Sharing Brings Happiness?: Effects of Sharing in Social Media Among Adult Users

  • Winston Jin Song Teo
  • Chei Sian Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10075)


Given that sharing is a fundamental activity among social media users, this study explores the associations between sharing activities in social media and their psychological social well-being in two age groups – young and mature adults. We focus on two dimensions of social and psychological well-being which are life satisfaction and loneliness. We examine four social media platforms which are social networking sites, microblogging services, video-sharing sites and photo- sharing sites. The study comprised of 171 adult social media users in Singapore. Data analyses revealed that young adults who participated in more sharing activities in social networking sites reported higher life satisfaction and lower loneliness. Mature adults who participated more in sharing activities on social networking sites reported lower life satisfaction and higher loneliness. Implications and future research directions are discussed.


Sharing Social media Loneliness Life satisfaction Social and psychological well-being 


  1. 1.
    Boyd, D.M., Ellison, N.B.: Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 13, 210–230 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Youtube: Youtube Press room (2005). Accessed 2 April 2016
  3. 3.
    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Amendment No. 1 To Form S-1 Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933 (2013). Accessed 2 April 2016
  4. 4.
    TechWeb: Sina Weibo valuation of 60 billion dollars in advertising revenue broke the single-season $30 million (2013). Accessed 2 April 2016
  5. 5.
    Instagram: Press (2016). Accessed 2 April 2016
  6. 6.
    Jin, B.: How lonely people use and perceive Facebook. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2463–2470 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burke, M., Kraut, R., Marlow, C.: Social capital on Facebook: differentiating uses and users. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 571–580. ACM, Vancouver (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, C.S., Ma, L.: News sharing in social media: the effect of gratifications and prior experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 331–339 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Anne Tolan, G., Marrington, J.: Face-to-face or Facebook: can social connectedness be derived online? Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 604–609 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steinfield, C., Ellison, N., Lampe, C.: Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 29, 434–445 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, C.S.: Exploring emotional expressions on YouTube through the lens of media system dependency theory. New Media Soc. 14, 457–475 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gonzales, A.L., Hancock, J.T: Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14, 79–83 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., Morris, J.: The relationship between Facebook and the well-being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14, 183–189 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bryer, T.A., Zavattaro, S.: Social media and public administration: theoretical dimensions and introduction to symposium. Adm. Theory Praxis. 33, 325–340 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, C.S., Abu Bakar, N.A.B., Muhammad Dahri, R.B., Sin, S.-C.J.: Instagram this! sharing photos on instagram. In: Allen, Robert, B., Hunter, J., Zeng, Marcia, L. (eds.) ICADL 2015. LNCS, vol. 9469, pp. 132–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-27974-9_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lambert, N., Gwinn, A., Baumeister, R., Strachman, A., Washburn, I., Gable, S., Fincham, F.: A boost of positive affect: the perks of sharing positive experiences. J. Soc. Pers. 30, 24–43 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    John, N.A.: Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media Soc. 3, 1–16 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wittel, A.: Qualities of sharing and their transformations in the digital age. Int. Rev. Inf. Ethics. 16, 3–8 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Angner, E.: Subjective well-being. J. Socio-Econ. 39(3), 361–368 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diener, E.: Subjective well-being. In: Lopez, S.J., Snyder, C.R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, pp. 63–73. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B.: Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. J. Econ. Perspect. 20, 3–24 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seligman, M., Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Positive psychology: an introduction. Am. Psychol. 55, 5–14 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pavot, W., Diener, E.: The Satisfaction With Life Scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. J. Pos. Psychol. 3, 137–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pavot, W., Diener, E.: Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol. Assessment. 5, 164–172 (1993)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Putnam, R.D., Goss, K.A.: Introduction. In: Putnam, R.D. (ed.) Democracies in flux: the evolution of social capital in contemporary society, pp. 3–19. Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y. (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin, N.: A network theory of social capital. In: Castiglione, D., van Deth, J.W, Wolleb, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Capital, pp. 69–92. Oxford University Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Putnam, R. D.: Bowling together (2004). Accessed 10 Feb 2014
  28. 28.
