mariahastings.weebly.com€¦ · web viewto share or not to share: a research paper on...

Running title: To Share or Not to Share 1

To Share or Not to Share: A research paper on self-censorship on social media

Maria Hastings

Spring Hill College

To Share or Not to Share 2

To Share or Not to Share: A research paper on self-censorship on social media

The First Amendment is a fundamental right in the United States of America that has been

fought for by its citizens for many years. It allows truth and liberty to rise. The United States is

the country that first brought such a law into place upon which it allows truth and liberty to

heave. According to this law, people should be free of censorship and self-censorship (Rodman,

2012). There are different levels of protection, which depend on the source type and the receiver

of the communication. For instance, pornography and obscenity are types of communication that

have the least level of protection by the government. Despite the fact that the government

enforced this law, there can be other reasons why people would not make use of this right. Social

media sites (SMS) are platforms that allow people to communicate and apply their freedom of

speech.

The First Amendment has the highest level of protection on SMS, which means that people have

complete freedom of communicating anything. They are free to express themselves without the

interference of the government or censorship. Steven Barnett (2013) argued that the First

Amendment could only work in an ideal world and emphasized that this is not an ideal world.

Others say that sharing information on SMS sites will remain permanently as an archive and that

is why it is essential to consider the level of privacy of the person on SMS (Enriquez, 2013).

Even though these are opinions of communication professionals they are not based on theory.

Other outside factors influence self-censorship on SMS. These can include the opinion of others

about the self. The opinion of others can impact people’s professional life and their self-esteem,

among other factors. The power of SMS is that the information shared can be imprinted through

years on platforms and spread among millions of people.

Research questions:

The following questions have been developed to achieve a more specific understanding

and goal of the study:


RQ1: Could situations on SMS that cause a negative reaction on people lead to a society that is

afraid of sharing their opinions?

RQ2: Are there people who self-censor to prevent situations that could lead to confrontation?

RQ3: Are people afraid that authority or influence in their lives can judge them or harm them?

RQ4: What source of influence, such as a boss, a peer, or an unknown party, has more impact on

self-censorship?

RQ5: Do people share what they think or keep their opinions to themselves?

RQ6: What are other reasons why people would self-censor themselves on SMS?

RQ7: What are the most common reasons why people self-censor themselves on SMS?

RQ8: Are SMS exercising an adverse effect on freedom of expression?

Purpose/Rationale

The internet has become a medium of communication that is assisting globalization. It

allows people to intercommunicate, share their opinions, ideas, and thoughts. SMS are a medium

of communication that is protected by the First Amendment. As SMS make people take

responsibility for what they distribute, SMS can lead to positive or negative consequences.

In June 2017 Harvard University withdrew admissions to ten prospective students for sharing

offensive memes in a private Facebook chat, “Harvard Crimson” reported, (2017, Schmidt).

These messages target minority groups in the United States, such as Mexicans. This example

shows that people’s freedom of expression can be risky on SMS if they share an idea that

contradicts or offends a particular group, even if the aggression is done in a private message

group. There are different ideas on the internet as there are all over the world. However, this type

of situation shows that even if the First Amendment protects people’s freedom to communicate,

individuals are responsible and have to face any consequences that arise from their messages.

Since postings are easier to prove as libel than spoken defamation, there could be fear of

expression among individuals who want to post their ideas.


For this study, it is essential to understand the significance of the First Amendment, Social

Media Sites (SMS), and behavior of people on Social Media Sites.

First Amendment and the U.S.

The first country to create a law to protect freedom of speech was the United States of

America, the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is not omnipresent around the world. In fact,

it is the country that assures the most protection of freedom of speech. For instance, Article 10 of

the European Union Constitution guarantees the right of freedom of speech to every citizen.

However, it does not provide complete immunity as it argues. This article underlines the main

idea of freedom of speech, but there are exceptions in this freedom to avoid certain situations.

This argument still gives the government some control and less protection to people.

Furthermore, the European article was published in 1950 and later adopted by all EU countries in

1998, (Rodman, 2012). In contrast, the United States adopted the First Amendment in 1791,

(Rodman, 2012). Aside from European freedom of speech, there are hundreds of countries that

have not even been able to establish a law that protects the liberty of expression as a right. In

countries such as Mexico, the government carries a lot of control over the people's freedom of

expression. There was an incident where the president gave a speech in one of the most

important universities of Mexico City. The students screamed, “The IBERO does not want you.”

IBERO being the name of the school. The mass media, such as newspapers, published this event

as “Successful speech of the president in IBERO university.” This type of situation continually

happens in countries with government control over the media. Some autocratic regimes in

Muslim nations imply extreme penalties for blasphemous speech, (Greenblatt, 2013). The

penalties can be so strict that in some cases death can be carried as a consequence. These

comparisons show how privileged the USA is and it stands as an example of liberty of

expression for other countries.


Freedom of Speech and Influence of New Technologies.

Since 1791 to the 21st Century, there have been uncountable situations that involve the

First Amendment in the United States. The world has entered an era with new technologies that

are continually developing and changing. The introduction of the Internet in 1990 to the world as

World Wide Web, by Tim Barners-Lee, has strongly impacted the entire world, (Rodman, 2012).

Technological Determinism is when a technology emerges and impacts society in such a way

that it radically changes the world. Therefore, the internet is changing and molding societies. The

theory of Media Ecology also makes evident that media has an impact on the whole society,

(Rodman, 2012). Just as a drop of colorant that falls into a glass of water changes the substance.

As living beings have had to evolve with these new technologies, they are adopting behaviors

correlated with using these means. The internet, at its 21st-century stage, a.k.a Web2.0, enhances

globalization because it allows people from all over the world to intercommunicate. As the

internet is a medium of communication which enables people to share their opinions protected

by the First Amendment. However, having the First Amendment as a right is not the only

motivation for people to decide whether or not to publish an opinion of their own.

Social media sites (SMS).

Social Media Sites are platforms used by people to communicate using a computer,

laptop, cellphone, tablet, among other electronic devices. Some of these sites are Facebook,

Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, LinkedIn, etc. People around the USA share millions of posts on

SMS every day. The number of people connecting through these social platforms continues to

grow. On June 27th, 2017, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO, and founder of Facebook shared on his

Facebook profile that Facebook had reached two billion users, (Zuckerberg, 2017). The entire

world population consists of eight billion people. Thus, about 25% of the population in the world

owns an online profile at least on Facebook. All of the social media platforms are an open space

that leads to constant exposure of people’s thoughts, opinions, and lives. One could argue that


people's privacy equals the publication they decide to share or not on SMS. Furthermore

information about users that is considered private on SMS can be extracted by hackers or sold by

the platform. There are professional hackers who have been able to break into personal details of

people, companies, and even the government, (Andone, 2017). In one occasion, a threat that

appeared to go against Donald Trump appeared in websites of four states of the government of

the United States, (Andone, 2017).

Self-presentation

Goffman’s theory of self-presentation argues that people consciously think how they

want to present themselves to others. As he mentioned, “we act better than we know how,”

(Goffman, 1959). The persona that people enact varies depending on the situation. For instance,

a person will act differently in the company of family than when spending time with friends.

Studies found that SMS groups allow people to fulfill certain identity needs, which leads to high-

self-esteem, (Schmalz, Colistra & Evans, 2015). For instance, an individual has the desire to be

identified as an intelligent person. To do so, this person will want to have good grades in school,

argue about topics that an intelligent person would know to fit in accordance to the tag of

intelligence. This reaffirms the theory of Goffman, as he says that people’s life is like a stage

where they act in ways they want to be perceived by others. Goffman wrote, “Life itself is an

enacted stage,” (1959). Studies also found that a group classified as low social status can lead to

a negative social identity, (Schmalz, Colistra & Evans, 2015). If a group is in a low social status,

it is more likely that they will have a negative reputation among society. People want to identify

themselves with high social status groups. If a group’s reputation is threatened, the members are

likely to lessen their interaction with the group or try to change the perception of the group or

will indeed leave the group. These changes occur because their social identity is threatened. SMS

are platforms where the character of people is more vulnerable since they continuously expose to

each other. Everyone can have different social identities as Goffman mentioned. However, these


social identities can be self-censored or manipulated to create an appealing profile that increases

self-esteem.

Privacy on SMS

According to a report the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the use of the internet, in general,

20% of adults from 18-29 make use of social media platforms to send messages; 5% create or

work on their online journal or blog and 3% rate a product, service or person, (2017). These

findings show that users use SMS around 28% of the time to expose what they think in different

ways. There is information that people decide whether or not they are willing to share it. The

privacy settings on SMS often change, which makes private data more likely to disseminate

among unknown users. Furthermore, SMS users are more likely to accept the privacy settings

that the platform offers as already predetermined, which are usually the most basic ones. This

behavior leads to a decrease in people’s privacy.

Self-disclosure on SMS

Self presentation defined by Van Dijk (2013) is the presentation of a specific self-

scenario of an idealized self and identity contingencies that create a social identity-maker (e.g.,

being a student, being an athlete.) This "identity-maker" allows people to highlight differences or

similarities among each other. Studies have found that honest self-disclosure happens more in

real life than in SMS. People do share information on SMS. However, it does not mean they

support the information they share. They can avoid getting involved in desired conversations by

self-censoring. Previous work found that SMS users subconsciously utilize these platforms to

represent themselves in an appropriate manner that targets a specific audience. Other findings

say that 71% of active users on SMS last minute show some level of self-censorship, (Das &

Kramer, 2013). Women are also more likely to self-censor than men. However, the types of self-

censorship communication might vary. For instance, people might censor themselves from

sharing a political debate to an unknown audience or sending a message to their peers. A study


found that adults, practitioners, or policy makers stress about the risks of the opportunities and

risks that sharing personal information can produce, (Van, Van, Ponnet & Walrave, 2015). This

leads to a greater critical thinking from adolecents on what type of information they decide to

disclose. Findings also say that people are prone to share their personal experiences online

because this satisfies their social goals, (Wang, 2013). They also say that the attributes shown

online can help stenghten a postivie offline image of themselves. These findings show that SMS

is a platform for people to constantly think about how they want to be perceived by others on

SMS.

Open debates on SMS

Another type of communication through SMS is public debates. Through face-to-face

communication or communication through a telephone device, people have to answer in that

exact moment. In contrast, SMS allows people to communicate at any time. This is because a

person will not necessarily be using SMS when someone sends them a message. They can also

be present online and still take as much time as they want to respond. This time-lapse provides a

higher amount of time for users to think of their response and whether they will self-censor.

Findings say that individuals who have a stronger attitude are more likely to express their

opinions on SMS. These findings add to the supposition that feeling powerless can lead others to

self-censor. Other studies found that people who participate in debates with hostile views are less

likely to answer.

Impact of Negative Information on Reputation

People are likely to use SMS as a mean to improve their self-esteem. SMS regularly deal

with people’s reputations. Findings say that people tend to show a more positive life on SMS

than their actual lives, (Hall & Canton, 2016). Goffman’s theory explains a ramification of self-

presentation called self-promotion. As he states, “strategy of self-presentation, the goal of which

is to persuade an audience that the actor is highly competent, accomplished or successful,”


(Goffman, 1959). Individuals do so to enhance their self-esteem because social media platforms

are a continuous mutual exposure of the self-presentation. This means that people who use social

media sites are constantly trying to present their best self appearance on SMS. This judgment can

lead to negative consequences for their lives and a menace for their self-esteem. The misuse of

information can affect personal, academic and professional decisions. For instance, 1 out of

every 5 adults have taken sexual pictures and have sent them to others, (Lenhart & Duggan,

2014). This interaction is called sexting. These pictures can be sent within people who are

trusted. However, there are many ways in which the content can disseminate among SMS with

unknown people, (Hanna, 2017). People who receive these photos could target the ones who

appear as unprofessional.

The Influence of Others.

Social media policies imply company authority that influences people’s posts on SMS.

These social media policies can include nondisclosure agreements, which deny exposure of

specific information. In 2012, 31% of people who worked for a company had a policy with the

use of SMS, (Gillespie, 2012). However, researchers expect that there will be an increase in the

number of policies since the amount of SMS use is continuously growing. The studies also found

that around 53% of male respondents said that companies should have penalties for content

posted on SMS. In contrast, 39% of women agreed with these arguments, (Gillespie, 2012).

Cyber vetting is a term used for people who use SMS to evaluate job applications, (Right

Management to Provide Personal Websites, 2014). This behavior has become a trend for some

companies. Cyber vetting is another characteristic that could lead to self-censorship on SMS for

people who are looking for a job or are already in the workforce.

Another mean that influences people’s posts on SMS are relatives. Parents, grandparents

or other relatives considered can profoundly affect what people post on SMS. For instance, a

young adult who wants to impress his/her parents and make a self-appearance of a studious,


friendly, and happy person, might be prone to share publications that encourage this perspective.

This is in regard of the self-presentation theory as people act in certain ways to show a positive

image of themselves, (Goffman, 1959). People who think of their friends as significant might

behave in a certain way to share information that will satisfy these friends’ expectations. People

want to feel accepted to have a sense of self-belonging to improve their self-esteem.

A study called the Milgram Effect (1974) analyzes how an event such as the Holocaust in

Germany can happen, (Helm, & Morelli, 1979). Stanley Milgram explains through a

psychological procedure how people could involve themselves in such cruelty. This process is

called a moral transformation, where the morals of people change, and their cognition has a

reverse effect. The adverse information is exposed and processed little by little in the

individual’s mind. The psychological change is profoundly affected by authority. Thus, people

tend to look for guidance through their leading authority. In the case of the Holocaust, the Nazi

government was their most influential authority. This shows the influence that authority has over

people. They feel less than the authority and these can take them to change the way they think.

People on SMS could also be afraid of sources they consider authority and not express the ideas

they want to express.

There have been other cases where people have shared information that is considered

offensive or private. Some of these incidents have led companies to fire employees. The courts

have upheld some these decisions because the posts made on SMS cannot be considered private.

(Park & Abril, 2016). These studies show that people are highly influenced by other people’s

opinions which also has to do with a Spiral of Silence.

The Spiral of Silence is a theory about the public and personal opinion of people.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann developed it in 1974. Noelle-Newman based her studies on the

Holocaust in Germany when the massive killing of the Jews occurred in World War ll. There is a

natural tendency of humanity where the minority might lead to isolation. As individuals with


ideas of a minority group begin to silence themselves, the dominant ideas become stronger.

Therefore, this leads to a spiraling where the dominant opinion expands. People are also afraid of

more significant consequences of contradicting an idea that seems more powerful. In the case of

the Holocaust, this happened, as the public opinion grew through mass media, such as

propaganda, people were more likely to self-censor to avoid seclusion. Their perception of this

opinion profoundly influenced them. At that time, the political ideology in Germany was the idea

of having a perfect race and kill people who did not possess the established characteristics. This

event showed that fear and power could control masses of people. Since human beings want to

feel accepted and fit in, they gain this fear. As self-censorship becomes widespread, the public

opinion becomes stronger and this makes it even more difficult for minorities to oppose.

Several studies have used the Spiral of Silence as a theory to prove hypotheses related to

behavior on SMS, (Kim, 2016). This theory supports that as more people support the prevailing

opinion, it will be less likely that others will contradict it. Kim also found that people who

perceive hostile opinions on Facebook will be negatively associated with expressing themselves

about politics on Facebook, (Kim, 2016). Political expression on Facebook is positively related

to political participation in real life, (Kim, 2016). This means that people who participate in

political debates in real life are more likely to engage in political discussions on Facebook.

Outside social media, people live in a world that is considered a stage, in each social situation

they present themselves in different manners to give impressions they want to fulfill, (Goffman,

1959). Therefore, if people want to meet their expectations as political commentators, they might

as well do it in the world of the internet.

These examples show ways in which people self-censor on SMS and some reasons self-

censorship occurs. People might censor themselves to represent their persona in a manner that

will fulfill their expectations as people. Self-censorship might also happen to achieve others

expectations of oneself in order to maintain a positive relationship. They might even do so to be


part of a high social status group. Self-censorship might also occur if people want to avoid

confrontation. The feeling of powerless is another reason of self-cesnorship. These studies do not

have specific examples on the levels of influence of the different higher authorities. Thus, this

study considered the levels of effect that each authority posseses over freedom of expression.

The Spiral of Silence, was used as a theoretical framework to understand self-censorship

on SMS. Government-controlled mass media communication was the basis of this theory.

Popular opinion, which is sometimes government-controlled, influences people’s behavior.

During the Holocaust, while fewer people opposed the killing of the Jews, the stronger

the Nazi regime became, the more people were afraid to speak out and supported publicity that

was against their beliefs or morals. The theory explains that peoples’ perception of prevaling

opinion will influence their willingness to express what they think.

The First Amendment of the United States guarantees freedom of expression. The

protection of people’s way of thinking is essential for the freedom and confidence of individuals.

The nation of the United States was the first to approve this law and show its importance to the

world. New forms of technology have had to adapt to this law, such as the SMS. Eventhough the

First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it does not imply that people will always express

what they want. Other authorities can have their policies to censor people’s communication, such

as companies. Relatives are an influene in people’s lives and have an effect on their expression

on SMS. It seems that SMS are public spaces with a limited degree of freedom of speech. It is

essential to evaluate how authorities influence the opinion of people on SMS since it is

considered highly protected by the government but not necessarily protected by the people.

Authorities affect people through social pressures, dominant/mainstream ideologies, and SMS

company policies. Furthermore, this emphasizes that freedom of speech, which leads to freedom

in the United States and the world, still has a long way to go. This study will allow the


understanding of the motivations that drive to self-censorship on SMS. This will enable people to

understand and consider the phenomenon of censorship and self-expression.

Methodology

A quantitative method was used as primary research for this study. This method included

a survey that investigates the behavior of people on SMS. The population sample was the

amount of young adults in the country. There was a systematic and a random sample to have an

acurate representation of the population.

Survey Questionnaire

The questionnaire was arranged from general questions to more specific ones to engage

the participants. These questions are based on the research questions and the gathered data.

In order to make this study as clear as possible for the participants, the following definition of

the First Amendment, by the Legal Information Institute, was defined at the beginning of the

questionnaire: “The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression,

assembly, and the right to petition the government. It guarantees freedom of expression by

prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely,”

(Esmala, 2017). This definition allowed the participants to understand some questions and

answer as accurate as possible.

Survey Participants

The survey was created to understand the use of people’s right to freedom of expression

specifically on SMS. The First Amendment is a privilege since it implies the best protection of

speech in the world. The United States’ citizens should make use of this right in every possible

manner. However, as the reviewed literature shows, people still self-censor themselves. With

such a respectable law, it is crucial to study the causes why people do censor themselves.

The participants of the survey were young adults, who have to be 19 and older as stated

in Alabama law. Young adults are assumed to be between the ages 19-24. Furthermore, young


adults are beginning to form their ideas and critical thinking. They are the ones who answered

the questionnaire. Most adolescents are dependent on their parents and have not yet fully

developed their cognitive thinking. Thus, adolescents were not part of the survey. Older adults

did not have social media when they were young. They could be uunupdated with the use of

SMS. For this reason, they did not participate in the survey.

The primary method of the survey was random sample. Every Spring Hill College

student was supposed to receive a questionnaire to answer. An email was supposed to be sent to

every student asking to answer the questionnaire. However, this was not possible since the data

base of the students was not obtained. Random Facebook pages were selected to recevie a post of

the link. These groups are specifically created to answer questionnaires and a link was shared to

answer the questionnaire for this specific survey. The benefits for the students is to have an

opportunity to participate in the questionnaire and engage in reasoning about their use on SMS.

This random sample was not entirely by chance since people decided whether or not they wanted

to click on the link. The reasons why people might want to answer the questionnaire could be the

following: Participants might be interested in participating in activities related to college

participation, they might have an interest in the topic, they might have leisure time, or they might

like to participate in activities to contribute with society. The snow ball effect was another

method for the survery, where the link was posted in known Facebook accounts. The motivations

for the snowball effect could have been to help someone they knew with the study, participating

in a cause that involved finding truths, or they were interested in the subject. There was no

payment, this means it was voluntary.

The goal number of samples was 298 responses. This amount gives a level confidence of

95% with a margin error of 3%. The population size consisted of all young adults from 18-24.

However, this number was not achieved as 164 participants answered the questionnaire.

Data Processing


The data obtained from the questionnaire was processed to the platform SPSS Statistics.

SPSS was used to find posible relationships between the research questions and the opinion of

the participants to find out the use of SMS and self-censorship.

The questions were analyzed by using frequencies and relating pairs of questions. The standard

deviations of the questions did not pass 2. This is used to obtain the average closeness of the

responses to the mean. The questions were tested by the Crosstabs with Pearson’s Chi Square.

This is used to find the validity of the answers.

Conclusions and analysis

The presentation of

people on SMS and their

censorship is affected by

the level of confidence of

each person. Participants

were asked to rank the

level of safeness that they

feel on SMS. As shown in

table A people do feel safe

on SMS, (M=5.8, SD=

2.2) Therefore, SMS could be

considered a safe environment to present ideas and thoughts and avoid self-censorship. The

confidence of people to express

their opinions on SMS was not

altered by the level of safeness on

SMS.

Self-presentation

Table A


The 164 participants were asked to rank their likeness of self-censoring on SMS from 1-10. As

shown in table B, people are more likely to self-censor, (M=6.0, SD=2.4) This could answer Q5,

which asks if people share their opinion. The theory of the self-presentation is supported as

people censor themselves depending on the social encounter. In this case, people are not present

in a face-to-face situation but still create social encounters. As mentioned by Goffman (1959),

people display different covers to others constantly thinking how to give a good perception to

people. Each role people present makes the person, there is not a fixed character. There is not a

true self but rather many identities that construct the self. In SMS this could be interpreted as a

profile that does not have a specific

personality but instead photos and posts that make the online self. These presentations allow

people to establish an image to others. As the participants were asked to rank their level of their

self-representation on SMS, they responded that they were likely to show an accurate

presentation of themselves, as shown in table C. (n=6.9, SD=2.1)

The participants were asked if they

only posted information that made

them look good. This question also

has a relationship with the theory of

self-presentation. The respondents

supported the theory of Goffman as

46% (76) people were more likely to

post only positive information about

the self; 43% (71) responded that they

also shared other types of information, and 6.7% (11) did not remember. The posting of mostly

positive information of the self supports that individuals tend

Table B

Table C


to think they are better than they are, (Goffman, 1959). Regarding Q6, one of the reasons people

self-censor is to show a desired image to others and this image tends to be positive. The

relationship between the people who gave “likes” to others in order to receive “likes” back with

the ones who only post self-positive information had a negative relationship; 40% (31) of people

who only post self-positive information are likely to participate in the desire for this “like”

exchange. Therefore, people who only post postivive information about themselves are not

necessarily concerned for the approval (like) of other people. If they think it is positive

information, which means they approve it, they are less likely to be concerned about the “likes”

of others.

Respondents were less likely to erase posts if they did not receive the desired likes,

32.9% (54) did not delete their posts. From these results, 44% (34) of people who only post

positive information about themselves were likely to erase a post if it did not get the expected

success. In contrast, 19% (14) of the people who post not only positive information said that they

did erase their publications when the desired success was not achieved. This shows that people

who self-present themselves only in a positive way are more likely to erase a post if the amount

of likes does not satisfy their expectations. The results show how personality can be reflected in

the behavior of users in SMS.

The results showed a positive relationship between people who did not express their ideas

freely with people who only post information about themselves that made them look good; 77%

(59) of the participants who only posted this positive information about themselves did not

express their ideas freely. These results support the occurrence of self-censorship on SMS and

support the result that shows that people self-censor to show a positive image. These results also

answer Q6, where the reason of self-censorship is to show a good image of themselves.

Opinions of others


The respondents were asked different questions regarding the influence that other people

had on them and how this influence led to self-censorship. The participants were asked to rank

from 1-10 the level of willingness to give their opinion if a higher power could get use of the

information. As shown in table D, they do not have a higher tendency to self-censor. (M=5.2, SD

2.5)

Results found that 36% (60) of

people are more likely to share an

opinion on SMS even if their boss

has a different opinion; 26% (44)

answered they would not and 36%

(58) responded “maybe.” This

suggests that 62% (102) of people

are influenced by their boss’s

opinion. It shows the importance of

the opinion of a higher authority in the professional atmosphere, particularly their bosses.

Evenothough participants were more likely to respond that they gave their opinion even if a

higher power could use their information, they contradicted themselves with other responses. As

explained in the Milgram Study (1979), the effect in the cognitive thinking of people is highly

influenced by the authority of others to the point that people accept an idea little by little. The

results support that people are likely to be influenced to authority. The Spiral of Silence supports

the outcome of the respondents, (Noelle-Neumann, 1977). Whenever there is an opinion that is

dominant or authority claims it to be right, people begin to silence themselves. This makes the

predominant opinion stronger and the spiraling effect occurs. Therefore, this theory is

encountered in social media in relationship with the authority of people’s boss. The results

answer Q3, as people are afraid of sharing their opinions because authority has a power over

Table D


them. Eventhough participants said they gave their opinion even if a higher power could use

their information, they contradicted themselves when they said their boss did influence their self-

censorship.

The results showed that 52% (24) of the people who indicated that they did express their

ideas freely are willing to share their opinion even if their boss did not think the same way; 28%

(13) responded that they were not sure if they would. This means that the other 17% (8) who say

they do express their ideas freely, would still self-censor due to the influence of their boss. Thus,

people who say they do express themselves freely on SMS are less likely to be influenced by

their bosses on SMS. In comparison, 29% (35) participants who indicated that they did not

express their ideas freely were also more likely to self-censor on SMS within the influence of

their boss; 38% (45) answered “maybe,” and the other 31% (37) said they would not self-censor.

This shows that people who do not express their ideas freely are more likely to be influenced by

the opinion of their bosses than people who claim to express freely.

Results indicated that people who say that they are not influenced by the opinion of their boss

have a tendency to look over their SMS profiles if they are looking for a job or a school, (53%)

(33). Participants who indicated that they were influenced by the opinion of their boss were also

more likely to look over their SMS profiles to find a job, 60% (62). This shows that people who

claim to self-censor are more likely to check their presentation on their SMS account than the

ones who claim not to. As Goffman (1959) mentioned, everyone is influenced in a certain degree

by the opinion of others. Peoples’ presentation of themselves is like a theater where they act in

different manners depending on the social encounter they found themselves in. Therefore,

presenting themselves to their bosses is a social encounter that without SMS it would mostly

occur in face-to-face communication.

The results showed that 6% (4) of people who express themselves freely are less likely to

think that their opinions could make them lose their job. 20% (9) of individuals who would self-


censor an opinion due to their boss are also less likely to be afraid of losing their job for their

opinions. However, there is an increase on people’s fear of losing their job from people who

would self-censor. This could show that individuals could self-censor because of fear of the

outcome.

Results found that 54% (24) of people who self-censor when their boss thinks differently

are more likely to avoid sharing their political opinion in order to prevent confrontation. In

comparison, 41% (25) of people who would express freely due to the influence of their bosses

are less likely to avoid sharing their political views to prevent confrontation. This shows that the

ones who are more influenced by the opinion of their bosses are less likely to express what they

think to avoid confrontation. As mentioned, there are policies that some companies have that

determine what type of information people cannot publish on SMS and their expected behavior,

(2012, Gillespie). This would be censoring and people have to act in a certain manner to keep

their jobs. However, these results emphasize the impact of a boss’s opinion.

The study shows a behavior pattern. People who are more likely to self-censor, are

influenced by their boss’s opinion and also want to avoid online confrontation.

The level of education could also have an impact on people’s fear to lose their jobs. The

results show that 46% (54) of people who are college students are afraid that by sharing their

opinions they could lose their job. In comparison, 67% (23) of people who have completed their

bachelor’s degree are less likely to be afraid. These results could occur because people who have

finished their undergraduate education could be ranked as better candidates for a job position

than people who are still studying in college or have any other education status. The findings

also show the value that education gives to people. This could also occur because people who

have a greater education might have a greater level of critical thinking to decide about their

political views. The reasons why undergraduates are less likely to give their political opinion and

graduates are more likely to do so could be a theme used for further research.


Relatives also have an impact on people’s everyday life communication. The participants

were asked to rank the level of influence that their relatives had on their posts from 1-10. As

shown by the graph E, the respondents did not show a tendency to be influenced by their

relatives, (M=5.1, SD=2.7) Participants who are more likely to be influenced by the opinion of

their relatives had a negative relationship with giving likes on posts to receive likes back; 40%

(30). This analysis is of the scale between

6-10 regarding the influence of relatives.

In comparison with the influence that

bosses presented, the influence of

relatives is less presented. This means

that bosses tend to show more authority

on people’s self-censorship on SMS.

Within the open-ended questions,

participants were asked to give an

example of people who would influence their participation and exposure on SMS. Answers

included friends, partners, teachers and religious leaders. From these answers, participants were

most likely to mention partners 5% (9) and friends 4% (7).

The fear of receiving negative comments is also related to the opinion of others. Findings show

that people who are in college are more likely to be afraid of receiving negative comments than

people with a Bachelor’s degree; 73% (25) of participants with a Bachelor’s degree and 61%

(72) of students were not afraid of receiving negative comments. The findings show that people

who completed their college education are more like to express themselves freely on SMS

platforms. Graduates are also less likely to be influenced by others. This could also show the

value of an education and how it makes a person more self-confident.

Graph E


The findings suggest a negative relationship between the action of “liking” posts for the purpose

of receiving “likes” back, with having a college degree; 38% (13) did “like” other posts to

receive “likes.”

Participation in Debates

The government of the United States is part of the country’s structure and it is an authority over

the people. Although the United States is a democracy, the government still has the power to set

rules and organize the country. Participants were asked if they avoided sharing their political

views to avoid confrontation, 52% (86) indicated that they did not share their opinion to avoid

confrontation. This answer had a negative relationship with having a public profile on SMS as

24.4% (21) of the people who have their SMS profiles public avoided sharing their political

views. A decrease was shown on the relationship of participants who had their profiles private,

as 16% (12) of people who avoided giving their political opinion had their profiles in private

mode. Therefore, people who have their SMS profiles in private are more likely to avoid

confrontation and are also more reserved to give their opinion on SMS. This relationship could

show why participants also do not have their profile on private, which is the avoidance of

confrontation. The results indicated a positive relationship between participants who have fear of

receiving negative comments and the ones who have their SMS profiles on public mode, as 40%

(22) of people fear to receive negative comments also have their profile private; 32% (18) vary

their configuration depending on the social media platform, such as Facebook or Twitter; 27%

(15) have it public. This emphasizes the tendency that people are less likely to express

themselves if they present their profiles as private on SMS.

Results suggested that 83% (72) of people who do not use SMS to get their point across

avoid sharing their political views to avoid confrontation. This could be a reason why people

would want to impart their ideas or opinions.


The level of education could also influence the willingness to share a political view. As

people with a higher education could have a greater critical thinking; education deals with

learning. The results showed that 55% (19) of participants who avoided to share their political

ideals to prevent confrontation had Bachelor’s degree; 51.3% (60) were college students.

Regarding the level of education, self-censorship on political opinion is still presented. There is a

difference of 3.7% from people who had a Bachelor’s degree and people who were college

students. This is not a significant difference but it still shows that people with a Bachelor’s had a

tendency to avoid the sharing of their political opinions. This behavior could be caused due to

the fact that they are more are more educated and could be more self-aware of their presentation.

This supports the study that suggests that people are more likely to want to feel associated with a

group with a higher social status, (2015, Schmalz, Colistra & Evans). As people tagged with

having a high education, they could feel more secure about themselves and be able to express

their ideas more openly.

Regarding the topic of expressing themselves freely and having a college degree, the

findings showed a negative relationship, as 35.4% (12) of graduates indicated they expressed

freely on SMS. In comparison, college students also showed a negative relationship with

freedom of expression. 26.5% (31) college students said they expressed their ideas freely. This

contrast between college students and graduates’ freedom of expression shows that graduates are

more likely to express freely on SMS. The findings support the Spiral of Silence. Since people

with higher education are more self-confident to communicate freely, they are more likely to

self-censor others. Graduates are not necessarily the government, but they still have a higher

social status.

Gender

This topic was included as an extra to the findings since it shows tendencies that stand

out and are relevant to mention. The outcomes presented in the questionnaires concerning gender


have different tendencies that show a difference between male and female behavior. The

participants included 50% women (82) and 48% men (80.) Two participants decided to leave

their gender as “prefer not to respond.”

The level of likeness of SMS between males and females is similar. Both genders tend to

have gratification with the use of SMS, as 74% (61) of women and 78% (63) of men indicated a

level between 7-10 in the scale. The results also showed that 48% (40) of women spend more

than three hours on SMS, in comparison to 31% (25) of men. Results also suggested that males

are more likely to spend about two hours on SMS, 48% (38) of men and 31% (25) women.

It was frequently encountered that both genders are less likely to express their ideas

freely on SMS. The results indicated that 9% (15) of women and 18% (31) of men express their

ideas freely on SMS; 15% (26) of women and 11% (18) of men indicated that they did not

express their ideas freely on SMS. However, a number of participants responded, “more or less.”

Those who responded “more or less,” do not express their ideas freely because the question does

not ask if every idea is expressed freely. The question asks if ideas are expressed freely in

general and 40% (40) of women and 18% (31) of men answered “more or less.” This means that

in total 49% (55) of women and 29% (49) of men reported they censor on SMS.

Results suggested that women are more likely to self-censor their political ideas to avoid

confrontation; 43% (35) of males and 61% (50) of women respondents indicated that they self-

censored political opinion to avoid confrontation. Women are also more likely to configure their

SMS profiles in private mode than men; 14% (12) of women and 27.5% (22) of men indicated

that their profile was public; 32.9% (27) of women and 37.5% (30) of men answered that this

depended on their social media platform; 51.2% (42) of women and 32.5% (26) of men had them

on private. Women also showed to be more likely to be afraid that their opinions could make

them lose their jobs; 20.7% (17) of females and 11% (9) of males indicated that they feared that

their opinions could lead them to lose their job. This could serve for further research as job


inequality is present in every developed country, (Kleven, H., & Landais, C, 2017). The study

shows that women are more likely to feel fear to express their opinions. Findings also show that

47.7% (39) of women fear to receive negative comments on SMS. In contrast, 20% (16) of males

are afraid of negative criticism. This result also supports that males are more likely to express

themselves freely on SMS than women.

All of these findings suggest that women are more likely to self-censor on SMS than men. The

dominance of men has been prevalent through time. Numbers of people are trying to advocate

for gender equality, as Malala, a Pakistani girl, who fights for women’s education and gender

equality, (Brown, 2013). Eventhough there are people promoting equality, these findings show

that there is more freedom of expression among men. Further research on gender regarding SMS

is recommended to investigate the reasons why males express themselves freer than women.

Conclusion

The First Amendment of the United States is a law that provides people with the liberty

to express themselves, (2012, Rodman). Throughout the analysis of the results, it was frequently

encountered that most people think they expressed their ideas freely. However, they do self-

censor. Since there is not a face-to-face communication on SMS, between the performer and the

receiver, it becomes easier to present a desired image of the self. As Goffman (1959) argues,

people are constantly thinking how to present an image that they want to show to others. There

are behaviors, which are related to the personality of each person and the situation where they

have to perform. This is shown in the Individual Differences Theory, which explains that people

are affected in different ways depending on their characteristics, (2012, Rodman). Thus, the

amount that a source influences people’s freedom of speech varies. People tend to self-censor

thinking in the influence of their boss. Therefore, the self-presentation in the professional

environment could be less open to express their opinions. People could compare the risks and

rewards of sharing their opinions and descide to self-censor or express freely. For instance,


people put their jobs at risk for sharing opinions since their bosses have power over their

employment. This situation could lead them to an economic instability, which later could result

in a decrease in the satisfaction of their lives. Another type of influence in people’s lives are

relatives. Respondants were not likely to self-censor with the influence of their relatives. This

might occur due to the fact that family is not something that can be changed. Individuals are born

with a father and a mother they cannot biologically change. If a person has a different opinion

than one of their relatives, they will continue to be relatives. Therefore, the behavior of people

might not be the same with their relatives as with bosses. Other individuals who have an effect in

people’s lives are partners. This type of human relationship was not studied in this research

paper. However, the respondents tended to mention them as an influence with their self-

censorship. Thus, it is recommended for further research to study how much influence partners

have on people’s presentation and freedom of expression on SMS. The Milgram Effect also

supports these findings since authority makes people change their beliefs. The participation of

people in debates, especially regarding political opinion, showed a tendency of self-censorship to

avoid confrontation. Conerning the Spiral of Silence, self-censorship is likely to occur whenever

there is a dominant opinion, (1985, Noelle-Neumann). Whenever people self-censor their

opinions the spiraling effect occurs. This supports the results that show that people who self-

censor want to avoid confrontation.

The level of impact that each influence has on people’s self-censorship could be a topic

for further research. On SMS people engage in self-censorship because it is a constant exposure

of their identity to people who have influence in their lives. SMS becomes a platform that

provokes people to show different masks of themselves. As Goffman (1956) mentioned, when

people socialize they are involved in different situations where they present different masks.

Therefore, with the data presented and the theory of the self-presentation in everyday life, one

can support that SMS is medium to display these identities and self-censor.


Within the expectations of the paper there were flaws that could have been improved.

First, the number of participants did not reach the expected population. Second, the Pearson’s

Chi Square tests were not significant in many cases since they did not reach a trustworthy level

of confidence, which is around 0.5. Third and last, there were many questions presented in the

survey. This created complications to divide the information and understand the main usage of

each question. The questionnaire should have shown a greater linkage with the presented

questions for the research paper. Another flaw was that it was not only people from the United

States, but also form other countries. This variant could have had an impact with results as some

respondents do not have the freedom of expression of United States. Lastly, the research

questions were not very specific. They could have been planed with more cognition.


References

Rodman, George (2012). Mass media in a changing world, 4th edition. NewYork:

McGraw Hill

Esmala, T. (June, 2017). First Amendment. Retreived from http://

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Greenblatt, A. & Barnett, S. & Mills, A. (2013, April 26). Free speech at risk. CQ

Researcher, 23(16), 377-400.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.

Schmalz, D. L., Colistra, C. M., & Evans, K. E. (2015). Social media sites as a

means of coping with a threatened social identity. Leisure Sciences, 37(1), 20-38.

doi:10.1080/01490400.2014.935835

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (June, 2017). Librarians.

American time use survey - 2016 results. Retrieved from

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf

Van, D. J. (January 01, 2013). 'You have one identity': performing the self on Facebook

and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35, 2, 199-215.

Das, S., & Kramer, A. D. (2013, July). Self-Censorship on Facebook. In ICWSM.


Van, G. E., Van, O. J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (March 01, 2015). To share or

not to share? Adolescents’ self-disclosure about peer relationships on Facebook: An application

of the Prototype Willingness Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 2, 230-239.

Wang, S. S. (2013). 'I share, therefore I am': Personality traits, life satisfaction, and

Facebook check-ins. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 16(12), 870-877.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0395

Hall, M., & Caton, S. (2017). Am I who I say I am? Unobtrusive self-representation and

personality recognition on Facebook. Plos ONE, 12(9), 1-23. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184417

Lenhart, A., & Duggan, M. (2014, February 11). Couples, the Internet, and Social Media:

How American couples use digital technology to manage life, logistics, and emotional intimacy

within their relationships. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/

Gillespie, L. V. (2012, July 1). SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY: Think twice before

creating intrusive social media policy. Employee Benefit News, 26(9), 12. Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A295048027/ITOF?u=naal_shc&sid=ITOF&xid=c5b6cb8a

Right Management to Provide Personal Websites to Transitioning Candidates through

Partnership with Workfolio. (2014, February 7). Entertainment Close-up. Retrieved from:

http://ezproxy.shc.edu:2950/apps/doc/A357890125/ITOF?

u=naal_shc&sid=ITOF&xid=5c98834b


Helm, C., & Morelli, M. (1979). Stanley Milgram and the Obedience Experiment:

Authority, Legitimacy, and Human Action. Political Theory, 7(3), 321-345. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/190944

Park , S., & Abril, P. S. (2016). Digital Self-Ownership: A Publicity-Rights Framework

for Determining Employee Social Media Rights. American Business Law Journal, 53(3), 537-

598. doi:10.1111/ablj.12084

Noelle-Neumann, E. (September 06, 1977). Turbulences in the Climate of Opinion:

Methodological Applications of the Spiral of Silence Theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 2,

143.

Kim, M. (December 01, 2016). Facebook's Spiral of Silence and Participation: The Role

of Political Expression on Facebook and Partisan Strength in Political Participation.

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 12, 696-702.

Kleven, H., & Landais, C. (2017). Gender Inequality and Economic Development:

Fertility, Education and Norms. Economica, 84(334), 180-209. doi:10.1111/ecca.12230

BROWN, G. (2013). Malala: Everyone's Daughter in the Fight for Girls' Education.

NPQ: New Perspectives Quarterly, 30(1), 59-60. doi:10.1111/npqu.11361


Enriquez, J. Ted2013 (Ted Ideas worth spreading). February, 2013. Your Offline life,

permanent as a tattoo. Retrieved from:

https://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_how_to_think_about_digital_tattoos

Schmidt, S. (2017, June). Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes

in private group chat. The Washington Post, Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/harvard-withdraws-10-

acceptances-for-offensive-memes-in-private-chat/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.caccff9eb7cf

Zuckerberg, M. [Mark]. (2017, June 17). As of this morning, the Facebook community is

now officially 2 billion people! We're making progress connecting the [Facebook status update].

Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103831654565331?pnref=story

Andone D. (2017, June 27). Hack that plants ISIS message hits another state government

website. CNNpolitics. Retrieved from

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/websites-hacked-isis/index.html

Hanna, J. (2017, March 12). What you can do if someone posts an explicit image of you

online. Retrieved from, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/12/us/nonconsensual-or-revenge-porn-

recourse-trnd/index.html


Appendix A: IRB Letter

Dr. Chelsea Greer,

I am writing you to please consider the approval of this project. This is my senior seminar

research project, which is very important to me and I have to finish it in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Maria Hastings


SPRING HILL COLLEGE

APPLICATION TO THE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

Primary Investigator (P.I.) Maria Hastings

Faculty Advisor (if student P.I.) Christina Kotchemidova

Program Communication Arts

Phone Number +5215521893724

Email Address [email protected]

Title of Project “Type and share?” – A research paper on self-censorship

on social media

Project start date Jan 15, 2018

Expected end date Mar 20-22, 2018

Submission date

The project is X New Continuing

[To maintain continuous approval for projects that last more than one year, submit a

continuing application at least one month prior to the yearly expiration date.]

Review requested (select one) X Exempt Expedited Full

[See Appendix 1 of the IRB Policy and Procedures for full definitions of the review

categories.]

Project type X Non-funded (or student) research

Externally funded research


Supporting agency (if any)

The P.I. will receive written notification of the IRB's decision within three (3) weeks of receipt

of this application

If you have questions regarding this application, please contact the chair of the IRB

___________________Maria Hastings________ ____________02/01/2018_________

Signature of Primary Investigator Date

__________ __________ ___02/06/2018____

Signature of Faculty Advisor (if applicable) Date

Please check this box if you would like further comments or questions for consideration?


INDICATE THE REVIEW CATEGORY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING.

X Application for exempt review based on the following category(ies). Check all categories

that apply. See Appendix 1 for complete definition of this review category. Submit one (1)

signed copy of all application materials to the Chair of the Institutional Review Board via

email (electronic signature) or campus mail.

Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings and

involving normal educational practices.

Research involving the use of educational tests, if information from these sources

cannot be linked to the participant.

x Research involving survey or questionnaire procedures where responses are not

linked to the participant.

Research involving observation of public behavior where the participant's behavior is

not linked to their identity.

Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records,

pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, where these sources are publicly

available and data cannot be linked to the participant.

Application for expedited review based on the following category(ies). Check all categories

that apply. See Appendix 1 for complete definition of this review category. Submit one (1)

signed copy of all application materials to the Chair of the Institutional Review Board via

email (electronic signature) or campus mail.

Collection of voice video, digital, or image recordings made for research purposes.

Research on group or individual behavior or characteristics or behavior (including,

but not limited to research on perception, cognition, motivation, communication,


cultural beliefs, and social behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral

history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality

assurance methodologies.

Collection of hair and nail clippings in a non-disfiguring manner.

Collection of deciduous teeth at the time of exfoliation, or of deciduous or permanent

teeth if routine patient care indicates a need for extraction.

Collection of excreta and external secretions (including sweat), saliva, skin cells,

sputum, placenta removed at delivery, and amniotic fluid at time of rupture of the

membrane prior to or during labor.

Recording of data from adult participants (18+ years of age) using noninvasive

procedures (not involving general anesthesia or sedation) routinely used in clinical

practice, excluding procedures involving x-rays or microwaves. Examples: physical

sensors that are applied either to the surface of the body or at a distance; weighing or

testing sensory acuity; moderate exercise, muscular strength testing.

Collection of blood samples by finger stick, heel stick, ear stick or venipuncture from

adult participants (19+ years of age) who are in good health, not pregnant, and who

weigh at least 110 pounds.

Collection of supra- and sub gingival dental plaque and calculus in a routine manner.

Study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic

specimens that have been collected or will be collected solely for non-research

purposes (such as medical treatment or diagnosis).

Continuing review of research previously approved by the convened IRB where no

new participants will be recruited.

Research on drugs or medical devices that are not new investigations.


Application for full review. See Appendix 1 for complete definition of this review category.

Submit one (1) signed copy of all application materials to the Chair of the Institutional

Review Board via email (electronic signature) or campus mail.


INSTRUCTIONS: Please type your responses. If needed, continue each response on

additional pages. After completion submit the required number of copies to the chair of

the Institutional Review Board.

1. Purpose and objectives of the research : Give enough background information to

support the importance of the project, its expected contribution, and the hypothesis under

study.

The purpose of this study is to understand freedom of speech and how it affects the way

people use social media. I want to analyze the self-censorship of young adults (people

from 19 to 23 years old) on social media. This project is important to understand the

effects that social media is generating on society because they can bring consequences as

devaluating honesty, freedom of expression, perceptions of the world, etc. The First

Amendment of the United States of America is a right that has been fought for for a long

time. This is why it is important to know how comfortable people feel as they

communicate through social media. The research will contribute the understanding of

social media and human behavior studies. The hypothesis is the following: If people feel

pressure from other people or groups then they will self-censor themselves on social

media.

2. Participants: Include a discussion of the characteristics, number and any payment of

participants. Explain the participant selection process and how you will initially contact

potential participants. If you will be working with participants from another institution or

organization, attach documentation of that agency’s permission for you to do so and any


pertinent regulations from those agencies. If minor children are to take part in the

research, attach a parent information letter.

The participants will be adults, which have to be 19 or older as it is stated in Alabama

law. There will not be any type of payment and it will be voluntary. An email will be sent

to the students of Spring Hill College inviting them to answer the questionnaire. Besides

this, the questionnaire will be shared in unknown randomized Facebook groups. These

groups will be selected by a list of college schools and the link will be shared there. This

questionnaire does not need documentation of any agency and there will be no minors.

See the questionnaire with the informed consent preamble in Appendix A.

3. Method or Procedure: Describe the way in which data will be collected, including

where the study will take place, who will collect data, length of participation, what data

will be recorded and how. List and describe any apparatus that will be used. Attach

copies of any survey or interview questions to be used. If deception is used, provide a

rationale.

The answers of the questionnaire will be collected by the webpage called SurveyMonkey

Inc. This data will be analyzed using SPSS to make comparisons of the results. The

information shared in Survey Monkey is protected by a governmental organization called

Privacy Shield Framework. The data will look for behavior regarding freedom of

expression and social media. The participant will not have any anticipated physical,

financial, legal or political harm. The questionnaire might make them question their use

of social media. Besides, they might question if it is beneficial for them to use social

media or if they are providing correct information about themselves. There participants


will be able to answer some of the questions from pre-set answers and other answers will

be open-ended. The questions have the pre-set answer options next to them unless

otherwise mentioned. There is a consent preamble explaining the survey and informing

that it will be absolutely confidential and anonymous. The questionnaire is not

obligatory, the ones who take it will do so voluntarily. Participants can stop answering

before hitting “submit” if they so wish. See questionnaire in Appendix A.

4. Assessment of risk: Determine if participants are at more than minimal risk for physical,

psychological, social, financial, legal, or political harm. (This includes research

involving DECEPTION of participants). Describe procedures (such as informed consent)

that will be used to minimize potential risks to participants. If participants are at greater

than minimal risk, responses to Attachment 1 must be included in this application.

The survey will be anonymous and confidential. There is not a question that that is used

to identify a person. Their names will not be attached or linked in any way to the

questionnaire and webpage. The questionnaire does NOT put participants at more than

minimal risk.

5. Risk-benefit ratio: Research involving human participants can be approved only if expected

benefits outweigh potential risks. Describe possible benefits to the participants, a class of

participants, society in general, or the advancement of science. State your reasons for believing

that the benefits of the proposed study outweigh potential risks.


The benefit provided by the survey is for society. Social media is a modern platform to

communicate that influences millions of people. It is important to investigate the effects that this

platform generates. Society should know if it contributes to freedom of expression or if it

encourages self-censorship. The benefit for the participants is to participate in a survey that will

engage their critical thinking. The questionnaire will maintain minimal risk towards the

participants.

7. Confidentiality: Describe procedures to be used to maintain confidentiality including who

will have access to identifying information, where data will be stored, when data will be

destroyed, and in the event that findings are published or made public, how participants'

identities will be masked.

The participants’ opinions will be protected since they will answer the survey anonymously.

First of all, they will answer the questionnaire online; there will not be human interaction.

Secondly, there is no question that could identify them. This webpage is protected by a

governmental agency to secure the confidentiality of the survey.

The participants will enter SurveyMonkey.com with the link to the questionnaire. The questions

will be set one by one. When they finish, the participants will hit the submit button. I will be the

only person with access to the responses in the surveys. However, I will not be able to connect

the responses with the names of the respondents. The account in which I will create the

questionnaire is linked to my email: [email protected].

No one, besides me, can log into my email account to get the information. The data will be

trashed after the end of the semester.


SPRINGHILL COLLEGE

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

Attachment 1: Additional Information Required for Full Review of Research Involving

More Than Minimal Risk to Participants

Please answer the following questions for all appropriate categories involved in your research.

Risk

For research in which the possibility of injury is greater than minimal:

1. Identify and describe in detail the possible risks, including physiological,

psychological, or social injury, to which participants may be exposed.

The person filling out the survey could feel uncomfortable sharing their opinions and

being completely honest.

2. Explain why you believe the risks to the participant are so outweighed by the

combined benefit to the participant or society at large and the importance of the

knowledge to be gained as to warrant a decision to allow the participant to accept

these risks. Discuss any alternative ways of conducting this research that would

present fewer risks to the participant, and explain why the method you have chosen is

superior.


The risks are outweighed due to the freedom of expression of the First Amendment of

the United Stated of America. Therefore, it would benefit society to know if people

do feel free. It is important to study social media since it is such a recent method of

communication. People have to be aware of the effects that freedom of expression has

on social media.

3. Explain fully how the rights and welfare of participants at risk will be protected (e.g.,

equipment closely monitored, medical exam given prior to procedures, psychological

screening of participants, etc.)

The participants’ opinion will be protected since they will answer an anonymous

survey. The server “SurveyMonkey” allows these types of surveys. They will answer

the questioner online and there is no question that could identify them, rather than

their academic level. They are voluntarily answering the survey and can stop at any

desired moment.

Equipment

For research in which the participants will be in contact with any mechanical, electronic,

electrical, or other equipment, which might put him/her at risk of accidental harm or injury,

should there be a mechanical failure in the equipment:

1. Identify and describe in detail the equipment to be utilized and the exact location.

Use manufacturer's name and serial numbers, and submit copies of manufacturer's

literature on the equipment when available.


As mentioned, the equipment used will be an online platform, “SurveyMonkey.Inc,”

which is protected by a governmental agency called Privacy Shield Framework. This

company protects the information provided in the platform.

2. Identify and describe in detail how the participant will interact with the equipment.

The participant will enter SurveyMonkey.com with the link to the questionnaire. The

question will be set one by one and then when finished, the participant will hit the

submit button.

3. Indicate the names and qualifications (with regard to the safe use of the equipment)

for all individuals authorized to use the equipment.

I will be the only person with access to the responses in the surveys. The account in

which I will create the questionnaire is linked to my email:

[email protected].

4. Indicate in detail specific steps that will be taken to assure the proper operation and

maintenance of the equipment.

No one can log into my email account to get the information. However, my password

in private and no one beside me has knowledge of it.


Psychological or Physiological Intervention

For research in which the participants will be exposed to any psychological intervention such

as deception, contrived social situations, manipulation of the participant's attitudes, opinion or

self-esteem, psychotherapeutic procedures, or other psychological influences, or in which the

participant(s) will be exposed to any physiological treatments or interventions upon the body by

mechanical, electronic, chemical, biological or any other means:

1. Identify and describe in detail the psychological intervention (or manipulation) and

the means used to administer the intervention.

There will be no manipulation of the information. The questions are direct and

require honest responses.

2. Identify and describe in detail the behavior expected of participant(s) and the

behavior of the investigator during the administration of the intervention.

The questionnaire might be liked by people because it might make them question

social media and freedom of speech according to them. The investigator will just be

waiting for the results since there will be no personal interaction. Some people might

feel concerned about their use on social media since it challenge their way of

thinking.

3. Describe how data resulting from this procedure will be gathered and recorded.


This data will be gathered in SPSS and the results will be compared with secondary

research about freedom of speech and social media in an essay of approximately

10,000.

4. Identify anticipated and possible psychological, physiological, or social consequences

of this procedure for the participant(s).

Psychologically, the participants might get another perspective of their use of social

media. Socially, they can evaluate if social media is positive or they feel intimidated

by it. Physiologically, they might realize that not every body in social media is real.

5. Indicate in detail specific steps that will be taken to assure the proper operation and

maintenance of the means used to administer the intervention. For all equipment

used, the questions regarding equipment above must be answered.

I will not give anyone to have my password and as soon as I have the results of the

surveys I will eliminate them from Survey Monkey.

6. For research involving DECEPTION, explain in detail why deception is necessary to

accomplish the goals of the research. Care should be taken to distinguish cases in which

disclosure would invalidate the research from cases in which disclosure would simply

inconvenience the investigator.

6. For research involving psychological intervention, describe in detail the plan for

debriefing participants.

It will be online. There will be no human contact.


7. Indicate the investigator's competence and identify her/his qualifications, by training

and experience, to conduct this procedure. Give name, title, academic affiliation and

program, address, and telephone number of the individual(s) who will supervise this

procedure.

8. I am Maria Hastings. Through my preparation in Spring Hill College as a

Communication Arts major I have gained enough experience to succeed with this

project. I did several projects that included a Feature Story of Alan Tompson, which

was named the best in my class; I did several interviews in Italy where I dealt with

language barrier as well. Since I was born in Mexico, I speak fluent Spanish. This

gives me the advantage to communicate with Hispanic people. I have taken two

courses in EduMac, which gave me a photography and a graphic design certification.

Furthermore, I have always been disciplined and tenacious, which will help me

achieve this project.

4000 Dauphin St, Mobile Al, 36608 EEUU

+5215521893724


Appendix B: IRB Approval Email


Appendix C: Survey

You are invited to participate in research on social media. The purpose of the research is to

establish to what extent social media users feel free to voice their opinions on social media.

This is a project for Communication Arts Senior Seminar (CMM495) of Spring Hill College. It

should take 10 minutes to respond the questionnaire. By responding to this questionnaire, you

acknowledge that you are an adult (19 years of age or older) and you are giving consent your

answers be used for analysis. You are participating in the survey anonymously; your name will

remain unknown and will not be linked to your responses. This is completely voluntary. If you

do not want to answer a question you can skip it. When you finish, hit the submit button. Thank

you and have a good day!

1. Are you female or male? Female/male/prefer not to answer

2. Are you a college student or have a bachelor’s degree?

3. Do you have social media? Yes/no

4. If your answer was yes, how much do you like social media from 1-10?

5. How much time do you spend on social media per day?

6. From 1 to 10 how much do social media impact your life (whether negatively and/or

positively)?

7. Do you express your ideas freely on social media? Yes/No.

8. Have you ever received negative responses for sharing your opinion on social media?

Yes/No/I don’t know.


9. Have you posted an idea, opinion or “like” that a person or group has told you to?

Yes/No/ I don’t remember.

10. From 1 to 10 how much do your family and friends affect the way you present yourself

on social media (images you share, opinions or ideas)?

11. Would you share an idea on social media if your boss had a different opinion than you?

Yes/No/Maybe.

12. Suppose you were trying to get into a school or job. Would you look over your social

media profiles to show a good representation about yourself? Yes/No/Maybe

13. Do you avoid sharing information about your political views to avoid confrontation?

Yes/No

14. From 1 to 10 how truthfully do you think your profile on social media represents

yourself?

15. Have you ever shared negative information about yourself on social media? Yes/No/I

don’t remember

16. Do you only post information about yourself that makes you look good? Yes/No/I don’t

remember

17. Are your profiles on social media “private” or “public”? Private/public

18. How likely is it that you self-censor on social media? (Likert 5 – very unlikely, very

likely)

19. What are some reasons you would self-censor your self? (Open-ended)

20. From 1-10 how much do you care about the “likes” you receive?

21. Do you use social media to receive “likes”? Yes/No

22. Do you use social media to post information so that people can expand their knowledge?

Yes/No

23. Do you use social media to socialize? Yes/No


24. Do you use social media to see posts from other people? Yes/No

25. Do you use social media to participate in debates to get your point across? Yes/No

26. Do you use social media for marketing purposes (sell a product, promote a brand, etc.)?

Yes/No

27. How likely is it that you feel devaluated if no one answers one of your posts? (Likert 5 –

very unlikely, very likely)

28. How likely is it that if no one answers or likes a post you might think you are wrong?

(Likert 5 – very unlikely, very likely)

29. Do you erase a post if it does not receive a certain amount of “likes”? Yes/No

30. Do you “like” certain posts to receive “likes” back? Yes/No

31. Do you feel afraid that a certain opinion you share can receive negative comments?

Yes/No

32. Do you feel afraid that your opinions could make you loose your job? Yes, no, I do not

work. Yes/No/Do not have a job

33. From 1-10 how much do you think that your boss influences the posts you decide to

share on social networks?

34. From 1-10 how much influence do you think that relatives influence the posts you decide

to share on social networks?

35. From 1-10 how much influence do you think that your friends influence the posts you

decide to share on social networks?

36. Are there any other types of relationships that influence the posts you publish? No/Yes, if

so please mention them in the following space. (Open-ended)

37. How likely is it that you share or give certain opinions if a higher power could reach this

information and make use of it, such as your boss, parents, etc.? (Likert 5, Very Unlikely,

very likely)


38. From 1-10, how safe do you feel on social media? (10 being extremely safe)


Appendix D: Statistical Charts

Case Processing SummaryCases

Valid Missing TotalN Percent N Percent N Percent

Erasing post if not enough likes * Only post info that makes self look good

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Express ideas freely * Only post info that makes self look good

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Liking to receive likes * Only post info that makes self look good

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Erasing post if not enough likes * Only post info that makes self look good

CrosstabOnly post info that

makes self look good

I don't post that

muchErasing post if not enough likes

Count 1 0

% of Total

.6% .0%

cant really remember but if i have it was probably because i thought no one saw it

Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%

I used to when I was in middle school and high school.

Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%

No Count 0 1% of Total

.0% .6%

Si pero no por los likes Count 0 0% of Total

.0% .0%

Times ago yes, when I was teen. But nowadays no.

Count 0 0


% of Total

.0% .0%

Yes Count 0 0% of Total

.0% .0%

Total Count 1 1% of Total

.6% .6%

CrosstabOnly post info that makes self

look good

I don't remember

I don’t care what people think about

what I postErasing post if not enough likes

Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%


Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%


Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%


4.3% .6%


.0% .0%


Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%


2.4% .0%


6.7% .6%



look goodi think this deepends on

the eye of whos looking at what i post

I try

Erasing post if not enough likes

Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%


Count 1 0

% of Total

.6% .0%


Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%


.0% .6%


.0% .0%


Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.6% .6%


makes self look goodmostly No


Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%

cant really remember but if i have it Count 0 0


was probably because i thought no one saw it

% of Total

.0% .0%


Count 0 1

% of Total

.0% .6%


.6% 32.9%


.0% .6%


Count 0 1

% of Total

.0% .6%


.0% 8.5%


.6% 43.3%


makes self look good TotalYes


Count 0 1

% of Total

.0% .6%


Count 0 1

% of Total

.0% .6%


Count 0 1

% of Total

.0% .6%


25.6% 65.2%



.0% .6%


Count 0 1

% of Total

.0% .6%


20.7% 31.7%


46.3% 100.0%

Chi-Square TestsValue df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 343.677a 48 .000Likelihood Ratio 42.310 48 .704N of Valid Cases 164a. 58 cells (92.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

Express ideas freely * Only post info that makes self look good

CrosstabOnly post info that makes self look

good I don't post that much

Express ideas freely

I do not like to express my ideas

Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%

More or less Count 0 1% of Total

.0% .6%


.0% .0%


.6% .0%



.6% .6%

CrosstabOnly post info that makes self look good

I don't remember

I don’t care what people think about what I post



Count 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0%

More or less Count 2 1% of Total

1.2% .6%


3.0% .0%


2.4% .0%


6.7% .6%


i think this deepends on the eye of whos looking at what i post

I try mostly



Count 0 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0% .0%

More or less Count 0 0 1% of Total

.0% .0% .6%

No Count 1 1 0% of Total

.6% .6% .0%

Yes Count 0 0 0% of Total

.0% .0% .0%

Total Count 1 1 1% of Total

.6% .6% .6%



look good TotalNo Yes



Count 0 1 1

% of Total

.0% .6% .6%

More or less Count 28 40 73% of Total

17.1% 24.4% 44.5%

No Count 18 19 44% of Total

11.0% 11.6% 26.8%

Yes Count 25 16 46% of Total

15.2% 9.8% 28.0%

Total Count 71 76 164% of Total

43.3% 46.3% 100.0%



Liking to receive likes * Only post info that makes self look good


I don't post that much

I don't remember


Liking to receive likes

Count 1 0 0 0

% of Total

.6% .0% .0% .0%

No Count 0 1 7 1


% of Total

.0% .6% 4.3% .6%

Yes Count 0 0 4 0% of Total

.0% .0% 2.4% .0%

Total Count 1 1 11 1% of Total

.6% .6% 6.7% .6%



I try

mostly No

Liking to receive likes

Count 0 0 0 0

% of Total

.0% .0% .0% .0%

No Count 1 1 1 48% of Total

.6% .6% .6% 29.3%

Yes

Count 0 0 0 23

% of Total

.0% .0% .0% 14.0%

Total Count 1 1 1 71% of Total

.6% .6% .6% 43.3%

CrosstabOnly post info that makes self look good Total

YesLiking to receive likes

Count 0 1

% of Total .0% .6%No Count 45 105

% of Total 27.4% 64.0%Yes Count 31 58

% of Total 18.9% 35.4%Total Count 76 164

% of Total 46.3% 100.0%


Pearson Chi-Square 168.003a 16 .000


Likelihood Ratio 17.795 16 .336N of Valid Cases 164a. 22 cells (81.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

Only post info that makes self look good * Erasing post if not enough likes Crosstabulation


cant really remember but if i have it was probably because i thought no one

saw itOnly post info that makes self look good

Count 1 0

% within Only post info that makes self look good

100.0%

.0%

% within Erasing post if not enough likes

100.0%

.0%

I don't post that much Count 0 0% within Only post info that makes self look good

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

I don't remember Count 0 0% within Only post info that makes self look good

.0% .0%


.0% .0%


Count 0 0


.0% .0%

% within Erasing .0% .0%


post if not enough likes


Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% 100.0%

I try Count 0 0% within Only post info that makes self look good

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

mostly Count 0 0% within Only post info that makes self look good

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

No Count 0 0% within Only post info that makes self look good

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Yes Count 0 0% within Only post info that makes self look good

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Total Count 1 1% within Only post info that

.6% .6%


makes self look good% within Erasing post if not enough likes

100.0%

100.0%



I used to when I was in middle school and

high school. NoOnly post info that makes self look good

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .9%


.0% 63.6%


.0% 6.5%


Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .9%


Count 0 0



.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .9%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .9%


1.4% 76.1%


100.0% 50.5%


.0% 55.3%


.0% 39.3%

Total Count 1 107% within Only post info that makes self look good

.6% 65.2%


100.0% 100.0%


Erasing post if not enough likesSi pero no Times ago yes,


por los likes

when I was teen. But nowadays no.

Only post info that makes self look good

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


Count 0 0


.0% .0%

% within Erasing post if not enough

.0% .0%


likesI try Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


1.4% 1.4%


100.0% 100.0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.6% .6%


100.0% 100.0%


Erasing post if not enough

likes Total


YesOnly post info that makes self look good

Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


36.4% 100.0%


7.7% 6.7%


Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


.0% 100.0%

% within Erasing post if not enough

.0% .6%


likesmostly Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


19.7% 100.0%


26.9% 43.3%


44.7% 100.0%


65.4% 46.3%


31.7% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%



NotesOutput Created 17-Apr-2018 00:49:03Comments Input Data M:\Project seminar 2.sav

Active Dataset DataSet1


Filter <none>Weight <none>Split File <none>N of Rows in Working Data File

164

Missing Value Handling

Definition of Missing

User-defined missing values are treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics for each table are based on all the cases with valid data in the specified range(s) for all variables in each table.

Syntax CROSSTABS /TABLES=Postinfo BY Express /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ /CELLS=COUNT ROW COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.015Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.016Dimensions Requested

2

Cells Available 131072



Only post info that makes self look good * Express ideas freely

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Only post info that makes self look good * Express ideas freely CrosstabulationExpress ideas freely

I do not like to express my

ideasMore or

lessOnly post info that makes self look good

Count 0 0


.0% .0%

% within Express ideas freely

.0% .0%

I don't post that much Count 0 1



.0% 100.0%


.0% 1.4%


.0% 18.2%


.0% 2.7%


Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% 1.4%


Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% 100.0%


.0% 1.4%


.0% 39.4%


.0% 38.4%

Yes Count 1 40% within Only post 1.3% 52.6%


info that makes self look good% within Express ideas freely

100.0% 54.8%


.6% 44.5%


100.0% 100.0%

Only post info that makes self look good * Express ideas freely CrosstabulationExpress ideas

freely TotalNo Yes


Count 0 1 1


.0% 100.0% 100.0%


.0% 2.2% .6%

I don't post that much Count 0 0 1% within Only post info that makes self look good

.0% .0% 100.0%


.0% .0% .6%

I don't remember Count 5 4 11% within Only post info that makes self look good

45.5% 36.4% 100.0%


11.4% 8.7% 6.7%


Count 0 0 1


.0% .0% 100.0%


.0% .0% .6%


Count 1 0 1

% within Only post 100.0% .0% 100.0%


info that makes self look good% within Express ideas freely

2.3% .0% .6%

I try Count 1 0 1% within Only post info that makes self look good

100.0% .0% 100.0%


2.3% .0% .6%

mostly Count 0 0 1% within Only post info that makes self look good

.0% .0% 100.0%


.0% .0% .6%

No Count 18 25 71% within Only post info that makes self look good

25.4% 35.2% 100.0%


40.9% 54.3% 43.3%

Yes Count 19 16 76% within Only post info that makes self look good

25.0% 21.1% 100.0%


43.2% 34.8% 46.3%

Total Count 44 46 164% within Only post info that makes self look good

26.8% 28.0% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%






Express ideas freely * Share if boss has different opinion

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Look over social media for job or school * Share if boss has different opinion

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Express ideas freely * Share if boss has different opinion

CrosstabShare if boss has different

opinion

depends on the

topicExpress ideas freely


Count 0 0


.0% .0%

% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0% .0%

More or less Count 0 1% within Express ideas freely

.0% 1.4%


.0% 100.0%

No Count 0 0% within Express ideas freely

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Yes Count 1 0% within Express ideas freely

2.2% .0%


100.0% .0%

Total Count 1 1% within Express ideas freely

.6% .6%


100.0% 100.0%


CrosstabShare if boss has different

opinionMaybe No



Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% 2.3%


39.7% 23.3%


50.0% 38.6%


36.4% 40.9%


27.6% 40.9%


28.3% 17.4%


22.4% 18.2%


35.4% 26.8%


100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabShare if boss has different opinion Total

YesExpress ideas freely


Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


35.6% 100.0%



43.3% 44.5%


22.7% 100.0%


16.7% 26.8%


52.2% 100.0%


40.0% 28.0%


36.6% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%



Look over social media for job or school * Share if boss has different opinion

CrosstabShare if boss has different opinion

depends on the

topicLook over social media for job or school

Count 1 0

% within Look over social media for job or school

100.0% .0%


100.0% .0%

Maybe Count 0 0% within Look over social .0% .0%


media for job or school% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0% .0%

No Count 0 0% within Look over social media for job or school

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Only LinkedIn

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Yes Count 0 1% within Look over social media for job or school

.0% 1.1%


.0% 100.0%

Total Count 1 1% within Look over social media for job or school

.6% .6%


100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabShare if boss has different opinion

Maybe NoLook over social media for job or school

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Maybe Count 12 12% within Look over social media for job or school

33.3% 33.3%


20.7% 27.3%


12.9% 38.7%


6.9% 27.3%


Only LinkedIn

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Yes Count 42 20% within Look over social media for job or school

44.2% 21.1%


72.4% 45.5%


35.4% 26.8%


100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabShare if boss has different opinion Total

YesLook over social media for job or school

Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%

Maybe Count 12 36% within Look over social media for job or school

33.3% 100.0%


20.0% 22.0%


48.4% 100.0%


25.0% 18.9%

Only LinkedIn

Count 1 1


100.0% 100.0%


1.7% .6%

Yes Count 32 95



33.7% 100.0%


53.3% 57.9%


36.6% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%



Crosstabs



Express ideas freely * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Express ideas freely * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job CrosstabulationFear that opinions can lead

to lose job I don't work



Count 0 0


.0% .0%

% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% .0%

More or less Count 0 24



.0% 32.9%


.0% 48.0%


.0% 22.7%


.0% 20.0%


2.2% 34.8%


100.0% 32.0%


.6% 30.5%


100.0% 100.0%

Express ideas freely * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job CrosstabulationFear that opinions can lead

to lose jobNo Not at all.



Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


46.6% 1.4%


40.0% 100.0%


61.4% .0%


31.8% .0%


52.2% .0%


28.2% .0%



51.8% .6%


100.0% 100.0%

Express ideas freely * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job CrosstabulationFear that opinions can

lead to lose job TotalYes



Count 1 1


100.0% 100.0%


3.7% .6%


19.2% 100.0%


51.9% 44.5%


15.9% 100.0%


25.9% 26.8%


10.9% 100.0%


18.5% 28.0%


16.5% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%


Pearson Chi-Square 12.529a 12 .404


Likelihood Ratio 11.543 12 .483N of Valid Cases 164a. 11 cells (55.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.



Share if boss has different opinion * Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Share if boss has different opinion * Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation Crosstabulation

Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

Depends onShare if boss has different opinion

Count 1 0


100.0% .0%

% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% .0%

depends on the topic

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Maybe Count 0 0% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

No Count 0 0% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0% .0%


.0% .0%


Yes Count 0 1% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0% 1.7%


.0% 100.0%

Total Count 1 1% within Share if boss has different opinion

.6% .6%


100.0% 100.0%



Dont avoid it just don’t really have strong politics

viewsShare if boss has different opinion

Count 0


.0%


.0%


Count 0


.0%


.0%

Maybe Count 1% within Share if boss has different opinion

1.7%


100.0%

No Count 0% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0%


.0%


Yes Count 0% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0%


.0%

Total Count 1% within Share if boss has different opinion

.6%


100.0%



I don’t feel the need to share my political POV

on social med NoShare if boss has different opinion

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% 36.2%


.0% 28.8%


.0% 45.5%

% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid

.0% 27.4%


confrontationYes Count 1 32


1.7% 53.3%


100.0% 43.8%


.6% 44.5%


100.0% 100.0%


Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontationSometimes

Share if boss has different opinion

Count 0


.0%


.0%


Count 0


.0%


.0%

Maybe Count 0% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0%


.0%

No Count 0% within Share if boss has different opinion

.0%


.0%


Yes Count 1% within Share if boss has different opinion

1.7%


100.0%

Total Count 1% within Share if boss has different opinion

.6%


100.0%


Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation Total

YesShare if boss has different opinion

Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


Count 1 1


100.0% 100.0%


1.2% .6%


62.1% 100.0%


41.9% 35.4%


54.5% 100.0%


27.9% 26.8%


Yes Count 25 60% within Share if boss has different opinion

41.7% 100.0%


29.1% 36.6%


52.4% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%



Crosstabs



Level of education * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Level of education * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job CrosstabulationFear that opinions can lead to

lose job

I don't work No

Level of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 1 3 23

% within Level of education 2.9% 8.8% 67.6%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

100.0% 6.0% 27.1%

Bachillerato técnico

Count 0 0 1


% within Level of education .0% .0% 100.0%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% .0% 1.2%

College Student Count 0 45 54% within Level of education .0% 38.5% 46.2%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% 90.0% 63.5%

Does not apply Count 0 1 5% within Level of education .0% 11.1% 55.6%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% 2.0% 5.9%

High school Count 0 1 1% within Level of education .0% 50.0% 50.0%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% 2.0% 1.2%

Master's degree Count 0 0 1% within Level of education .0% .0% 100.0%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% .0% 1.2%

Total Count 1 50 85% within Level of education .6% 30.5% 51.8%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Level of education * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job CrosstabulationFear that opinions can

lead to lose job TotalNot at all. Yes

Level of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 1 6 34

% within Level of education

2.9% 17.6% 100.0%


100.0% 22.2% 20.7%


Count 0 0 1


.0% .0% 100.0%


.0% .0% .6%

College Student

Count 0 18 117

% within Level of .0% 15.4% 100.0%


education% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% 66.7% 71.3%

Does not apply Count 0 3 9% within Level of education

.0% 33.3% 100.0%


.0% 11.1% 5.5%

High school Count 0 0 2% within Level of education

.0% .0% 100.0%


.0% .0% 1.2%

Master's degree

Count 0 0 1


.0% .0% 100.0%


.0% .0% .6%

Total Count 1 27 164% within Level of education

.6% 16.5% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Crosstabs




Level of relatives' influence on posts * Liking to receive likes

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Level of relatives' influence on posts * Liking to receive likes CrosstabulationLiking to receive likes Total

No YesLevel of relatives' influence on posts

1.00 Count 0 18 10 28

% within Level of relatives' influence on posts

.0% 64.3% 35.7% 100.0%

% within Liking to receive likes

.0% 17.1% 17.2% 17.1%

2.00 Count 0 5 1 6% within Level of relatives' influence on posts

.0% 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%


.0% 4.8% 1.7% 3.7%


.0% 85.7% 14.3% 100.0%


.0% 11.4% 3.4% 8.5%


5.3% 52.6% 42.1% 100.0%


100.0%

9.5% 13.8% 11.6%


.0% 69.6% 30.4% 100.0%


.0% 15.2% 12.1% 14.0%


.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%


.0% 8.6% 10.3% 9.1%



.0% 61.9% 38.1% 100.0%


.0% 12.4% 13.8% 12.8%


.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%


.0% 13.3% 12.1% 12.8%


.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%


.0% 5.7% 6.9% 6.1%


.0% 28.6% 71.4% 100.0%


.0% 1.9% 8.6% 4.3%

Total Count 1 105 58 164% within Level of relatives' influence on posts

.6% 64.0% 35.4% 100.0%


100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%



ResourcesProcessor Time

Elapsed TimeDimensions RequestedCells Available




Level of education * Fear to receive negative comments

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Level of education * Liking to receive likes 164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Level of education * Fear to receive negative comments

CrosstabFear to receive negative

comments No

Level of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 1 25

% within Level of education 2.9% 73.5%% within Fear to receive negative comments

100.0% 23.4%


Count 0 1

% within Level of education .0% 100.0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0% .9%

College Student Count 0 72% within Level of education .0% 61.5%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0% 67.3%

Does not apply Count 0 7% within Level of education .0% 77.8%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0% 6.5%

High school Count 0 1% within Level of education .0% 50.0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0% .9%

Master's degree Count 0 1% within Level of education .0% 100.0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0% .9%

Total Count 1 107


% within Level of education .6% 65.2%% within Fear to receive negative comments

100.0% 100.0%


commentsNot if it's an informed

opinionLevel of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 0

% within Level of education .0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0%


Count 0

% within Level of education .0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0%

College Student Count 1% within Level of education .9%% within Fear to receive negative comments

100.0%

Does not apply Count 0% within Level of education .0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0%

High school Count 0% within Level of education .0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0%

Master's degree Count 0% within Level of education .0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0%

Total Count 1% within Level of education .6%% within Fear to receive negative comments

100.0%

CrosstabFear to receive

negative comments TotalYes

Level of Bachelor's Count 8 34


education Degree% within Level of education

23.5% 100.0%

% within Fear to receive negative comments

14.5% 20.7%


Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%

College Student Count 44 117% within Level of education

37.6% 100.0%


80.0% 71.3%

Does not apply Count 2 9% within Level of education

22.2% 100.0%


3.6% 5.5%

High school Count 1 2% within Level of education

50.0% 100.0%


1.8% 1.2%

Master's degree Count 0 1% within Level of education

.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%

Total Count 55 164% within Level of education

33.5% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%




Level of education * Liking to receive likes

CrosstabLiking to receive likes

No YesLevel of education

Bachelor's Degree Count 1 20 13

% within Level of education 2.9% 58.8% 38.2%% within Liking to receive likes

100.0% 19.0% 22.4%


Count 0 0 1

% within Level of education .0% .0% 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

.0% .0% 1.7%

College Student Count 0 79 38% within Level of education .0% 67.5% 32.5%% within Liking to receive likes

.0% 75.2% 65.5%

Does not apply Count 0 5 4% within Level of education .0% 55.6% 44.4%% within Liking to receive likes

.0% 4.8% 6.9%

High school Count 0 0 2% within Level of education .0% .0% 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

.0% .0% 3.4%

Master's degree Count 0 1 0% within Level of education .0% 100.0

%.0%


.0% 1.0% .0%

Total Count 1 105 58% within Level of education .6% 64.0% 35.4%% within Liking to receive likes

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

CrosstabTotal

Level of Bachelor's Degree Count 34


education% within Level of education 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

20.7%

Bachillerato técnico Count 1% within Level of education 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

.6%

College Student Count 117% within Level of education 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

71.3%

Does not apply Count 9% within Level of education 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

5.5%

High school Count 2% within Level of education 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

1.2%

Master's degree Count 1% within Level of education 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

.6%

Total Count 164% within Level of education 100.0%% within Liking to receive likes

100.0%



Crosstabs

Private of public profile * Fear to receive negative comments



negative comments No

Private of public profile

Count 1 0

% within Private of public profile

100.0% .0%


100.0% .0%

Friends only Count 0 1% within Private of public profile

.0% 100.0%


.0% .9%

It depends on the social media (Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook)

Count 0 39


.0% 67.2%


.0% 36.4%

No idea Count 0 1% within Private of public profile

.0% 100.0%


.0% .9%

Private Count 0 47% within Private of public profile

.0% 68.1%


.0% 43.9%

Public Count 0 19% within Private of public profile

.0% 55.9%


.0% 17.8%

Total Count 1 107% within Private of .6% 65.2%


public profile % within Fear to receive negative comments

100.0% 100.0%


negative commentsNot if it's an

informed opinionPrivate of public profile

Count 0


.0%


.0%

Friends only Count 0% within Private of public profile

.0%


.0%


Count 1


1.7%


100.0%

No idea Count 0% within Private of public profile

.0%


.0%

Private Count 0% within Private of public profile

.0%


.0%

Public Count 0% within Private of public profile

.0%



.0%

Total Count 1% within Private of public profile

.6%


100.0%


negative comments Total

YesPrivate of public profile

Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


Count 18 58


31.0% 100.0%


32.7% 35.4%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


31.9% 100.0%



40.0% 42.1%


44.1% 100.0%


27.3% 20.7%

Total Count 55 164% within Private of public profile

33.5% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%



Private of public profile * Liking to receive likes

CrosstabLiking to receive

likes No


Count 1 0


100.0% .0%


100.0% .0%


.0% 100.0%


.0% 1.0%



Count 0 34


.0% 58.6%


.0% 32.4%


.0% 100.0%


.0% 1.0%


.0% 69.6%


.0% 45.7%


.0% 61.8%


.0% 20.0%


.6% 64.0%


100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabLiking to

receive likes TotalYes


Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


Count 24 58

% within Private 41.4% 100.0%


of public profile % within Liking to receive likes

41.4% 35.4%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


30.4% 100.0%


36.2% 42.1%


38.2% 100.0%


22.4% 20.7%


35.4% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%





Private of public profile * Fear to receive negative comments

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Private of public profile * Fear to receive negative comments CrosstabulationFear to receive


negative comments No


Count 1 0


100.0% .0%


100.0% .0%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .9%


Count 0 39


.0% 67.2%


.0% 36.4%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .9%


.0% 68.1%


.0% 43.9%


.0% 55.9%


.0% 17.8%


.6% 65.2%

% within Fear to 100.0% 100.0%


receive negative comments


negative commentsNot if it's an

informed opinionPrivate of public profile

Count 0


.0%


.0%

Friends only Count 0% within Private of public profile

.0%


.0%


Count 1


1.7%


100.0%

No idea Count 0% within Private of public profile

.0%


.0%

Private Count 0% within Private of public profile

.0%


.0%

Public Count 0% within Private of public profile

.0%

% within Fear to receive negative

.0%


commentsTotal Count 1


.6%


100.0%


negative comments Total

YesPrivate of public profile

Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


Count 18 58


31.0% 100.0%


32.7% 35.4%


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


31.9% 100.0%

% within Fear to receive negative

40.0% 42.1%


commentsPublic Count 15 34


44.1% 100.0%


27.3% 20.7%


33.5% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%






Use of SMS to get point across * Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Use of SMS to get point across * Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation Crosstabulation


Depends onUse of SMS to get point across

Count 1 0

% within Use of SMS to get point across

100.0% .0%



100.0% .0%

i have but not much

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

No Count 0 1% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0% .8%


.0% 100.0%

Sometimes Count 0 0% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Whatsapp? Count 0 0% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Yes Count 0 0% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Total Count 1 1% within Use of SMS to get point across

.6% .6%


100.0% 100.0%



Dont avoid it just don’t


really have strong politics views

Use of SMS to get point across

Count 0


.0%


.0%

i have but not much

Count 0


.0%


.0%

No Count 1% within Use of SMS to get point across

.8%


100.0%

Sometimes Count 0% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0%


.0%

Whatsapp? Count 0% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0%


.0%

Yes Count 0% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0%


.0%

Total Count 1% within Use of SMS to get point across

.6%


100.0%


confrontation



I don’t feel the need to share my political POV

on social med NoUse of SMS to get point across

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

i have but not much

Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% 1.4%


.8% 37.2%


100.0% 61.6%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Whatsapp? Count 0 1% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0% 100.0%


.0% 1.4%


.0% 66.7%

% within Avoid sharing .0% 35.6%


political views to avoid confrontation


.6% 44.5%


100.0% 100.0%


Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontationSometimes

Use of SMS to get point across

Count 0


.0%


.0%

i have but not much

Count 0


.0%


.0%

No Count 1% within Use of SMS to get point across

.8%


100.0%

Sometimes Count 0% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0%


.0%

Whatsapp? Count 0% within Use of SMS to get point across

.0%


.0%


confrontationYes Count 0


.0%


.0%

Total Count 1% within Use of SMS to get point across

.6%


100.0%


Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation Total

YesUse of SMS to get point across

Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%

i have but not much

Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


59.5% 100.0%


83.7% 73.8%


100.0% 100.0%


1.2% .6%


confrontationWhatsapp? Count 0 1


.0% 100.0%


.0% .6%


33.3% 100.0%


15.1% 23.8%


52.4% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0%




Active Dataset DataSet1Filter <none>Weight <none>Split File <none>N of Rows in Working Data File

164




Cases Used Statistics for each table are based on all the cases with valid data in the specified range(s) for all variables in


each table.Syntax CROSSTABS

/TABLES=Edu BY Avoidconf Express /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ /CELLS=COUNT ROW COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.


2




Level of education * Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Level of education * Express ideas freely 164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Level of education * Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

CrosstabAvoid sharing political views

to avoid confrontation Depends on

Level of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 1 1

% within Level of education 2.9% 2.9%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% 100.0%


Count 0 0

% within Level of education .0% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% .0%

College Count 0 0


Student% within Level of education .0% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% .0%

Does not apply Count 0 0% within Level of education .0% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% .0%

High school Count 0 0% within Level of education .0% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% .0%

Master's degree

Count 0 0


.0% .0%

Total Count 1 1% within Level of education .6% .6%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabAvoid sharing political views to avoid

confrontationDont avoid it just don’t really have

strong politics views

I don’t feel the need to share my

political POV on social med

Level of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


Count 0 0


.0% .0%

% within Avoid sharing .0% .0%



College Student

Count 1 1


.9% .9%


100.0% 100.0%

Does not apply

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Master's degree

Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.6% .6%


100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabAvoid sharing political views

to avoid confrontationNo Sometimes

Level of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 12 1


16.4% 100.0%



Count 0 0


.0% .0%

College Student

Count 55 0

% within Level of education 47.0% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

75.3% .0%

Does not apply

Count 4 0


5.5% .0%

High school Count 1 0% within Level of education 50.0% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

1.4% .0%

Master's degree

Count 1 0


1.4% .0%

Total Count 73 1% within Level of education 44.5% .6%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabAvoid sharing political

views to avoid confrontation Total

YesLevel of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 19 34


22.1% 20.7%



Count 1 1


1.2% .6%

College Student

Count 60 117


69.8% 71.3%

Does not apply

Count 5 9


5.8% 5.5%

High school Count 1 2% within Level of education 50.0% 100.0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

1.2% 1.2%

Master's degree

Count 0 1

% within Level of education .0% 100.0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% .6%

Total Count 86 164% within Level of education 52.4% 100.0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% 100.0%




Level of education * Express ideas freely

CrosstabExpress ideas freely


More or less

Level of education

Bachelor's Degree

Count 1 13


2.9% 38.2%


100.0% 17.8%


Count 0 0


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

College Student Count 0 54% within Level of education

.0% 46.2%


.0% 74.0%

Does not apply Count 0 6% within Level of education

.0% 66.7%


.0% 8.2%


.0% .0%


.0% .0%

Master's degree Count 0 0% within Level of education

.0% .0%


.0% .0%


.6% 44.5%


100.0% 100.0%


CrosstabExpress ideas

freely TotalNo Yes

Level of education

Bachelor's Degree Count 8 12 34


23.5% 35.3% 100.0%


18.2% 26.1% 20.7%


Count 1 0 1


100.0% .0% 100.0%


2.3% .0% .6%

College Student Count 32 31 117% within Level of education

27.4% 26.5% 100.0%


72.7% 67.4% 71.3%

Does not apply Count 1 2 9% within Level of education

11.1% 22.2% 100.0%


2.3% 4.3% 5.5%

High school Count 2 0 2% within Level of education

100.0% .0% 100.0%


4.5% .0% 1.2%

Master's degree Count 0 1 1% within Level of education

.0% 100.0% 100.0%


.0% 2.2% .6%

Total Count 44 46 164% within Level of education

26.8% 28.0% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%





Active Dataset DataSet1Filter <none>Weight <none>Split File <none>N of Rows in Working Data File

164




Cases Used Statistics for each table are based on all the cases with valid data in the specified range(s) for all variables in each table.

Syntax CROSSTABS /TABLES=Gender BY Socmedlike Time Express Avoidconf Privpub Fearjob Fearneg /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /STATISTICS=CHISQ /CELLS=COUNT ROW COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.


2




Gender * Likeness of social media 164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%Gender * Time spent on social media 164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%Gender * Express ideas freely 164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%


Gender * Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Gender * Private of public profile 164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%Gender * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job 164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%Gender * Fear to receive negative comments 164 100.0% 0 .0% 164 100.0%

Gender * Likeness of social media

CrosstabLikeness of social media

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00Gender

Female Count 0 1 2 0

% within Gender .0% 1.2% 2.4% .0%% within Likeness of social media

.0% 100.0% 66.7% .0%

Male Count 1 0 1 1% within Gender 1.3% .0% 1.3% 1.3%% within Likeness of social media

100.0%

.0% 33.3% 100.0%

Prefer not to respond

Count 0 0 0 0

% within Gender .0% .0% .0% .0%% within Likeness of social media

.0% .0% .0% .0%

Total Count 1 1 3 1% within Gender .6% .6% 1.8% .6%% within Likeness of social media

100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

CrosstabLikeness of social media

5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00Gender


% within Gender 8.5% 13.4% 13.4% 20.7%% within Likeness of social media

58.3% 55.0% 44.0% 39.5%

Male Count 5 9 13 26% within Gender 6.3% 11.3% 16.3% 32.5%% within Likeness of social 41.7% 45.0% 52.0% 60.5%


mediaPrefer not to respond

Count 0 0 1 0

% within Gender .0% .0% 50.0% .0%% within Likeness of social media

.0% .0% 4.0% .0%

Total Count 12 20 25 43% within Gender 7.3% 12.2% 15.2% 26.2%% within Likeness of social media

100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

CrosstabLikeness of social

media Total9.00 10.00

Gender

Female Count 14 19 82

% within Gender 17.1% 23.2% 100.0%% within Likeness of social media

50.0% 63.3% 50.0%

Male Count 14 10 80% within Gender 17.5% 12.5% 100.0%% within Likeness of social media

50.0% 33.3% 48.8%


Count 0 1 2

% within Gender .0% 50.0% 100.0%% within Likeness of social media

.0% 3.3% 1.2%

Total Count 28 30 164% within Gender 17.1% 18.3% 100.0%% within Likeness of social media

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%




Gender * Time spent on social media

CrosstabTime spent on social media

About 1 hour

Around 2 hours

Gender

Female Count 8 25

% within Gender 9.8% 30.5%% within Time spent on social media

40.0% 39.1%

Male Count 12 38% within Gender 15.0% 47.5%% within Time spent on social media

60.0% 59.4%


Count 0 1

% within Gender .0% 50.0%% within Time spent on social media

.0% 1.6%

Total Count 20 64% within Gender 12.2% 39.0%% within Time spent on social media

100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabTime spent on social media Total

Less than an hour

More than 3 hours

Gender


% within Gender 11.0% 48.8% 100.0%% within Time spent on social media

64.3% 60.6% 50.0%

Male Count 5 25 80% within Gender 6.3% 31.3% 100.0%% within Time spent on social media

35.7% 37.9% 48.8%


Count 0 1 2

% within Gender .0% 50.0% 100.0%% within Time spent on social media

.0% 1.5% 1.2%


Total Count 14 66 164% within Gender 8.5% 40.2% 100.0%% within Time spent on social media

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Gender * Express ideas freely

CrosstabExpress ideas freely


More or less No

Gender


% within Gender 1.2% 48.8% 31.7%% within Express ideas freely

100.0% 54.8% 59.1%

Male Count 0 31 18% within Gender .0% 38.8% 22.5%% within Express ideas freely

.0% 42.5% 40.9%


Count 0 2 0

% within Gender .0% 100.0% .0%% within Express ideas freely

.0% 2.7% .0%

Total Count 1 73 44% within Gender .6% 44.5% 26.8%% within Express ideas freely

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabExpress ideas freely Total


YesGender Female Count 15 82

% within Gender 18.3% 100.0%% within Express ideas freely 32.6% 50.0%

Male Count 31 80% within Gender 38.8% 100.0%% within Express ideas freely 67.4% 48.8%


Count 0 2

% within Gender .0% 100.0%% within Express ideas freely .0% 1.2%

Total Count 46 164% within Gender 28.0% 100.0%% within Express ideas freely 100.0% 100.0%



Gender * Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation


confrontation

Depends

on

Dont avoid it just don’t really have

strong politics viewsGender

Female Count 0 1 1

% within Gender .0% 1.2% 1.2%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Male Count 1 0 0% within Gender 1.3% .0% .0%% within Avoid sharing 100.0% .0% .0%




Count 0 0 0

% within Gender .0% .0% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% .0% .0%

Total Count 1 1 1% within Gender .6% .6% .6%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


confrontationI don’t feel the need to

share my political POV on social med No Sometimes

Gender

Female Count 0 29 1

% within Gender .0% 35.4% 1.2%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% 39.7% 100.0%

Male Count 1 43 0% within Gender 1.3% 53.8% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% 58.9% .0%


Count 0 1 0

% within Gender .0% 50.0% .0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

.0% 1.4% .0%

Total Count 1 73 1% within Gender .6% 44.5% .6%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

CrosstabAvoid sharing political

views to avoid confrontation Total


YesGender

Female Count 50 82

% within Gender 61.0% 100.0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

58.1% 50.0%

Male Count 35 80% within Gender 43.8% 100.0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

40.7% 48.8%


Count 1 2

% within Gender 50.0% 100.0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

1.2% 1.2%

Total Count 86 164% within Gender 52.4% 100.0%% within Avoid sharing political views to avoid confrontation

100.0% 100.0%



Gender * Private of public profile

CrosstabPrivate of public profile

Friends

only

It depends on the social media (Snapchat, Instagram,

Facebook)Gender

Female Count 0 1 27


% within Gender .0% 1.2% 32.9%% within Private of public profile

.0% 100.0% 46.6%

Male Count 1 0 30% within Gender 1.3% .0% 37.5%% within Private of public profile

100.0%

.0% 51.7%


Count 0 0 1

% within Gender .0% .0% 50.0%% within Private of public profile

.0% .0% 1.7%

Total Count 1 1 58% within Gender .6% .6% 35.4%% within Private of public profile

100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabPrivate of public profile TotalNo idea Private Public

Gender


% within Gender .0% 51.2% 14.6% 100.0%% within Private of public profile

.0% 60.9% 35.3% 50.0%

Male Count 1 26 22 80% within Gender 1.3% 32.5% 27.5% 100.0%% within Private of public profile

100.0% 37.7% 64.7% 48.8%


Count 0 1 0 2

% within Gender .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0%% within Private of public profile

.0% 1.4% .0% 1.2%

Total Count 1 69 34 164% within Gender .6% 42.1% 20.7% 100.0%% within Private of public profile

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%


Pearson Chi-Square 10.518a 10 .396Likelihood Ratio 12.123 10 .277


N of Valid Cases 164a. 12 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

Gender * Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

CrosstabFear that opinions can lead to

lose job I don't work No

Gender


% within Gender .0% 31.7% 46.3%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% 52.0% 44.7%

Male Count 1 24 46% within Gender 1.3% 30.0% 57.5%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

100.0% 48.0% 54.1%


Count 0 0 1

% within Gender .0% .0% 50.0%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% .0% 1.2%

Total Count 1 50 85% within Gender .6% 30.5% 51.8%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CrosstabFear that opinions can lead

to lose job TotalNot at all. Yes

Gender


% within Gender 1.2% 20.7% 100.0%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

100.0% 63.0% 50.0%

Male Count 0 9 80% within Gender .0% 11.3% 100.0%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% 33.3% 48.8%



Count 0 1 2

% within Gender .0% 50.0% 100.0%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

.0% 3.7% 1.2%

Total Count 1 27 164% within Gender .6% 16.5% 100.0%% within Fear that opinions can lead to lose job

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Gender * Fear to receive negative comments

CrosstabFear to receive negative comments

NoNot if it's an

informed opinionGender

Female Count 0 43 0

% within Gender .0% 52.4% .0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0% 40.2% .0%

Male Count 1 62 1% within Gender 1.3% 77.5% 1.3%% within Fear to receive negative comments

100.0%

57.9% 100.0%


Count 0 2 0

% within Gender .0% 100.0% .0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0% 1.9% .0%

Total Count 1 107 1% within Gender .6% 65.2% .6%% within Fear to receive 100.0 100.0% 100.0%


negative comments %


comments TotalYes

Gender

Female Count 39 82

% within Gender 47.6% 100.0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

70.9% 50.0%

Male Count 16 80% within Gender 20.0% 100.0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

29.1% 48.8%


Count 0 2

% within Gender .0% 100.0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

.0% 1.2%

Total Count 55 164% within Gender 33.5% 100.0%% within Fear to receive negative comments

100.0% 100.0%



Frequency Tables


Active Dataset DataSet1


Filter <none>Weight <none>Split File <none>N of Rows in Working Data File

164


Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data.Syntax FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Postinfo Bossopi

Typesinf Gender /NTILES=4 /STATISTICS=STDDEV MEAN /PIECHART FREQ /ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Resources Processor Time 00 00:00:00.421Elapsed Time 00 00:00:00.375

StatisticsOnly post info that

makes self look goodShare if boss has different opinion

Ex of others that influence posts Gender

N Valid 164 164 164 164Missing 0 0 0 0


Frequency PercentValid

PercentCumulative

PercentValid 1 .6 .6 .6

I don't post that much 1 .6 .6 1.2I don't remember 11 6.7 6.7 7.9I don’t care what people think about what I post

1 .6 .6 8.5


1 .6 .6 9.1

I try 1 .6 .6 9.8mostly 1 .6 .6 10.4No 71 43.3 43.3 53.7Yes 76 46.3 46.3 100.0Total 164 100.0 100.0



Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentValid

1 .6 .6 .6

depends on the topic 1 .6 .6 1.2Maybe 58 35.4 35.4 36.6No 44 26.8 26.8 63.4Yes 60 36.6 36.6 100.0Total 164 100.0 100.0

Ex of others that influence posts


PercentCumulative

PercentValid 117 71.3 71.3 71.3

- 1 .6 .6 72.0. 3 1.8 1.8 73.8......... 1 .6 .6 74.4Alll my Frieds 1 .6 .6 75.0Amigos 1 .6 .6 75.6Amorosas 1 .6 .6 76.2B 1 .6 .6 76.8Bae 1 .6 .6 77.4boyfriend 1 .6 .6 78.0Boyfriend 1 .6 .6 78.7Como me siento en ese día y las cosas nuevas que no me gustaban ayer

1 .6 .6 79.3

Dating 1 .6 .6 79.9Family 3 1.8 1.8 81.7friends 1 .6 .6 82.3Friends 2 1.2 1.2 83.5Friends, people from college, old high school peers, a relationship

1 .6 .6 84.1

friends, target group (for my master thesis)

1 .6 .6 84.8

Friends, teachers 1 .6 .6 85.4Hhgg 1 .6 .6 86.0I answered no 1 .6 .6 86.6It was not 1 .6 .6 87.2My answer was No 1 .6 .6 87.8My boyfriend 1 .6 .6 88.4My husband 1 .6 .6 89.0My work 1 .6 .6 89.6N/A 1 .6 .6 90.2no 2 1.2 1.2 91.5


No 4 2.4 2.4 93.9None 1 .6 .6 94.5Partner 1 .6 .6 95.1Plus Knowledge and certain 1 .6 .6 95.7Priest 1 .6 .6 96.3romantic 1 .6 .6 97.0Social 1 .6 .6 97.6T 1 .6 .6 98.2To make a good representation of myself on others

1 .6 .6 98.8

Work team members 1 .6 .6 99.4Yes 1 .6 .6 100.0Total 164 100.0 100.0

Frequency Tables & Pie Charts




PercentCumulative


I don't post that much 1 .6 .6 1.2I don't remember 11 6.7 6.7 7.9I don’t care what people think about what I post

1 .6 .6 8.5


1 .6 .6 9.1

I try 1 .6 .6 9.8mostly 1 .6 .6 10.4No 71 43.3 43.3 53.7Yes 76 46.3 46.3 100.0Total 164 100.0 100.0




PercentCumulative



1 .6 .6 1.2

Maybe 58 35.4 35.4 36.6No 44 26.8 26.8 63.4Yes 60 36.6 36.6 100.0Total 164 100.0 100.0


Gender


PercentCumulative

PercentValid Female 82 50.0 50.0 50.0

Male 80 48.8 48.8 98.8

Ex of others that influence posts


PercentCumulative

PercentValid 117 71.3 71.3 71.3

- 1 .6 .6 72.0. 3 1.8 1.8 73.8......... 1 .6 .6 74.4Alll my Frieds 1 .6 .6 75.0Amigos 1 .6 .6 75.6


Amorosas 1 .6 .6 76.2B 1 .6 .6 76.8Bae 1 .6 .6 77.4boyfriend 1 .6 .6 78.0Boyfriend 1 .6 .6 78.7Como me siento en ese día y las cosas nuevas que no me gustaban ayer

1 .6 .6 79.3

Dating 1 .6 .6 79.9Family 3 1.8 1.8 81.7friends 1 .6 .6 82.3Friends 2 1.2 1.2 83.5Friends, people from college, old high school peers, a relationship

1 .6 .6 84.1

friends, target group (for my master thesis)

1 .6 .6 84.8

Friends, teachers 1 .6 .6 85.4Hhgg 1 .6 .6 86.0I answered no 1 .6 .6 86.6It was not 1 .6 .6 87.2My answer was No 1 .6 .6 87.8My boyfriend 1 .6 .6 88.4My husband 1 .6 .6 89.0My work 1 .6 .6 89.6N/A 1 .6 .6 90.2no 2 1.2 1.2 91.5No 4 2.4 2.4 93.9None 1 .6 .6 94.5Partner 1 .6 .6 95.1Plus Knowledge and certain

1 .6 .6 95.7

Priest 1 .6 .6 96.3romantic 1 .6 .6 97.0Social 1 .6 .6 97.6T 1 .6 .6 98.2


To make a good representation of myself on others

1 .6 .6 98.8

Work team members 1 .6 .6 99.4Yes 1 .6 .6 100.0Total 164 100.0 100.0

mariahastings.weebly.com€¦ · web viewto share or not to share: a research paper on...

Documents