Lower Self‐Control Is Associated With More Standard, Reputation Management, and Maladaptive Facebook Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Social media can help fulfill the need for belonging. Past work suggests that frequent or extreme Facebook use can engender costs to the self and relationships, such that self-control may be associated with Facebook use. Indeed, trait self-control was negatively associated with standard, reputation management, and maladaptive Facebook use (Study 1, N = 309), above extraversion, self-esteem, and perceptions of own attractiveness (Study 2, N = 527). Further, trait self-control was negatively associated with actual reputation management behavior online: people with lower (vs. higher) self-control were more likely to post written or image content of themselves vs. a book in a Facebook group (Study 2). Together, results suggest that higher self-control is associated with less Facebook use across the spectrum – standard use (e.g., posting, commenting, changing pictures), reputation management use (i.e., use to manage others’ perceptions of oneself), and maladaptive use (i.e., feeling negative affect as a result of comparisons to others online or not receiving positive feedback to one’s use).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".