LinkedIn use and its effects on subjective well–
being, career satisfaction and self-esteem over time:
An experience sampling study among emerging adults
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
Author: María Alejandra Alayza Supervisor: Dr. Marlies Klijn Student ID: 10609547 28, January 2015
University of Amsterdam 2
Abstract
Over 130 million people interact with LinkedIn on a daily basis. Yet, whether LinkedIn use influences subjective well-being, career satisfaction and self-esteem over time is unknown. This issue was addressed by using experience-sampling, the most reliable method for measuring moment to moment behaviors and psychological experiences. An email was sent with an online survey link to unemployed emerging adults five times per day for a two-day period to examine how LinkedIn use influences: how emerging adults feel moment-to-moment, how much they are using LinkedIn and if they are modifying their professional profiles based on others‘ profiles. Two more surveys were sent before and after the experience sampling period to measure changes in: how emerging adults feel about their life in general, their self-esteem and how satisfied they are about their chosen career when considering their LinkedIn use during the tested period. Results indicate that LinkedIn use negatively influences on all variables. The more participants used LinkedIn at a certain point in time, the worse they felt throughout the day; the more they used LinkedIn over the two-day testing period, the more their life satisfaction, career satisfaction and self-esteem levels decreased over time. LinkedIn seems to offer an extraordinary tool to satisfy the need of connecting with others to get a job or establish a professional career network. However, this study suggests rather than improving subjectivewell-being, the use of LinkedIn may worsen it.
Keywords: Social networking, professional social networking, subjective well-being, career satisfaction, self-esteem, LinkedIn®.
University of Amsterdam 3
Introduction
LinkedIn is the world‘s largest professional social networking website (LinkedIn.com) with over 130 million profiles. Because of its similar functions and popularity LinkedIn is also referred to as a ―Facebook in a suit‖ (van Dijck, 2013). Researching social networks, a recent study conducted by Kross (2013) demonstrated that Facebook decreases young adults‘ subjective well-being over time. Yet, no research has examined how interaction of emerging adults with LinkedIn influences its users‘ subjective well-being over time. So, can we say the same about LinkedIn?
So far, studies on LinkedIn only focused on a few superficial benefits of the platform such as, how LinkedIn helps to create a different identity online (van Dijck, 2013) or how LinkedIn may help with career building and creating opportunities in the job market (Gerard, 2011; Lanigan, 2012). But there is no insight about emerging adults‘ use of LinkedIn, what they are doing on the platform, or whether its usage is affecting their subjective well-being, career satisfaction and self-esteem over time.
Emerging adults, ages18-25(hereafter EAs) go through a time of exploration and instability (Arnett, 2000; Bukatko, 2007; Côté, 2006). In their day-to-day life they pay attention to people that are close to them in order tolook for support. Friends tend to become very important to EA's well-being, as they can make them feel better or worse about themselves (Arnett, 2000; Bukatko, 2007). Because of the emergence of social media, the behavior of other peers, (i.e. distant friends or relatives)also becomes important for EA‘s well-being(Bevan et al., 2014; Manago et al., 2012). As a result of their general instability, EAs face challenges in the job market (Arnett, 2000; Bukatko, 2007; Côté, 2006). For example, through LinkedIn they are exposed to thousands of CVs, which is completely new to them and could have an effect on their well-being. Consequently, this could influence how they feel about their selected careers, their self-esteem, and for example causemodifications of their professional profiles, etc.
There is no existing research that focuses on these issues. Due to the increasing population of EAs who use LinkedIn everyday (Azevedo, 2013), several research questions emerged and need to be answered:
University of Amsterdam 4
How is LinkedIn use affecting emerging adults?
Are the feelings of EAs towards their career affected when they look at other CVs on LinkedIn?
Is the self-esteem of EAs affected by LinkedIn use?
Do EAs modify their LinkedIn professional profiles based on social comparison on the platform?
How much do EA‘s LinkedIn profiles reflect their real professional identities? Firstly, the study defines subjective well-being, the connection to emerging adults and why they are a relevant age-group. Further, it explains how theory describes career satisfaction as an important predictorof one‘s well-being and discusses how EAs feel on Social Network Sites (SNSs). This includes how EAs are behaving on SNSs and how social comparison and self-evaluations change their own perception and feelings. Finally, the theoretical framework outlines the particularities of the SNS LinkedIn and how the target audience projects an identity through this professional platform.
Using surveys and experience sampling among a group of EAs then examines these theoretical issues. Experience sampling is seen as the most reliable method for measuring immediate actions and psychological experience over time (Kahneman, et al., 2004). Finally, the findings are summarized, explained and discussed in the light of the theoretical basis of the study.
Theoretical Framework
Defining Subjective Well-being
Subjective well-being (SWB) tries to detect the antecedents of happiness in positive psychology (Diener, 1984; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Diener, (2000) defined it as ―people's evaluations of their lives, evaluations that are both affective and cognitive‖ (p. 34). The cognitive dimension of SWB is the judgmental evaluation of one‘s life. The affective dimension refers to how an individual experiences the balance between levels of positive and negative emotions (Diener, 2000). Further, Diener (2000) identified
University of Amsterdam 5
three components of SWB. These are: Life satisfaction (global judgments of one's life e.g. what does one feel about their general life condition), Positive affect (experiencing pleasant emotions and moods), and Negative affect (experiencing unpleasant emotions and moods). The first component, 'Life satisfaction' measures a cognitive dimension of SWB (a global perspective of self), whereas 'Positive and Negative affects'are measures to describe momentary feelings. In order to predict a positive or negative feelingof one‘s life, all three components will be used as underlying factors for SWB in this study.
Also, each individual has broader judgments about specific domains of SWB, such as satisfaction in their marriage, religion, economic status, or choosing a specific career, which caninfluence overall well-being (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Uthayakumar et al., 2010). These judgments of one's own life change over a person‘s life span and specific goals may become more important during certain life transition times (Elder, 1998; Uthayakumar, et al. 2010). For example, after choosing a career, a person‘s perception of SWB also includes career satisfaction. Because LinkedIn is a career building platform, this study especially focuses on career satisfaction (hereafter CS) and its influence on SWB. One particular life transition time where CS becomes predominantly important, is the phase of emerging adulthood.During this period, individuals change or decide on some of their life goals (e.g. choosing a career). The next section looks at the connection of EA's characteristics and their challenge in choosing and pursuingtheir goals.
Developmental and Career Concerns during Emerging Adulthood
EAs pass through a ―time of exploration and instability, a self-focused age, and an age of possibilities‖ (Arnett, p. 21, 2004). One of the main concerns during this time is their struggle with some aspects of their identities, such as ethics, religious believes or their career choices (Côté, 2006). EAs are passing through several changes in their life. Bukatko (2007) refers to emerging adulthood as a specific transitional period in human development that occurs between late adolescence and young adulthood, in the age range from 18 till 25 years. They change jobs,love partners and residences more frequently than in any later period of life. Especially European EA's SWB is shaped by an important trend concerning career and job experiences. They obtain more
post-University of Amsterdam 6
secondary education today than at any time in the past (Manago et al., 2012). This confronts them longer than ever before with the difficulty of choosing a life that fits their personalities and preferences.
In order to make such decisions, emerging adults often ask for advice from friends rather than family. Several studies revealed that friends are particularly influential when it comes to making a decision for a new job or changing a career (Bukatko, 2007). Recently, social media platforms have become more influential as a tool to connect with friends and seek their support (Manago et al., 2012). In that sense, social media platforms function as interactive platforms, exposing certain aspects or behaviors of friends or their connections.These may be perceived as better than their own life, making the observer feel demotivated or depressed. This is supported by a recent study, which demonstrated that EA‘s SWB is affected when looking at Facebook profiles of friends or of friends‘ connections (Manago et al., 2012, Bevan et al. 2014). The same may be true for LinkedIn, which is the most popular professional networking platform where EA‘s perceptions and career choices are in the spotlight. Therefore, the next section explores EA's career concerns and LinkedIn usage and its effects on EA‘s SWB.
Emerging Adults Career Satisfaction and SWB
Emerging adults are more likely to be extrinsically motivated in terms of responding to their structural qualities (the importance of other people‘s interests i.e. the grades at school, how much money they will get in terms of career choices) instead of their intrinsic qualities (i.e. choosing the job that they like the most even if it is not well paid) (Walsh et al. 2005). Related to this, research on SWB regularly shows, that the characteristics and resources (e.g. money) of a person are valued by society and therefore a person's happiness also depends on their perceived image from society (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
Because of mainly being extrinsically motivated, EAs face frequent insecurities and are indecisive while making important decisions like selecting personal goals (Arnett, 2004). As Walsh et al. (2005) suggest, chasing self-selected goals positively correlates to SWB. Therefore, EAs vulnerability can create future problems for gaining a sense of inner meaning during their life courses (Côté, 2006). In addition, a career goal helps
University of Amsterdam 7
EAs to achieve an identity as part of their developmental stage and be satisfied with e.g. a selected career, making them feel better about themselves (Côté, 2006).
Further research suggeststhat the general emotional state of a person (e.g. being happy or having low self-esteem (SE) — that is, people whose overall liking for themselves is relatively low) also relates to SWB and CS (Uthayakumar, et al., 2010). For example, studies revealed that low self-esteem is associated with a decrease of purpose in life, causing a decrease of general life satisfaction (Diener, 2000; Senol-Durak et al., 2010). A study done by Graves et al. (2010) showed that self-esteem was related to career satisfaction, influencing SWB significantly. This might further alter an EA‘s decision for a specific career. When EAs are looking for support on social media, they may be seeking for help to try to achieve or build up their career goals. Thus, LinkedIn might be a tool for those who try to achieve career goals, and become recognizable in the job market. However, is LinkedIn use also beneficial to users‘ SWB? The next section will discuss research findings on the influence of social media sites ontheir users‘ SWB.
Emerging Adults Perception of Well-being on Social Network Sites (SNS)
By the middle of 2013, SNSs reached 10 million users in the Netherlands, or 85.3% of the total Dutch Internet audience (Azevedo, 2013). Facebook was the leader with 8.7 million unique visitors and LinkedIn came in second with an audience of 3.8 million unique visitors with around 20% being emerging adults (Azevedo, 2013).
As mentioned above EAs pass through a time of vocational struggle and with the rapid growth and connectivity of SNS, they seek more support on online platforms. Especially EAs use SNSs to seek social support (Gemmill et al., 2006). For instance, a study with a survey of 401 undergraduate emerging adults done by Nabi et al. (2013) affirms that ―for students who had more objective life stressors, the number of Facebook friends is a stronger predictor of perceived social support‖ (p.722) in turn suggesting an increase of their SWB (Nabi et al., 2013). However, greater use of online communication tools such as visualizing and comparing to others‘ profiles on e.g. Facebook showed a negative effect on SWB (Kross et al., 2013). As such, research indicates increasingly contradictory results about whether a SNS increases or decreases
University of Amsterdam 8
ones‘ SWB in general. One way or the other, it seems that Gemmill et al. (2006) are correct in suggesting that EAs use SNS to seek social support.
As described above, the biggest professional career and networking platform used in the Netherlands and worldwide is LinkedIn. But to date, there is no research that shows if EAs are looking for social support on LinkedIn or how the confrontation with other professional profiles influences their SWB. It may be that EAs feel more insecure about a specific offline issue, i.e. unsatisfied career and look for social support by looking at others‘ profiles and connections to get e.g. inspired or motivated towards their own careers. However, the curiosity of checking up on others‘ professional life might also negatively affect their SWB. It may be that EAs are constantly looking atprofiles of others without realizing that the possible stability reflected in these profiles regarding career and success on the job market may make them feel more negative when for example being unemployed. This is also reflected by Kross' (2013) findings: The more one is exposed to others‘ Facebook profiles that show a better (imaginary) life than their own, the worse they feel over time. The same might be true for using LinkedIn, when EAs are exposed to professional career profiles that reflect better careers. This may cause them to feel frustrated and less satisfied with their own professional life. In the last section, it was discussed that CS and SE are related to SWB. If SWB turns out to be negatively affected by LinkedIn use (see above), then it might also be that CS and SE are negatively affected by using the platform. Therefore, this study assumes:
H1: The more emerging adults use LinkedIn, the lower their career satisfaction will be over time.
H2: The more emerging adults use LinkedIn, the lower their self-esteem will be over time.
H3a: The more emerging adults use LinkedIn, the lower their affective dimension of SWB over time.
H3b:The more emerging adults use LinkedIn, the lower their cognitive dimension of SWB over time.
University of Amsterdam 9
Social Comparison and the Self on SNSs
Rosenberg (1965) as one of the first social comparison theorists states, that people constantly compare themselves with others in their direct environment (and via mass media) to judge their own personal value, which affects their self-esteem. Extensive research about the social comparison theory, which deals with the effect of comparing particular opinions and skills to evaluate one‘s general value as a human being, supports these early findings (Morse &Gergen, 1970).
Related to this, many SNSs offer a perfect platform for detailed representation of the self. Users can selectively choose content for their profiles, select and post pictures, and describe themselves in ways that best represent their ideal vision of themselves and how they want to be seen by others (van Dijck, 2013). For example, a study done by Gonzales & Hancock (2011) demonstrates that Facebookis a pleasant platform for self-presentation because users can cleverly construct online images that emphasize their most desirable characteristics to be seen by others. Bevan et al. (2014) argue, that this profile construction on SNSs, usually showing more positive than negative images, leads frequent Facebook users to believe that other ‗friends‘ are more successful and happy as they are themselves. This occurs in particular, if a user does not know her/his friends well offline. Based on these findings, people might be comparing their real offline self to the ideal online self of others. This in turn influences people‘s self-evaluations and consequently their SWB (Bevan et al. 2014). Given the importance of SNSs and a variety of social functions, this study suggests that LinkedIn may also be used (consciously or unconsciously) as a base for social comparative functions, such as self-evaluation as mentioned by Rosenberg (1965). Further, people may be comparing themselves with others on LinkedIn to have a better idea about building their ideal professional self. To support this theory, the next section examines the professional self on LinkedIn.
The Professional Self on LinkedIn
In contrast to Facebook, LinkedIn profiles look cleaner and are more formal (i.e. the use of only one formal picture and the structure of the text, looking like a list). This platform incorporates formatted CVs, displaying relevant facts like education, current
University of Amsterdam 10
and past positions, former experience etc. (Lanigan, 2012; van Dijck, 2013). This particular SNS avoids any form of emotional attachments or self-expressions, as these might be adverse to someone‘s professional image (Gerard, 2011; van Dijck, 2013).
However, Van Dijck (2013) explains that LinkedIn is not a neutral stage of self-performance, but a tool for shaping users‘ identities. LinkedIn has several functions that allow users to be exposed to recruiters and other professionals. For example, it permits users to assess their own professional value by looking at ‗profile stats‘ (names, tiles and companies of people who look at their profile), which can be used as an indication of the ‗state of the professional value‘ (Gerard, 2011; van Dijck, 2013). Further, LinkedIn's interface features connectivity and narrative tools, to send self-presentations to others or compare one‘s own profile to desired job profiles. This can create exaggerated self-expression because of the need for self-promotion, also influencing other users. Van Dijck (2013) explains:
―Social media profiles, in other words, are not a reflection of one‘s identity, but are part and parcel of a power struggle between users, employers/employees and platform owners to steer online information and behavior‖(p.212).
Based on Van Dijck‘s claim this study suggests, that emerging adults‘ professional profiles on LinkedIn are modified on the basis of comparing their professional identity with others. Yet, there is no research on how LinkedIn influences its users regarding their SWB. Therefore, this study hypothesizes:
H4a: The more EAs modify their profile on the basis of others, the less they identify with their own professional profile on LinkedIn.
H4b: The less EAs identify with their own professional profile on LinkedIn, the lower their SWB over time.
University of Amsterdam 11
Method
Research Design Overview
To answer the research questions and test the hypotheses, this study implements three phases. The first phase consists of general questions to gather information about the participantsusing reliable scales like the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985), the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg, 1965), the ‗negative career outlook‘ factor of the Career Futures Inventory–Revised (CFI-R) (Rottinghaus et al., 2011) and others. In the second phase participants are asked to use LinkedIn while answering questions regarding their usage, feelings, comparing of profiles and profile modification during a LinkedIn session. In the third phase participants answer most of the questions from the scales used during the first phase in order to understand a possible effect on the participants‘ SWB, self-esteem, career satisfaction and LinkedIn profile identification.
Sample
A sample of 41 international emerging adults from 20 to 25 years living in Amsterdam, the Netherlands; (47% European, 36% Latin, 8% American, and 7% other) was recruited for a study on LinkedIn. Only 36 participants completed all surveys of the study, therefore those participants were the only ones ultimately included in the sample (N=36, 52% female, 47% male). All participants were about to finish their Bachelor (47.2%) or Master‘s degree (52.8%).
Recruitment
Participants were recruited through a non-probability snowball sampling procedure that started with graduate students at the University of Amsterdam looking for a job. They further recommended friends, which are active LinkedIn users and looking for a job, to the study. Other emerging adults were contacted via social media and asked for others‘ possible participation. In order to qualify for the study, participantsneeded to have a LinkedIn account, a touch-screen smartphone and to be in need of a job in the nearfuture.
University of Amsterdam 12
Ethics Statement
Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation. In addition, participants were told that they were allowed to withdraw from the studyat any time and that their information would remain anonymous. Finally, they were given a small reward for contributing to the study and thanked for their time.
Materials and Procedure
Phase 1. Participants completed a set of questionnaires, which included general demographic questions, the five-item SWLS (which taps into the global life satisfaction component of subjective well-being), self-esteem (with the RSES) career satisfaction (with the NCO factor) traits and identification with their existing LinkedIn profile (see appendix A, pp. 32-33).
Phase 2. Inspired by the experience sampling method applied in a study on Facebook by Kross (2013), participants were emailed 5 times per day between 10am and midnight over 2-days. Emails occurred at random times per day. Each email contained a link to an online survey, which asked participants to answer five or four questionsthroughout the day (see appendix B, pp. 34-40).
A protocol for answering these questions was explained at the beginning of the first online questionnaire of the day. For instance, the question ―Have you read other‘s online professional profiles with a similar career prospect?‘‘ referred to LinkedIn connections‘ profiles with a similar future career prospect only, not recruitment agencies nor companies‘ profiles.
In order to fulfill the study requirements, participants were informed that they could contact the researcher at any time via text/email in case of any unclear situation in the process. This never happened though.
Participants always answered the affect question first. Next, the comparison and modification questions about their profiles were presented in random order and the LinkedIn use questions were always administered last, again in random order.
University of Amsterdam 13
Phase 3. Following phase 2, participants completed another set of questionnaires, which included the SWLS, the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSES), the NCO and the profile identification question (see appendix C, pp. 40-41).
Experience sampling method (ESM)
ESM is a systematic approach that allows the advantage of accessing a participant‘s natural behavior and psychological state and allows the collection of participant‘s data about their varying ongoing behavior in order to predict casual patterns (Weisner et al., 2001).
This method was selected based on Kross‘ (2013) successful study on measuring SWB on Facebook. The validity in this study comes from repetition, so it is possible to observe for patterns like participants reporting greater happiness immediately following daily activities. This method was also selected because of its advantage on making the signal less dependent upon memory. Further the technique is less intrusive than direct observation increasing accuracy and veridicality (Weisner et al., 2001). This study uses ESM to analyze 360 measures of behavior on LinkedIn over a 2-day experience sample period.
Measures
Demographics
EAs were asked their age, their place of birth, gender and level of completed education.
Subjective Well Being (SWB)
As defined in the theory section, SWB entailstwo dimensions supported by Diener (2000): A cognitive (a global perspective of the self) and an affective dimension (momentary feeling). These two factors measure three components in total, namely: ‗Life Satisfaction‘ for the Cognitive dimension; ‗Positive momentary feelings‘ and ‗Negative momentary feelings‘ for the affective dimension.
- Life Satisfaction:This concept was analyzed during phase 1 and phase 3. EAs
were asked to fill out the five-item SWLS used by Kross, (2013). Five statements such as ―I am satisfied with my life‖ and ―In most ways my life is close to my ideal‖ were used. These were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
University of Amsterdam 14
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (M=4.3, SD=2.6, α =0.90). One limitation of the original scale is that all items are positivelyworded. Consequently, scores are likely to be influenced by response sets. I therefore modified the scale to include reverse-coded items (e.g., ―I dislike my life‖). Answers on both phases were summed up and recoded into ordinal scales ranging from 0 (low life satisfaction) to 2 (high life satisfaction).
- Positive and Negative momentary feelings: This concept was analyzed during
the experience sampling process (phase 2). EAs were asked to answer a question regarding how they feel at the moment: ―How do you feel right now?‖ A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very positive) to 5 (very negative) was used (M=3.4, SD=0.6). This question was inspired by Kross‘ (2013) study. Answers during the experience sampling process were recoded into ordinal scales ranging from 0 (positive feeling) to 2 (negative feeling).
Career Satisfaction (CS)
To measure CS, EAs were asked to complete one factor of the CFI-R developed by Rottinghaus et al. (2011). The CFI-R provides scores on five scales measuring career
agency (preparation for career transitions), occupational awareness of the job market, support from friends and family, work life balance with other things of your life, and negative career outlook (Negative thoughts about career decisions and belief that one
will not achieve favorable career outcomes). However, this study finds it relevant to only analyze the reliable factor‘s scale ‗negative career outlook‘. Therefore, items (e.g. I doubt my career will turn out well in the future) underlined the new concept ‗Career Satisfaction‘ which was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (M=4.1, SD=2.5, α=0.91). This questionnaire was selected because of its high reliability (α=0.90 [negative career outlook]). This concept was analyzed during phase 1 and phase 3. Answers on both phases where then summed up and recoded into ordinal scales ranging from 0 (low career satisfaction) to 2 (high career satisfaction).
LinkedIn Use
This concept was analyzed during the experience sampling process (phase 2). As defined, ‗LinkedIn Use‘ referred to EA‘s time spent on LinkedIn specifically by looking at other‘s profiles. Thus, two questions were asked using scales for time and usage: (1) ―Have you read other‘s online professional profiles with a similar career prospect since
University of Amsterdam 15
the last time I asked?‖ (0 profiles [1] 1-3 profiles [2] 3-5 [3], more than 5 profiles [4]) (M=2.2, SD=0.8) (2) ―How much have you used LinkedIn since the last time I asked?‖ (not at all [1] to a lot [5]) (M=1.2, SD=0.7). Both questions were recoded into the same variable with a dummy scale where higher values determined ‗Extensive LinkedIn Use‘ (1) and lower values determined ‗Not Extensive LinkedIn Use‘ (0). In order to get the total LinkedIn Use over 2-day experience sampling, the scales were summed up and again converted into a dummy variable using the same concepts as before.
Self Esteem
This concept was analyzed twice, in phase 1 and 3. EAs were asked to complete the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSES, α=0.89). Here EAs agreed or disagreed using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on ten statements like: ―On the whole I am satisfied with myself.‖ (M=2.4, SD=1.1, α=0.90). Answers on both phases where then summed up and recoded into ordinal scales ranging from 0 (low self esteem) to 2 (high self esteem).
Social Comparison
This concept was analyzed during the experience sampling process (phase 2). In order to assess EAs behavior on LinkedIn, they were asked questions about others‘ influence on them when updating their professional profiles (if applicable). Therefore, the following two questions were asked: (1) ―How much have you modified your professional profile since last time I asked?‖ (not at all [0] to a great deal [5]) (M=2.1,
SD=0.8). (2) ―Are you modifying these according to someone else‘s profile?‖ (no [1]
yes [2] , not applicable [0]) (M=2.3, SD=0.8). These questions were developed by Kross (2013) and modified for this research. Later, ‗not applicable‘ answers were declared as missing values. Consequently, answers for both questions were summed up and recoded into a dummy variable in which higher values determined higher social comparison (1) and lower values determined lower social comparison (0).
Professional Identity
This concept was analyzed during phase 1 and phase 3. EAs were asked to reveal how much they identify with their professional profile (if applicable). Thus, one question was asked at the beginning and the end of the study: ―How much does your LinkedIn profile represent you?‖ (not likely [0] to extremely likely [10]) (M=7, SD=1.3).
University of Amsterdam 16
Findings
Observations and fulfillment
As explained in the methods section, participants received an email with an online-survey link directing them to complete a block of five questions once every 154 minutes on average (all emails were delivered randomly within this time). The study only considered responses, which were answered before participants received the next subsequent email forthe following block of questions. Participants responded to an average of 87.8% emails. Only five participants did not complete the study and their data were excluded from the findings. 36 participants answered 100% of the questions, resulting in 1,584 total observations during the experience-sampling process (22 questions per day) and 1,440 total observations before and after the experience-sampling period (20 questions pre/post experience-experience-sampling).
LinkedIn use and SWB
Affective well-being
It was examined, how EA‘s interaction with LinkedIn during one day changes their affective well being by separating their answers on how they felt at the beginning of the day (first block of questions of the day: T1) and by the end of the day (Last block of
questions of the day: T2). T2 was predicted by participant‘s LinkedIn use during the day
(T1-2) (i.e., ‗Have you read other‘s online professional profile with a similar career
prospect since the last time I asked?‘, and ‗how much have you used LinkedIn since the last time I asked?‘) and controlled against their initial feelings (T1). An ordinal logistic
regression model in which ‗T2‘s-affect‘ acted as the dependent variable and LinkedIn
use T1-2 and ‗T1‘s-affect‘ as the independent variables proved to be significant, showed
that 33% of the variance in ‗T2‘s-affect‘ can be predicted by the independent variables
(r2=.33, df=2, p<.05). Further, the model predicts that the less extensive people use LinkedIn, a 2.25 decrease in the log odds of being in a higher level of affect is expected (0:Positive, 1:Neutral, 2:Negative) (b=-2.25, df=1, p<.05). Thus, the more extensively EAs use LinkedIn, the higher the possibility to feel more negative by the end of a day compared to the initial feeling.This last statement supports H3.a of this study (see
University of Amsterdam 17
model 1.a). The reversed assumption (T1‘s-affect predicting LinkedIn use T1-2) was not
significant (r2=.00, df=1, p=.62), indicating that people do not use LinkedIn more or less depending on how they feel.
Cognitive well-being
To predict how LinkedIn usage influences ‗Cognitive well-being‘, EA‘s total use over the 2-day period (independent variable) was measured and compared to their life satisfaction at the end of the study (dependent variable). This in turn was tested against their initial life satisfaction score (independent variable). An ordinal regression model showed to be significant with 28% of the outcome variance being explained by the exploratory variables (r2=.28, df=2, p=.01). It also explained that the less extensive EAs use LinkedIn a 0.58 increase in the log odds of being in a higher level of life satisfaction can be expected (0:Negative LS, 1:Neutral LS, 2:Positive LS) (b=0.58, df=1, p<.05), given all of the other variables in the model are held constant. As expected in H3.b, the more EAs use LinkedIn, the less likely they will feel satisfied with their life over time. (see model 1.b).
Testing Subjective Well-Being over Time [H3(a,b)]
Model 1.a Positive and Negative Momentary Feelings (Affective Dimension of SWB)
LinkedIn Use-T1-2
Affect-T2
Affect-T1
*H3a: Interacting with LinkedIn during one time period (T1-2) leads people to feel worse during the same day (T2) controlling for initial feelings (T1). *p<.05.
-2.25*
University of Amsterdam 18
Model 1.b Life satisfaction (Cognitive Dimension of SWB)
Total LinkedIn Use
Life Satisfaction Life Satisfaction
Baseline 2-day Experience Sampling Period Follow-up
*H3b: The total of LinkedIn use over the course of the 2-days experience sampling predicts a decrease in life satisfaction. *p<.05.
Alternative explanations
An alternative explanation for these results is that people use LinkedIn when they feel bad (i.e. when they have low self-esteem or low career satisfaction), and bad feeling leads to declines in well-being, rather than LinkedIn use itself. As reported before, the analyses demonstrated that affect does not predict changes in LinkedIn use over time. Further, LinkedIn use still significantly predicts declines in both, momentary feeling and life satisfaction over time. However, because EAs also gave answers, before and after the experience-sampling period, regarding how satisfied they feel about their career and in what state of self-esteem they are, it was possible to test the alternative proposal further.
First, it was tested whether CS or SE predicted changes in LinkedIn use over time (i.e., CS phase 1 [or Self-esteem phase 1] predicting total LinkedIn use). CS did not predict changes in LinkedIn use (R2=.04, F1,34=1.57, p=0.21), but SE did (R2=.13, F1,34=5.18, p=0.02). The more self-esteem EAs had at one time point, the less EAs use LinkedIn
over time (b*= -0.02, t= -2.27, p= 0.02). Despite its significance, it presents a weak
association with levels of total LinkedIn use. The model further explains that going up one unit in SE, would result in going down 0.36 units of LinkedIn usage (β= -.36).
H3.b
University of Amsterdam 19
Given the last result the study further tested if the relationship between LinkedIn use and changes in affective and cognitive well-being would be non-significant, when controlling for SE. This was not the case. LinkedIn use still predicted declines in affective well-being (r2=.82, b=-9.46, df=1, p<.05) and cognitive well-being (r2=.44, b=0.22, df=1, p<.00), when SE was controlled for in the analysis. Even if neither CS
nor SE predicted changes in affective or cognitive well-being dimensions, they would interact significantly with the total LinkedIn use (see table 1). Therefore, several analyses were conducted with these two variables in order to know if LinkedIn influence them over time.
Table 1: Two-tailed correlation summary between Total LinkedIn use with Career Satisfaction and Self-esteem (N=36).
Experience-sampled variables Pre /Post e xpe rience samp li n g
Total LinkedIn use Social Comparison
Pre Career Satisfaction 0.04* -
Post Career Satisfaction 0.56* -
Pre Self-esteem -0.36* -
Post Self-esteem -0.09* -
Pre Professional Identity 0.23 .59*
Post Professional Identity 0.18 .57**
Note: SWB variables are not included in the table. *p<.05, **p<.01
LinkedIn use, Career Satisfaction and Self-esteem
Career Satisfaction
The same analysis on SWB was applied for Career Satisfaction. In order to know if the variance of participants‘ CS by the end of the study was affected by CS perceptions before the study and the total LinkedIn use over the 2-day experience-sampling period, an ordinal regression was conducted again. The model indicated that 23% of the variance of the dependent variable ‗career satisfaction‘ on phase 3 showed to be affected by their total LinkedIn use during the 2-day period (independent variable) and
University of Amsterdam 20
when controlling for how participants felt about their careers at phase 1 (independent variable) (r2=.23, df=3, p=.05). Therefore, the less participants used LinkedIn, the more
likely (by 1.56 times) they were to have higher scores on the career satisfaction scale (0=Not Satisfied, 1=Neutral, 2=Satisfied), (b=1.56, df=1, p=.05). Therefore, we can say that the more EAs use LinkedIn, the less likely they feel satisfied about their careers, supporting H1 (see model 2).
Self-esteem
To examine how LinkedIn use influenced self-esteem, it was analyzed whether participant‘s total LinkedIn use over 2-day experience sampling predicted their self-esteem at the end of the study or not, whilst controlling for baseline self-self-esteem. The model proved to be significant affecting 28% of the dependent variable variance (Self-esteem phase 3) (r2=.28, df=3, p=.03). The less extensive participants‘ use of LinkedIn,
the possibilities to choose higher scores on the self-esteem scale increases by 0.04 times (0=Negative SE, 1=Neutral SE, 2=Positive SE) (b=0.04, df=1, p<05). Thus, H2 proved to be supported: The more EAs use LinkedIn, the lower their self-esteem over time. (see model 2).
Furthermore it was tested, if with a decrease in EA‘s career satisfaction, there would also be a decrease in theirself-esteem. The test revealed that there is a negative moderate association between career satisfaction and self-esteem (Kendall's tau=-.33, p=.02,
N=36). Because the CS scale indicates that the lower you score, the stronger you agree
with the statement it can be deduced that the lower SE, the more participants tend to agree that they are unsatisfied with their careers.
University of Amsterdam 21
Model 2. Testing ‘Career Satisfaction’, ‘Self-esteem’ through LinkedIn Use over Time. (H1, H2)
Total LinkedIn Use
Career Satisfaction Career Satisfaction
Self-esteem Self-esteem
Baseline 2-day Experience Sampling Period Follow-up
*The total of LinkedIn use over the course of the 2-days experience sampling predicts decreases in career satisfaction and self-esteem. *p<.05.
Social comparison, Professional Identity and SWB
It is suspected that EAs are modifying their professional profiles on LinkedIn for better comparison and competition with other LinkedIn users. Therefore, their profiles might reflect a less realistic professional identity of themselves, leading to decreased SWB (H4.b). Because Professional Identity is not related to LinkedIn usage (see table 1), only the ‗social comparison‘ variable on LinkedIn can work as a predictor on EA‘s professional identity.
Social Comparison
Data showed that 88% of the respondents are constantly comparing their LinkedIn profile with other people that pursue a similar career. After making sure that social comparison is taking place on this platform, meaning that participants were editing their professional profiles on LinkedIn based on other‘s profiles, the study wants to know if
H1
H2
-1.56*
University of Amsterdam 22
this modification of their profiles lets them identify more with their own profiles or not, controlling for how identified they felt initially (i.e. How much does your LinkedIn profile represent you?). Using the multiple regression model, this proved to be significant (F2,33=4.13, p<0.5). However, the strength of the prediction is weak: 15% of
the variance in levels of participants‘ identification can be predicted on the basis of social comparison and controlling for how identified they felt initially (R2=0.15). Total
social comparison (b*=1.12, t=1.90, p=0.04) and the first stage of professional
identification (b*=0.25, t=2.29, p=0.02) have a significant and moderate association
with levels of professional identification on the last stage of the study.
Analyzing the coefficients table tells us that going up one unit in total social comparison, would result in going up 1.12 units on the professional identification final stage, whilst controlling for the professional identification initially (β= 0.58). We can therefore conclude that H4.a is rejected. The standardized and unstandardized coefficients as well as the point of interception (constant) are presented in table 2.
Table 2- Regression model predicting score on professional identity (Phase 3) toward social comparison and professional identity (Phase 1) (N=36)
B SE B β Constant 4.235 1.091 Professional Identity (P.1) 0.258 .113 .358* Total Social Comparison 1.122 .589 .298* Note: R2=.15, *p<.05. Professional Identity
In order to know if SWB scores can be predicted byprofessional identity, two linear regressions were analyzed separately: 1. Testing the affective component of SWB (total affect in the experience-sampling period) and 2. Testing the cognitive component (total LS) of SWB. The association between the total affect on the 2-day period and professional identification proved to be insignificant (p=.42) Because this study
University of Amsterdam 23
underlines SWB with both, cognitive and affective dimensions, it is not possible to use this independent variable as a predictor of SWB. Thus H4.b is rejected.
Discussion
LinkedIn has revolutionized the waypeopleexpose their professional CVs and professional identities. However, if LinkedIn usecauses changes in subjective well-being, career satisfaction and self-esteem over time is unknown. Also, user‘s behavior towards modifying their professional profiles based on social comparison with other users has not been researched. The overall impact LinkedIn could have on its users is of great concern when analyzing their well-being in comparison to LinkedIn usage. A user might become more insecure by using LinkedIn even though she/he was seeking support and opportunities in the job market. Therefore, this study addresses these gaps and intends to answer other research calls in order to examine social network sites further(Gerard, 2011; Kross et al., 2013; van Dijck, 2013).