    Valenzuela, S., Park, N., Kee, K.: Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. J. Comput. Mediat. Comm. 14, 875–901 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C., Sandvik, E.: Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. J. Pers. Asses. 57, 149–161 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peplau, L.A., Perlman, D.: Perspectives on loneliness. In: Peplau, L.A., Perlman, D. (eds.) Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, pp. 1–18. Wiley Interscience (1982)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rokach, A., Brock, H.: Coping with loneliness. J. Psychol. 132, 107–127 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patterson, A., Veenstra, G.: Loneliness and risk of mortality: a longitudinal investigation in Alameda County, California. Soc. Sci. Med. 71, 181–186 (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Caplan, S.E.: Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: Development of a theory-based cognitive–behavioral measurement instrument. Comput. Hum. Behav. 18, 553– 575 (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V.: Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? Am. Psychol. 53, 1017–1031 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheek, J.M., Busch, C.M.: Influence of shyness on loneliness in a new situation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 7, 573–577 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Segrin, C., Kinney, T.: Social skills deficits among the socially anxious: rejection from others and loneliness. Motiv. Emotion. 19, 1–24 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sheldon, P.: The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students’ facebook use. J. Media Psychol. 20, 67–75 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Russell, D., Peplau, L., Cutrona, C.: The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39, 472–480 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Papacharissi, Z., Rubin, A.: Predictors of internet use. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media. 44, 175–196 (2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee, C.S., Goh, D.H.-L., Chua, A.Y.K., Ang, R.P.: Indagator: investigating perceived gratifications of an application that blends mobile content sharing with gameplay. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec. 61, 1244–1257 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gregor, P., Newell, A.F., Zajicek, M.: Designing for dynamic diversity: Interfaces for older people. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies, pp. 151–156. ACM, Edinburgh (2002)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mcmellon, C., Schiffman, L.: Cybersenior empowerment: how some older individuals are taking control of their lives. J. Appl. Gerontol. 21, 157–175 (2002)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore: Annual survey on Infocomm Usage in Households and by Individuals for 2014 (2015). Accessed 2 April 2016
  44. 44.
    Digital Influence Lab.: Digital Marketing Statistics in Singapore – 2015 (2015). Accessed 2 April 2016
  45. 45.
    Wong, A.: Facebook, WhatsApp top ranked in Singapore (2014). Accessed 7 May 2016
  46. 46.
    Statista: Penetration of leading social networks in Singapore as of 4th quarter 2015 (2015). Accessed 2 April 2016
  47. 47.
    Singapore Business Review: 5 important statistics about Facebook users in Singapore (2012). Accessed 7 May 2016
  48. 48.
    Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore: Publication of Infocomm Technology Roadmap 2012 (2012). Accessed 2 April 2016
  49. 49.
    Matuszak, G., Elms, D., Wissmann, P.: The rise of the digital multitasker (2013). Accessed 5 May 2016
  50. 50.
    Skoric, M.M., Poor, N.D., Liao, Y., Tang, S.W.H.: Online organization of an offline protest. In: Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–8. IEEE, Kauai (2011)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J.: World Happiness Report (2012). Accessed 2 April 2016
  52. 52.
    Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J.: World Happiness Report 2013 (2013). Accessed 2 April 2016
  53. 53.
    Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J.: World Happiness Report 2016 Volume 1 (2016). Accessed 2 April 2016
  54. 54.
    Housing & Development Board: Public housing in Singapore: Well-being of communities, families and the elderly. HDB Sample Household Survey 2008, Housing and Development Board (2010)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tambyah, S.K., Tan, S.J., Kau, A.K.: The quality of life in Singapore. In: SOCI 92, pp. 337–376 (2009)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Veenhoven, R.: Happiness: also known as “life satisfaction” and “subjective well-being”. In: Kenneth, K.C., Michalos, A.C., Sirgy, J. (eds.) Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research, pp. 63–77. Springer, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Veenhoven, R.: Cross-national differences in happiness: cultural measurement bias or effect of culture? IJW. 2, 333–353 (2012)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lim, L.L., Kua, E.H.: Living alone, loneliness, and psychological well-being of older persons in Singapore. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kua, E.: Some old-age truths about happiness (2012). Accessed 2 May 2016
  60. 60.
    Gentile, B., Twenge, J. M., Freeman, E. C., Campbell, W. K.: The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: an experimental investigation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 1929–1933 (2012)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., Griffin, S.: The Satisfaction with Life scale. J. Pers. Assess. 49, 71–75 (1985)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Valkenburg, P., Peter, J., Schouten, A.: Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-Esteem. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 9, 584–590 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Russell, D.: UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J. Pers. Asses. 66, 20–40 (1996)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bozoglan, B., Demirer, V., Sahin, I.: Loneliness, self-esteem, and life satisfaction as predictors of Internet addiction: a cross-sectional study among Turkish university students. Scand. J. Psychol. 54, 313–319 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Demir, A.: Reliability and validity of the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Turkish J. Psychol. 7, 14–18 (1989)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jang, J.Y., Han, K., Shin, P.C., Lee, D.: Generation like: comparative characteristics in instagram. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4039–4042. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Goffman, E.: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin, London (1982)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Papacharissi, Z.: The self online: the utility of personal home pages. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media. 46, 346–368 (2002)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tandoc, E., Ferrucci, P., Duffy, M.: Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is Facebooking depressing? Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 139–146 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mehdizadeh, S.: Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and Self-Esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 13, 357–364 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and InformationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations