connectedness of employees, and they provide resources for increased productivity (Leidner, Koch, & Gonzalez, 2010; Wu, 2013).
However, individuals that excessively use SNSs share many of the same symptoms seen with other behavioral addictions; symptoms
such as tolerance, withdrawal, relapse, mood modification, or conflict (Andreassen et al., 2013; Andreassen, Torsheim, Brunborg, &
Pallesen, 2012; Moqbel & Kock, 2018).
Addiction, in general, has a well-documented negative relationship with performance (Andreassen et al., 2013; Bata, Pentina,
Tarafdar, & Pullins, 2018; Kuss & Griffiths, 2011; Turel et al., 2011). It is reasonable to assume PSNU would also display a negative
relationship with classroom performance, particularly in a computer-enabled classroom or other class where students are expected to
bring computers and other technologies capable of accessing SNSs to class. This would suggest the following hypothesis:
H5. There will be a negative relationship between PSNU and class performance.
More than class performance, PSNU would lead to other environmental disruptions. Disruptions in the environment draw an in­
dividual’s attention away from the task at hand. While many sing the praises of multitasking, classroom research shows the human
brain is a terrible multitasker (Downs, Tran, McMenemy, & Abegaze, 2015). Excessive SNS use can distract an individual from the task
he ought to be performing. According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th Edition (DSM-IV-TR) classifies behavioral
addictions as an impulse control disorder (Grant, OPotenza, Weinstein, & Gorelick, 2010). The hallmark of a behavioral addiction is
the failure to resist the urge or desire to engage in the behavior that is causing a problem. Problematic social network use meets these
criteria. Any addictive behavior is often preceded by tension, arousal, or anxiety before engaging in the behavior (Grant et al., 2010;
LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003). Any of these impulses would be distracting in a classroom setting, which suggests the following
hypothesis:
H6. There will be a positive relationship between PSNU and task distraction.

3.5. Task distraction

In the typical classroom environment, the task rarely has anything to do with a SNS. The SNS is acting as a distraction; it is keeping
the students from completing the desired task at hand. Evidence of the distracting effects of SNSs are apparent everywhere in model life
as individuals are watching their devices while walking across campus, sitting in class, or even while operating motor vehicles.
Mounting evidence demonstrates that the human brain just isn’t designed to multitask (Downs et al., 2015). When empirically tested,
classroom performance decreased when students were distracted by a SNS (Gupta & Irwin, 2016). This suggests the following
hypothesis:
H7. There will be a negative relationship between task distraction and course performance.
This section developed a set of testable hypotheses grounded in Bandura’s (1983, 1986) SCT and building upon previous work. The
proposed research model is shown in Fig. 2. The next section describes how the theoretical model was operationalized and the re­
spondents used in the study.

4
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

Invitations to participate were sent out to 365 undergraduate students enrolled in an overview information systems course after IRB
approval had been obtained. Before starting the survey, respondents were told that the study was investigating social media use on
course performance. They were notified that they could drop out at any time without penalty and that until they elected to share their
student ID number, their answers were anonymous. The very last question of the survey reiterated that their responses were currently
anonymous and that if the wanted to remain anonymous, to leave the student ID question blank. It was also reiterated before that
question that there was no penalty for leaving the student ID question blank. When creating the final dataset, the researcher prepared
the grade portion of the data be removing everything from the gradebook except the student ID number and the scores on the as­
signments and joined it with the survey data. After the join, the student ID number was deleted from the data.
Of those 365 students, 219 (60%) completed the survey, and 179 (49%) chose to make their course performance data available.
Respondents were not compensated for their time and the mean time to complete the survey was 8 min and 41 s (x‾ = 8:41, SD = 4:03).
It was expected that some respondents would elect to remain anonymous, and thereby the course performance data for a portion of the
sample would be missing. Nonresponse bias is a legitimate threat to the external validity of the study and to the generalizability of the
findings (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002) and this concern will be addressed in the limitations section.
The majority of respondents were of traditional college age (N = 106, 60%, x‾ = 21.8, SD = 1.2) though there were some
nontraditional aged respondents (N = 52, 24%), and some did not answer the question (N = 37, 16%, x‾ = 34.1, SD = 8.3). To be
included in the study, all respondents had to be current users of social networking sites (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc.).
The overwhelming majority were business majors (N = 207, 94.5%) though 5.5% of the sample (N = 12) were not business majors.
This was expected as the course where respondents were recruited from is a required course for all business majors and does not draw
many students from outside the college of business. Junior standing is a prerequisite for the course and 59.4% (N = 130) were seniors,
30.1% (N = 66) were juniors, and the 10.5% (N = 23) elected to leave the question blank. In terms of gender, 36.1% (N = 79) was male,
56.2% (N = 123) was female, and 7.8% (N = 17) elected to leave the question blank.

4.2. Measures

Previously developed and validated scales were drawn from the extant literature whenever possible. Several steps were taken to
ensure that respondents did not mindlessly complete the survey. First several questions that instructed respondents to select a specific
answer (e.g. select the answer below that is the sum of two and three) were incorporated into the instrument in various locations.
Second, the survey was structured in such a way that only a handful of questions were presented on the page so downward scrolling
was minimized. Third a “percentage complete bar” was displayed on screen so respondents could visually see their progress through
the survey. Fourth, different inputs were used (e.g. slider bars) to respond to some questions.
The scale to measure FoMO was adapted from Przybylski et al. (2013). This is a 10-item, 7-point Likert scale instrument ranging
from 1 = “Not at all true of me” to 7 = “Extremely true of me.” The scale is intended to reflect a respondent’s fears and worries about
being out of touch or out of the loop on current happenings within their extended social circles.
The scale to measure problematic social media use was adapted from the computer addiction scale (Charlton, 2002). This is a
6-item Likert scale instrument ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree.” These six items are intended to reflect the
six hallmarks of a behavioral addiction—salience, euphoria, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse (Brown, 1993).
Task distraction was measured using two items from Zwarun and Hall (2014) where respondents used a sliding bar to indicate how
distracted they felt when trying to accomplish course work while using social media sites and how much attention they were able to
pay to their coursework while logged into social media sites.

Fig. 2. Proposed research model.

5
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

Self-control was measured using four items inspired by Tangney and her colleagues (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). This is
a Likert scale instrument ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree” with the four statements presented. All scale
items are shown in Appendix 1.
Engagement was measured using author developed items. Engagement is conceptualized in this study to reflect how often a
respondent uses social media. Respondents were asked how often they use social media traveling to and from school, between classes,
and during a class. All scale items are shown in Appendix 1.
Course performance was measured using a student’s grades on the assignments in an introductory information systems business
course. The course used four basic types of assignments. The first was closed book, proctored exams. The second was open book
quizzes, and the third type of assignment was course projects using software such as Microsoft Access, Microsoft Excel, and Salesforce’s
Tableau. Finally, students had to write a 3-page paper about the ethics surrounding white hat hackers. These four types of assignments
formed the basis of the final course grade.

5. Results

5.1. Scale reliability & validity (measurement model)

Partial least squares (PLS) was used to analyze the data. PLS uses a nonparametric approach to evaluate relationships within a
structural equation model. PLS also makes no assumptions about the structure of the underlying data (Qureshi & Compeau, 2009).
Additionally, the data were analyzed using the two step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) where the mea­
surement model is assessed for reliability and validity prior to the formal testing of the hypotheses. Prior to any analyses all the
variables were mean centered and standardized; doing so reduces inflation in observed path coefficients (Stone-Romero, 1988). Since
distraction and course grade are formative constructs, these are not included in the following analyses as all the guidelines for reli­
ability and validity were developed for use with reflective constructs (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006).
To assess the reliability of the constructs, the composite reliability (ICR) was calculated. Previous work argues that an ICR greater
than 0.70 is required for a construct to be considered reliable. Cronbach’s alpha was also calculated for the study constructs. Nunnally
(1978) offered a rule of thumb of a Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.70 is acceptable for research, but subsequent research argues that
0.80 is the minimum threshold for suitability for research (Cortina, 1993). Three of the four constructs had an ICR more than 0.70, and
the ICR for self-control came close to meeting the 0.70 guideline but had an ICR of 0.69. This was deemed close enough to include it in
the subsequent analyses. With respect to Cronbach’s alpha, three constructs displayed a reliability in excess of Cortina’s (1993) more
stringent 0.80 threshold. Self-control displayed an Cronbach’s alpha of 0.695, very close to Nunally’s (1978) suggested 0.70 threshold
for reliability. These results are shown in Table 1.
Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed via exploratory factor analysis (EFA), comparing the root average variance
extracted against the factor correlations, and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The EFA results demonstrate that the construct
items load together on the appropriate factor and none of the items cross load on any other factor. The EFA results are shown in Table 2,
and it can be argued the data demonstrate adequate convergent validity. Discriminant validity can be demonstrated by comparing the
root AVE to the correlations among the factors. A construct demonstrates adequate discriminant validity when the root AVE is greater
than the factor correlations. As can be seen in Table 1, the root AVE for each construct on the diagonal is greater than its correlation
with the other factors in the study, and the constructs demonstrate adequate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Finally, a
CFA was conducted and the model χ2 = 206.03, the model χ2 divided by its degrees of freedom is 1.635, the NFI is 0.917, the CFI is
0.966, the standardized RMR is 0.052, and the RMSEA is 0.046. All these fit indices indicate that the constructs demonstrate good
discriminant validity.

5.2. Hypothesis testing (structural model)

With the study constructs demonstrating adequate reliability and validity, the second part of data analysis can commen­
ce—hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing was conducted using SmartPLS (Ver. 2.0.M3). Course grade, being a 2nd order formative
factor, required the analysis to be conducted in two phases. The first phase, the structural model was specified with all study constructs
and course grade was the 2nd order factor specified from four 1st order factors corresponding to papers, projects, quizzes, and tests.
Then the second step uses the latent variable scores from the first step and the model is respecified using the latent variable scores and
analysis proceeds as any other PLS analysis.
Fig. 3 shows the overall results of the hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 argued that a negative relationship between self-control and

Table 1
Reliability, correlations, and root AVE of study constructs.
Cronbach α ICR FoMO Engagement Self-Control PSMU

FoMO 0.829 0.818 0.689

Engagement 0.867 0.861 0.282 0.784
Self-Control 0.700 0.690 − 0.208 0.232 0.620
PSMU 0.816 0.786 0.377 0.367 − 0.395 0.695

Root AVE in bold on the diagonal.

6
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

Table 2
EFA results for study constructs.
FoMO Engagement Self-Control PSMU

fomo01 0.761 0.115 0.152 0.119

fomo02 0.659 0.128 0.007 0.158
fomo03 0.607 0.078 0.035 0.153
fomo04 0.708 0.054 0.056 0.027
fomo05 0.701 0.043 0.030 0.072

engage1 0.087 0.621 0.066 0.105

engage2 0.109 0.642 0.096 0.135
engage3 0.068 0.915 0.065 0.125
engage4 0.123 0.907 0.037 0.116

sc1 0.055 0.143 0.564 0.207

sc2 − 0.101 0.054 0.582 0.042
sc3 0.051 0.023 0.489 0.026
sc4 0.087 − 0.045 0.645 0.082
sc5 0.136 0.089 0.476 0.121

sma1 0.214 0.225 0.233 0.623

sma2 0.143 0.103 0.068 0.800
sma3 0.122 0.139 0.177 0.754
sma4 0.073 0.075 0.080 0.581

PSNU would be observed. This hypothesis was supported (β = − 0.25, p = 0.004) indicating that students with greater self-control were
less likely to have a problem with SNSuse. Hypothesis 2 argued that a negative relationship between self-control and task distraction
would be observed. This hypothesis was supported (β = − 0.25, p = 0.021) indicating that students with greater self-control were less
likely to be distracted or put alternatively students with greater self-control were more likely to be focusing on the course related task
as opposed to social network sites. Hypothesis 3 argued that a positive relationship between FoMO and PSNU would be observed. This
hypothesis was supported (β = 0.22, p = 0.010) indicating that students with a greater fear of missing out were more likely to have a
problem with SNSuse. Hypothesis 4 argued that a positive relationship between engagement and PSNU would be observed. This
hypothesis was supported (β = 0.22, p = 0.028) indicating that students with greater course engagement were less likely to have a
problem with SNSuse. Hypothesis 5 argued that a positive relationship between PSNU and task distraction would be observed. This
hypothesis was supported (β = 0.28, p = 0.006) indicating that students with a problem using social networking sites were more likely
to be distracted in class. Hypothesis 6 argued that a negative relationship between PSNU and final course grade would be observed.
This hypothesis was supported (β = − 0.20, p = 0.037) indicating that students with as problem using SNSdid not do as well in the
course. Hypothesis 7 argued that a negative relationship between task distraction and final course grade would be observed. This
hypothesis was not supported (β = − 0.02, p = 0.780) indicating that being distracted in class does not impact course grade. The
implications of these findings will be discussed in the next section.

Fig. 3. Hypothesis testing results.

7
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

6. Discussion

6.1. General discussion

Rooted in reciprocal determinism of SCT (1983, 1986), this research investigated the antecedents to PSNU and its impact on course
success. Given the popularity of SNS and the requirement that students bring technology to class, it is important to understand what
leads to PSNU in order to address the issue particularly since PSNU has a detrimental impact on course success. This study developed a
set of testable hypotheses to investigate the antecedents to PSNU and the role of PSNU on course performance. A review of the hy­
potheses and whether they were supported or not is presented in Table 3.
Three potential antecedents to PSNU were identified from the extant literature. Self-control, or the ability of an individual to
exercise control over their behavior (Hofmann et al., 2009), was found to diminish PSNU. Students with greater self-control were less
likely to have a problem using SNS. The college years are a time in one’s life where there are large amounts of free time and with the
ease of which students can check in and see what their friends are doing has given rise to the concept of fear of missing out (Przybylski
et al., 2013). Social media can often present an unrealistic or idealized version of an activity which is often more interesting or fun than
attending class or studying or completing course assignments. Students with greater apprehension about missing activities with their
relevant social groups were more likely to exhibit PSNU. The third antecedent to PSNU is computing engagement. The more time an
individual spends interacting with SNS the more likely it is they will overuse SNS. This was seen in the study sample.
Self-control, FoMO, and computing engagement all displayed relationships with PSNU. What can professors do to address this given
that students are often required to bring technology to class or that classes are often taught in computer labs? Since self-control can be
depleted, structuring the class to help students maintain their self-control reserves is one thing to help. Either by moving around the
room (i.e. moving behind the screens) or encouraging students to stay on task help reduce the rate of ego depletion (Baumeister, 2012;
Baumeister & Vonasch, 2015). Perhaps even leveraging the technology itself and have students regularly interacting with the com­
puters to accomplish course goals in every class instead of just using the computers some or most of the time.
Addressing FoMO is more problematic. Since the bulk of the college-aged students are Millennials and Gen Z, tapping into the value
set these generations have is key to addressing FoMO from a course content perspective. Millennials prioritize experiences and form the
basis for the experience economy (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Making class more of an experience, not sacrificing content, but repackaging
it as an experience could help assuage feelings of FoMO in students. Leveraging technology in the form of a flipped classroom would
allow professors to make sure students have the resources to succeed and then class time can be used for complementary experiences to
build and demonstrate the most complex points in the flipped content.
Self-control and PSNU were found to be related to task distraction, albeit in opposite manners. Self-control keeps students on task
and less distracted while PSNU is the opposite. The mind is not an efficient multitasker (Downs et al., 2015; Gupta & Irwin, 2016).
Professors should help students maintain their self-control and make it more difficult for students to be distracted and off task during
class. This goes back to the aforementioned leveraging the technology to accomplish course goals which makes the computer a course
tool instead of a course distraction or temptation.
No relationship was observed between task distraction and course performance. This is somewhat surprising since prior work did
find a relationship between task distraction and job performance (Moqbel & Kock, 2018). A couple of explanations exist for this
discrepancy between this study and prior work. First, performance was measured differently. Moqbel and Kock (2018) measure job
performance subjectively using survey items such as “I always complete my job duties” or “I transform innovative ideas into useful
applications” where this study measured course performance using objective measures from course assignments such as tests and
quizzes. Second, many of the assignments in the course were completed outside of class. So, it could be that being distracted in class
does not translate into diminished course performance when completing assignments outside of class. Additionally, server logs indicate
when students move to other browser tabs or change applications during a test and no students had any other tabs open or switched to
any other applications during in class tests, so there was no opportunity to be distracted by technology during tests. Future research
should investigate this finding more thoroughly.
PSNU did negatively impact course performance. This finding does echo what previous work has demonstrated (Moqbel & Kock,
2018). In that study, the authors called for organizations to institute workplace policies about access SNS. In a university setting, this is
not a practical solution not only due to academic freedom issues, but the devices students have on campus are their own and not
company owned. However, an awareness campaign designed to promote positive emotions and make students aware of the negative
aspects of SNS could be beneficial. This is a complex issue with no easy solution. A multipronged solution incorporating course policies
and raising social awareness around the issue is likely to be more successful than either tactic alone.

Table 3
Review of study hypotheses.
Hypothesis Support?

H1 There will be a negative relationship between self-control and PSNU. Yes

H2 There will be a negative relationship between self-control and task distraction. Yes
H3 There will be a positive relationship between FoMO and PSNU. Yes
H4 There will be a positive relationship between engagement and PSNU. Yes
H5 There will be a negative relationship between PSNU and class performance. Yes
H6 There will be a positive relationship between PSNU and task distraction. Yes
H7 There will be a negative relationship between task distraction and course performance. No

8
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

6.2. Study limitations

No piece of research is perfect, and this study is no different. These limitations can be viewed as a call for future research to address.
The first limitation was mentioned earlier in the paper whereby there was a potential respondent bias. Students who elected to remain
anonymous could be those not doing as well in the course and thereby skewing the results. To address this possible alternative
explanation, a series of t-tests were conducted comparing the test, quiz, project, and paper scores of those students electing to share
their grades against the grades not linked to any survey results. None of these t-tests showed any significant differences in the means
between those who elected to share course performance data against those who elected to remain anonymous.
Another limitation is due to the cross-sectional nature of the study design. While theoretical arguments are offered that person
aspects impact behavior, which then impacts the environment, this cannot be fully ascertained without conducting a longitudinal
study across the entire college career of the same students. Additionally, these relationships need to be tested periodically as the
generation of student changes. These data were collected as the traditional aged college student was shifting from Millennials to Gen Z.
Whether these findings hold with Gen Z (and beyond) require further research, particularly given the impact of the next limitation has
had upon universities.
Lastly, this study was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic using students in face-to-face courses. While most universities
intend to return to traditional instruction when it is safe to do so, the lasting impacts of how courses are delivered (online vs hybrid vs
on the ground) in a post pandemic world remain to be seen. With the dramatic increase in online education as a result of the pandemic,
are these relationships observed in an online course, and if so, what does that mean for the instructor-student relationship?
This study investigated the antecedents to problematic social network use and its impact on course performance. Using SCT the
findings demonstrate that personal characteristics impact PSNU and that PSNU, in turn, negatively impacts course performance. By in
large, social networking sites are fun distractions and good for keeping up with acquaintances across vast distances, but as seen in this
study, there is a dark side to SNSs that can lead to undesirable consequences if not addressed on a personal and course level. This study
makes important contributions to understanding the complicated relationship between seemingly fun innocuous distractions and
course performance.

Credit author statement

This is a solo author paper. The author is responsible for all aspects of this paper.

Declaration of competing interest

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix 1. Study Instrument

Self-Control (anchors: Strongly Agree—Strongly Disagree)

1. I am good at resisting temptation.

2. I have a hard time breaking bad habits.
3. I refuse things that are bad for me.
4. I wish I had more self-discipline.
5. I have trouble concentrating.

FoMO (anchors: Not at all true of me—Extremely true of me)

1. I get worried when I find out my friends are having fun without me.
2. I get anxious when I don’t know what my friends are up to.
3. It is important that I understand my friend’s “in jokes."
4. It bothers me when I miss an opportunity to meet up with friends.
5. When I go on vacation, I continue to keep tabs on what my friends are doing.

Engagement (anchors: 0 days per week—7 days per week)

Please reflect on how you typically use social media (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, & Twitter) over the past week and report the
number of times you used it under the circumstances listed below.

1. Traveling to and from classes

2. Between classes
3. During a class

9
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

Problematic Social Media Usage (anchors: Strongly Agree—Strongly Disagree)

1. I sometimes neglect important things because of my interest in social networking sites.

2. My social life has sometimes suffered because of my interacting with social networking sites.
3. Using social networking sites sometimes interfered with my other activities.
4. I spend much of my time using social networking sites.

Task Distraction

1. Indicate the degree to which you feel distracted. (anchors: extremely distracted—not distracted at all)
2. Indicate how much attention you are able to pay in class (anchors: a lot of attention—no attention)

References

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites. Definition, history, and scholarship, 13(1), 210–230.
Alt, D. (2017). Students’ social media engagement and fear of missing out (FoMO) in a diverse classroom. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(2), 388–410.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411–423.
Andreassen, C. S. (2015). Online social network site addiction: A comprehensive review. Current Addiction Reports, 2(2), 175–184.
Andreassen, C. S., Griffiths, M. D., Gjertsen, S. R., Krossbakken, E., Kvam, S., & Pallesen, S. (2013). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor
model of personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(2), 90–99.
Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a Facebook addiction scale. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 501–517.
Baker, Z. G., Krieger, H., & LeRoy, A. S. (2016). Fear of missing out: Relationships with depression, mindfulness, and physical symptoms. Translational Issues in
Psychological Science, 2(3), 275–282.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(1), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1983). Temporal dynamics and decomposition of reciprocal determinism: A reply to Phillips and Orton. Psychological Review, 90(2), 166–170.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bata, H., Pentina, I., Tarafdar, M., & Pullins, E. B. (2018). Mobile social networking and salesperson maladaptive dependence behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior,
81(1), 235–249.
Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Self-control—the moral muscle. The Psychologist, 25(2), 112–115.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vonasch, A. J. (2015). Uses of self-regulation to facilitate and restrain addictive behavior. Addictive Behaviors, 44, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addbeh.2014.09.011
Blackwell, D., Leaman, C., Tramposch, R., Osborne, C., & Liss, M. (2017). Extraversion, neuroticism, attachment style and fear of missing out as predictors of social
media use and addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 116(1), 69–72.
Brown, R. I. F. (1993). Some contributions of the study of gambling to the study of other addictions. In W. R. Eadington, & J. A. Cornelius (Eds.), Gambling behavior and
problem gambling (pp. 241–272). Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press.
Buglass, S. L., Binder, J. F., Betts, L. R., & Underwood, J. D. M. (2017). Motivators of online vulnerability: The impact of social network site use and FOMO. Computers
in Human Behavior, 66(1), 248–255.
Charlton, J. P. (2002). A factor-analytic investigation of computer ’addiction’ and engagement. British Journal of Psychology, 93(3), 329–344.
Charlton, J. P., & Birkett, P. E. (1995). The development and validation of the computer apathy and anxiety scale. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(1),
41–59.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Jornal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration.
British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.
Downs, E., Tran, A., McMenemy, R., & Abegaze, N. (2015). Exam performance and attitudes toward multitasking in six, multimedia-multitasking classroom
environments. Computers & Education, 86(August 2015), 250–259.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use
and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45(1), 168–176.
Galagan, P. (2010). Burp, chatter, tweet: New sounds in the classroom. TD Magazine, 64(7), 26–29.
Gilmour, J., Machin, T., Brownlow, C., & Jeffries, C. (2020). Facebook-based social support and health: A systematic review. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(3),
328–346.
Grant, J. E., OPotenza, M. N., Weinstein, A., & Gorelick, D. A. (2010). Introduction to behavioral addictions. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36(5),
233–241.
Griffiths, M. D., & Hunt, N. (1998). Dependence on computer games by adolescents. Psychological Reports, 82(2), 475–480.
Gupta, N., & Irwin, J. D. (2016). In-class distractions: The role of Facebook and the primary learning task. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1165–1178. Part B.
Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492–507.
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 162–176.
Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the affects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2),
241–252.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Addiction to social networks on the internet: A literature review of empirical research. International Journal of Environment and
Public Health, 8(9), 3528–3552.
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated internet usage: Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5(3), 225–253.
Leidner, D., Koch, H., & Gonzalez, E. (2010). Assimilating generation Y IT new hires into USAA’s workforce: The role of an enterprise 2.0 system. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 9(4), 229–242.
Moqbel, M., & Kock, N. (2018). Unveiling the dark side of social networking sites: Personal and work-related consequences of social networking site addiction.
Information & Management, 55(1), 109–119.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2),
247–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

10
J.C. Zimmer Computers & Education 177 (2022) 104368

Oberst, U., Wegmann, E., Stodt, B., Brand, M., & Chamarro, A. (2017). Negative consequences from heavy social networking in adolescents: The mediating role of fear
of missing out. Journal of Adolescence, 55(1), 51–60.
Oh, W. O. (2003). Factors influencing internet addiction tendency among middle school students in Gyeong-buk area. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 33(8),
1135–1144.
Ophira, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97–105.
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHann, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848.
Qureshi, I., & Compeau, D. (2009). Assessing between-group differences in information systems research: A comparison of covariance-and component-based SEM. MIS
Quarterly, 33(1), 197–214.
Serenko, A., & Turel, O. (2015). Integrating Technology addiction and use: An empirical investigation of Facebook users. AIS Transactions on Replication Research, 1(1).
Article 2.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Shotton, M. A. (1991). The costs and benefits of ‘computer addiction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 10(3), 219–230.
Spraggins, A. (2009). Problematic use of online social networking sites for college students: Prevalence, predictors, and associates of well-being. Doctoral Dissertation.
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Stead, H., & Bibby, P. A. (2017). Personality, fear of missing out and problematic internet use and their relationship to subjective well-being. Computers in Human
Behavior, 76(1), 534–540.
Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35(3), 321–339.
Sterman, J. D. (1992). Teaching takes off: Flight simulators for management education (pp. 40–44). OR/MS Today(October).
Stone-Romero, E. F. (1988). Moderator variables in research: A review and analysis of conceptual and methodological issues. In G. R. Ferris, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.),
Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 6, pp. 191–229). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72(2), 271–324.
Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Giles, P. (2011). Integrating technology addiction and use: An empirical investigation of online auction users. MIS Quarterly, 35(4),
1043–1051.
Wu, L. (2013). Social network effects on productivity and job security: Evidence from the adoption of a social networking tool. Information Systems Research, 24(1),
30–51.
Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist
measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1766–1783.
Young, K. S. (1996a). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. In Paper presented at the 104th annual meeting of the American psychological
association, Toronto, ON.
Young, K. S. (1996b). Psychology of computer use: XL. Addictive use of the internet: A case that breaks the stereotype. Psychological Reports, 79(3), 899–902.
Zwarun, L., & Hall, A. (2014). What’s going on? Age, distraction, and multitasking during online survey taking. Computers in Human Behavior, 41(December 2014),
236–244.

11