SubjectiveWell-Being
Regarding Subjective Well-Being, it was hypothesized that: The higher emerging adults‘ LinkedIn use, the lower their levels of SWB over time.
Prior research on SWB offered mixed clues about how Facebook usage influences its user‘s SWB. By using experience sampling on Facebook, Kross (2013) demonstrated its use influenced SWB negatively over time. There is no prior research that analyzed an influence direction on SWB among LinkedIn users and given the frequent usage of this platform, acknowledging how interacting with this technology affects SWB notes a research challenge that has important practical implications.
The analysis of the experience sample data indicates that LinkedIn use results in a decline of two components of subjective well-being, namely: How EAs feel at a certain moment and how satisfied they are with their lives in general. No evidence could be found to support possible alternative explanations of these findings. The analysis showed that LinkedIn use does not predict declines in SWB because EAs are actually
University of Amsterdam 24
not using LinkedIn as a resultof feeling bad. This is because neither ―LS‖ nor ―affect‖ predicted LinkedIn use, but LinkedIn use still predicted significant declines in SWB.
This study suggests that SWB might be negatively affected if EAs constantly use LinkedIn. They tend to use LinkedIn frequently because EAs arecuriousto know more about otherpeople‘s professional life. On one hand they search for a fitting path for their own career and on the other hand they compare their own status to others. However, they might not realize that manyof the other LinkedIn profiles reflect more stability, as people might be more settled in their career, and might think more negatively about there own situation. Over time this can lead to a decrease in their SWB.
Career Satisfaction and Self Esteem
It was hypothesized that the more emerging adults use LinkedIn, the lower their career satisfaction and self-esteem will be over time.
Theory indicates, if SWB is decreased by the use of social media platforms also other factors connected to SWB can be negatively influenced. Several researchers (e.g. Diener, 2000; Senol-Durak et al., 2010; Graves et al. 2010) discussed that CS and SE are significantly related to SWB. For example if SWB in relation to Facebook usage decreases over time it can be observed that also SE decreases over time (Kross, 2013). Based on these earlier findings CS and SE were determined as relevant factors to be analyzed inthis study as well.
The study‘s findings showed that CS did not predict changes in LinkedIn use, but SE did. In order to know how SWB andSE are related the test was repeated again for the relationship between LinkedIn use and affective and cognitivewell-being when controlling for SE. Results demonstrated that LinkedIn use still showed declines in affective- and cognitive well-being, when controlling for SE. This means the more EAs use LinkedIn, the more significant becomes their SWB‘s decrease, whilst considering SE as an influential factor. As suggested by others (see above) this study can verify that SE is also significantly decreased over time when using LinkedIn.
Further, correlations between LinkedIn-usage, CS and SE showed to be significant. The question arose if LinkedIn use would lead to a decrease in CS and SE independently
University of Amsterdam 25
over time. The answer is yes. Multiple regression analyses indicated a decrease in CS towards a 2-day experience sampling LinkedIn use when controlling for their CS initially. Similarly, the total LinkedIn use results during the experience sampling process predicted decreases on SE by the end of the study, when controlling for their SE initially. Comparing to earlier studies (see above) also this relationship proved to be significant for EAs when using LinkedIn frequently.
Supporting these views, it is likely that EA‘s are seeking support on LinkedIn while defining what they want to be as professionals in the job market (Manago et al., 2012). However, supporting Bevan et al.‘s (2014) idea, it may be that EA‘s CS is decreasing because they are constantly looking at other‘s profiles, which makes them realize that their perceived image is not adequate and they become more instable (Côté, 2006). Because of its significant association with CS, SE decreases after extensive LinkedIn use because of the feeling to be ―less‖ or even ―worthless‖ compared to others, also supported by the study of CS by Graves et al. (2010).
Social Comparisonand Professional Identity
This study hypothesized that the more EAs modify their profile on the basis of others, the less they identify with their own professional profile on LinkedIn. Also, that the less EAs identify with their own professional profile on LinkedIn, the lower their SWB over time.
Both, Gemmill et al. (2006) and Nabi et al. (2013)talk about the way in which users on Facebook try to get social support on the platform. They tend to look at other people‘s profile and compare their social life with these, which might explaina negative influence on their SWB, CS and SE over time. Further, Kross (2013) demonstrated that harmful social comparison might be an explanation why SWB decreases among Facebook users. Thus, it may be that the same patterns can be observed on LinkedIn, the so-called ‗Facebook on a suit‘.
First of all, all participants indicateda constant checking of and comparing to other‘s profiles with a similar career prospect. Based on these comparisons, they also modified their professional LinkedIn profile regularly. One reason might be to stand out from
University of Amsterdam 26
competition and another reason could be the fact that they are looking for a job. For example, constant usage of LinkedIn causes anxiousness and in turn they need their profiles to reflect similar content asothers who already achieved to get a job. Therefore by modifications in their profiles they try to be more alike to those who succeeded in the job market. Based on Van Dijck‘s (2013) statements, this study suggested that the more EA‘s modify their profiles, the less they identify with their professional LinkedIn profiles because of an unrealistic professional self-construction. However, results showed that the more participants modified their profiles, the more they identify. An alternative interpretation can be that EAs think they understand more possible characteristics about themselves when looking at others, although other studies should test this assumption. Further, it was relevant to test if this assumption would change the direction on users SWB. The analyses demonstrated that this study could not prove this argumentation for LinkedIn and the relationship did not show to be significant. A possible reason is that people‘s professional identification is a concept that develops over a longer time period; whereas a 2-day experience sampling study is probably too short to fully reflect on changes on SWB over time. A longitudinal study is suggested to examine this relationship in more detail. Moreover, further research should be done to analyze this hypothesis more in depth.
Limitations
Although this study provides sufficient observation points, it contains four main limitations. Firstly, the observed significant statistical associations between some variables (i.e. social comparison and professional identity) have relatively ―small‖ effects. The same holds for LinkedIn usage and SWB variables. This doesnot negate their significance, but the predictions only explaina small percentage of the variance on both SWB dimensions. Secondly, this study uses basic ordinal logistic regression estimates to explain some associations; future research should apply advance analytics to interpret OLR outcomes in more detail. Thirdly, this study only considered two basic underlying dimensions of SWB, even though it possesses many other psychological and health factors that should be identified and considered especially, when those factors are to be accumulated over time. Lastly, participants‘ answers were gathered by links to online surveys sent to their personal emails. Thus, it was not possible to control exactly whether they were actually using LinkedIn or not before answering the questions.
University of Amsterdam 27
Suggestion for further research
This study is to be understood as a starting point forfuture research. Due to some ambiguity of the findings, more research questions on LinkedIncanbeen raised. First, these findings are centered on emerging adults only, because they represent a core LinkedIn user demographic in the Netherlands. Generalizing these findings to other age groups should be considered in further research. Following Kross‘s (2013) research on Facebook, also some of the findings of this study cannot beeasily generalized to other social media platforms or target/age groups. For example, both studies are examining social network websites but explore different user characteristics and functions, where different factors need to be considered in order to adapt to the different characteristics of the two platforms as well as its users. Therefore, future research should examine whether these findings can be generalized for other professional online social networks and different user groups within LinkedIn.
The variables CS and SE were independentlytested against LinkedIn use. However, future studies should discover if these factors work as mediators or moderators for the relationship between LinkedIn usage and SWB.
Finally, the analytic approach in this study is useful for explaining the relations between naturally occurring variables but more elaborate experiments in which LinkedIn use is manipulated in a daily life situation should be done to analyze these findings in depth and establish more causal relationships.
Concluding Comment
Emerging adults‘ need for social support is well established (Manago et al., 2012), as are the benefits that people get from using LinkedIn as a professional social network (Gerard, 2011). On the surface, LinkedIn is an extraordinary tool for satisfying the need to be recognized in the job market and help can be provided throughuser‘s connections and network. However, this study and its findings demonstrate thatinteraction with LinkedIn may cause a decrease in emerging adult‘s SWB.
University of Amsterdam 28
References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469
Azevedo, H. (2013). Who uses social networks in the Netherlands? ComScore, Inc. Retrieved October 08, 2014, from http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Data-Mine/Who-uses-Social-Networks-in-the-Netherlands
Bevan, J. L., Gomez, R., & Sparks, L. (2014). Disclosures about important life events on Facebook: Relationships with stress and quality of life. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 246–253. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.021
Bukatko, D. (2007). Child and adolescent development: A chronological approach (5th ed., p. 577). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Côté, J. E. (2006). Emerging adulthood as an institutionalized moratorium : risks and benefits to identity formation. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the
21st century (xxii., pp. 85–116). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 125– 137. doi:10.1177/2167696813479782
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being,American Psychologist, 95(3), 542–575.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.34
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–74.
Dijck, J. Van (2013). “You have one identity”: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media,
Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215you ha. doi:10.1177/0163443712468605
Elder, G. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12.
Festinger, L. (1966). Studies in social comparison - Introduction and overview. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, (1), 1–5.
Gemmill, E., & Peterson, M. (2006). Technology use among college students : Implications for student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 43(2), 280–300.
Gerard, J. G. (2011). Linking in with LinkedIn(R): Three exercises that enhance professional social networking and career building. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 866–897.
doi:10.1177/1052562911413464
Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(1-2), 79–83. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0411
Graves, L. M., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Weber, T. J. (2010). Driven to work and enjoyment of work: effects on managers’ outcomes. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1655–1680.
University of Amsterdam 29 Heath, R., & Millar, D. (2004). A rhetorical approach to crisis communication. Management,
communication processes, and strategic responses.Journal of Youth Studies (Vol. 9, pp. 1–17). Mahwah. doi:10.1080/13676260500523671
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. a, Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. a. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–80. doi:10.1126/science.1103572
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N.., Ybarra, O. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PloS One, 8(8).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069841
Lanigan, K. (2012). If you are not LinkedIn you can’t win! Social Media, 44(4), 53–55.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., &Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–55. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 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(2), 369–80. doi:10.1037/a0026338
Morse, S., &Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 148–56. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5485940
Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 16(10), 721–7. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0521
Purcell, K. (2012). Teens 2012: truth, trends, and myths about teen online behavior. ACT Enrollment
Planners Annual Conference.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
Rottinghaus, P. J., Buelow, K. L., Matyja, a., & Schneider, M. R. (2011). The career futures inventory-revised: measuring dimensions of career adaptability. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(2), 123– 139. doi:10.1177/1069072711420849
Senol-Durak, E., &Durak, M. (2010). The mediator roles of life satisfaction and self-esteem between the affective components of psychological well-being and the cognitive symptoms of problematic internet use. Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 23–32. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9694-4 Uthayakumar, R., Schimmack, U., Hartung, P. J., & Rogers, J. R. (2010). Career decidedness as a
predictor of subjective well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 196–204. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.07.002
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(4), 206–222.
Walsh, W. B., &Eggerth, D. (2005). Vocational psychology and personality: the relationship of the five-factor model to job performance and job satisfaction. In W. B. Walsh & M. Savickas (Eds.),
Handbook of vocational psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 32, p. 267−296). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
University of Amsterdam 30
Appendix - Questioners
A) Phase 1:
University of Amsterdam 31
Life Satisfaction - Phase 1:
University of Amsterdam 32
Careers Satisfaction – Phase 1:
Professional Identity – Phase 1:
B) Phase 2:
University of Amsterdam 33
University of Amsterdam 34
Phase 2.1.c. 16:30:
University of Amsterdam 35
Phase 2.1.e. 21:30
University of Amsterdam 36
University of Amsterdam 37
Phase 2.2.c. 16:30:
University of Amsterdam 38
Phase 2.1.e. 21:30
C) Phase 3:
University of Amsterdam 39
University of Amsterdam 40
Career Satisfaction - Phase 3:
