Do others’ self-presentation on social media influence individual’s subjective well-being? A moderated mediation model

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Telematics and Informatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tele

Do others’ self-presentation on social media influence individual’s subjective well-being? A moderated mediation model

T

⁎

Fan Xiaojun, Deng Nianqi, Dong Xuebing , Lin Yangxi, Wang Junbin School of Management, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Social media Others’ self-presentation Relative deprivation General self-efficacy Subjective well-being

Nowadays, sharing information on social media is a common phenomenon. However, most previous studies on sharing behavior explored the relationship between self-presentation and subjective well-being from the promulgator’s perspective. We examine a distinct aspect of sharing behavior on social media, namely how others’ self-presentation influences visitor’s subjective well-being. To this end, the present research examined: (1) whether others’ self-presentation affects individuals’ subjective well-being, and (2) how others’ self-presentation affects individuals’ subjective well-being. Two laboratory experiments were conducted to research these questions. Study 1 (N = 100) found that compared to non-self-presentation, others’ self-presentation predicts a lower subjective well-being. The findings answered question 1. Apart from the conclusion of Study 1, to address question 2, Study 2 (N = 153) examined the moderated mediation effect using relative deprivation as mediator and general self-efficacy as moderator to answer question 2. We found that others’ self-presentation on social media could increase individuals’ feeling of relative deprivation and decrease their subjective well-being through upward social comparison, and the mediation effect was moderated by general self-efficacy. Finally, the contributions and implications of the findings are discussed.

1. Introduction Social media platforms are ubiquitous and a common tool people use for social communication (Verduyn et al., 2017). From vacations and holidays to funny moments with their family, “people often share their experiences with others who were not originally present” (Barasch et al., 2018, p. 1220). Inversely, they play the role of bystander, browsing the life experiences of others, which is often presented in a positive way on social media. Research indicates that people experience negative emotions when browsing others’ life experiences posted on social media. For instance, exposure to others’ self-presentation about good life experiences may elicit envy, skepticism or depression (Steers et al., 2014; Krasnova et al., 2015; Tandoc et al., 2015; Grieve and Watkinson, 2016), thus undermining individuals’ subjective well-being and life satisfaction (Lin and Utz, 2015; Verduyn et al., 2015). Most research on sharing experiences on social media examined the effect of users’ self-presentation on their own life satisfaction and subjective well-being from the promulgator’s perspective (Kim and Lee, 2011; Lee et al., 2011; Jang et al., 2018; Pang, 2018b). However, while social media is a public communication platform on which people inevitably become the recipients of information shared by others, the visitor’s psychological process is also important. However, scientific research on this aspect is sparse (Chou and Edge, 2012). This study investigates this unexplored aspect of sharing experience on social media, namely do others’ self-presentation

⁎

Corresponding author at: 99 Shangda Road, Baoshan District, Shanghai 200444, China. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X. Fan), [email protected] (N. Deng), [email protected] (X. Dong), [email protected] (Y. Lin), [email protected] (J. Wang). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.04.001 Received 3 December 2018; Received in revised form 6 March 2019; Accepted 3 April 2019 Available online 04 April 2019 0736-5853/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

on social media influence visitors’ subjective well-being? Like Pang (2018a), this study investigated this question in the context of WeChat moments, exploring the mechanism of how others’ self-presentation about their good lives influence individuals’ subjective well-being? With technological advances, WeChat has become a popular social network site (SNS). By June 2017, WeChat had 963 million users from more than 200 countries, almost as many as those using China Mobile Internet. A survey report shows that 94% of users log in everyday, 61.4% browse moments for as long the duration of their WeChat session, and the usage rate of moments ranks first among all the platform’s functions. WeChat moments is increasingly becoming the main mobile SNS on which more than 60% of users focus on their friends’ life status posts (Penguin, 2016). However, people tend to express themselves in a positive way to idealize their image when sharing life experiences on WeChat moments. As a result, users browsing others’ posts in moments may think they are happier than them, inducing negative emotions. Importantly, we neither examine the effect of general usage on subjective well-being (Chen et al., 2016), nor explore the effect of self-presentation on enjoyment from the promulgator’s perspective (Barasch et al., 2018). Rather, we examine whether and how others’ self-presentation influences individuals’ subjective well-being from the visitor’s perspective. In other words, unlike prior work that confirmed that sharing life experiences could enhance the promulgator’s subjective well-being (Kim and Lee, 2011; Jung et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2015), we focus on visitors’ psychological reaction to others’ self-presentation on social media. 2. Literature review 2.1. Self-presentation on social media Social media provides users with a unique computer-mediated environment which to express their feelings, thoughts, and life experiences with their friend (Lee et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2015). The behavior of self-disclosure is defined as self-presentation (Smith and Sanderson, 2015), and was first proposed by Goffman who posited that people express their identity through verbal and nonverbal messages to display the most credible image to others (Goffman, 1959). Self-presentation, a common phenomenon in interpersonal communication, is the conscious process of impression control in which people try to establish, change, or maintain their image in the eyes of others (Niu et al., 2015). According to Djafarova and Trofimenko (2017), self-impression depends on the targets of interaction and expectations of one’s social network. Users, with performance objectives may think their abilities are fixed, and thus they compare it with others. On social media, specifically, users can engage in selective and positive self-presentation with relative ease by taking advantage of technological affordances, such as editability and asynchronicity (Walther, 2007; Shim et al., 2016). Therefore, users tend to post personal stories and photos to present themselves in a positive rather than negative way (Ellison et al., 2006; Wojcik and Ditto, 2014). These stories, are available for friends to read (Jung et al., 2012) to demonstrate a positive selfimpression and self-promotion in the online world (Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2016), and to elicit feedback from other users (Chua and Chang, 2016; Fox and Vendemia, 2016). Thus, studies show that self-presentation on social media can increase life satisfaction and subjective well-being (Kim and Lee, 2011; Jung et al., 2012; Pang, 2018b). In addition, users have motives to engage in selfpresentation (Seidman, 2013; de Vaate et al., 2018). Whereas past studies contributed to self-presentation on social media from the promulgator’s perspective, research on visitors’ psychological and behavioral reactions is limited. To extend the research on visitors’ perception and reaction to others’ self-presentation on WeChat moments, we applied social comparison theory to explore the influencing factors. Relative deprivation was identified as a psychological process generated from social comparison when others are living better lives (Kim et al., 2018). This negative perception increases individuals’ psychological burden (Vanman et al., 2018), undermines their subjective well-being (Barcena-Martin et al., 2017), and damages the friendship between the promulgator and visitor (Smith and Sanderson, 2015). Furthermore, individuals’ psychological characteristics may influence users’ perception of others’ self-presentation materials, such as dispositional envy (Smith et al., 1999), self-efficacy (Li et al., 2014) and self-esteem (Jang et al., 2018). 2.2. WeChat As a mobile communication tool, WeChat was launched in 2011 by China's largest listed Internet company, Tencent, and developed rapidly both within China and abroad. WeChat shares general characteristics with other social media. For example, similar to Facebook’s activity feed, users can update their status by posting information (e.g., photos, text) and interacting with others in WeChat moments by clicking the “like” response to endorse content shared by friends or by receiving “likes” from friends (Kosinski et al., 2015). However, WeChat also differs in some ways. First, WeChat is a social media platform based on relationships with acquaintances. WeChat friends are mainly known from offline contact, and relationship is maintained through online communication. To protect privacy, only friends communicated with often are allowed to browse users’ moments, while those who are not too familiar are excluded. Thus, friends in WeChat know each other in real life, which provides more possibilities for social comparison among them in the social circle of WeChat moments (Liu et al., 2016). Second, WeChat provides many functions to cater for users’ needs, including messaging, official accounts, mobile games, the red envelope, moments, and WeChat payment services. Through these functions, users can maintain pre-existing relationships, make new friends, and be entertained while exchanging meaningful information and experiences concerning a particular service or product, increasing the intimacy and interaction between friends to maintain social relationships (Pang, 2018a). Third, its convenient access on both personal computers and cellphones made WeChat popular among people of all ages, from young adolescents to elders (Wang et al., 2018b). Nowadays, phubbing (the activity of people burying themselves in cellphones while ignoring the family and friends in front of them) has emerged (Wen et al., 2016). The 87

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

relationship between WeChat usage and users’ physical, mental, and social health has aroused the attention of scholars (Wang et al., 2018b; Xue et al., 2018). However, there is a surprising lack of studies on the relation between others’ sharing behavior in WeChat moments and individuals’ subjective well-being. 2.3. Subjective well-being on social media Subjective well-being, which refers to a global evaluation of one’s quality of life according to self-determined criteria, is defined as “a broad category of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfaction” (Smith et al., 1999; Gerson et al., 2016). Another definition notes that subjective well-being consists of two important components: affective well-being to evaluate an individual’s emotions (Russell and Daniels, 2018), and cognitive well-being to measure an individual’s life satisfaction (Verduyn et al., 2017). Affective well-being is measured through pleasant affect (e.g., joy, happiness, ecstasy) or unpleasant affect (e.g., guilt, sadness, stress), while cognitive well-being is measured according to a person’s perceived satisfaction with life (Di Martino et al., 2018). Factors influencing subjective well-being are widely discussed. External factors include events, contexts and demographic characteristics (Schimmack et al., 2008; Liu and Yu, 2013), and internal factors are personality (Gerson et al., 2016), self-esteem (Gonzales and Hancock, 2011; Wang et al., 2017), and self-enhancement (Wojcik and Ditto, 2014). Moreover, changes in information technology also affect subjective well-being. The popularity of the information and communication technology of traditional media such as television has increased people's well-being (Graham and Nikolov, 2013), but encroached on their time for maintaining relationships with friends, which indirectly negatively affects subjective well-being (Bruni and Stanca, 2008). Regarding social media, Brandtzaeg (2012) points out that people who use SNS are more likely to build social capital than those who do not. However, sharing experiences on social media creates an online setting wherein individuals compare themselves with the promulgator. This comparison is a complex process alongside individuals’ psychological traits. Therefore, although studies employed life satisfaction to measure subjective well-being in research on social media usage, few argue that using both affect and life satisfaction completely explain individuals’ subjective well-being (Liu and Yu, 2013). To fill this gap, we focus on both life satisfaction and how good or bad people feel. 2.4. Social comparison, relative deprivation, and subjective well-being On social media, individuals play the role of promulgator to post material to express themselves. Inevitably, they are also recipients of others’ self-presentation (Niu et al., 2016). Furthermore, people are likely to use SNS to build social ties and search for information about others (Tufekci, 2008; Kim and Chock, 2015). When individuals enter the presence of others, they commonly search for information about these people (Goffman, 1959). Given the positivity bias in self-presentation on social media (Shim et al., 2016), individuals prefer to present positive rather than negative emotions and disclose better emotional well-being on social media than in real life (Qiu et al., 2012). However, individuals also realize “they are happier and having better lives than I am” after comparing themselves to other users who seem to be living better lives (Chou and Edge, 2012). Thus, individuals pay attention to other’s self-presentation on social media and produce psychological reactions or behaviors through their own mental judgements according to the materials others post (Valkenburg et al., 2006). As such, others’ positive self-presentation on social media has been recognized as an emerging phenomenon that may create a psychological conflict between the need to know others and the perception of social comparison, especially among individuals with a relatively low level of well-being (Reinecke and Trepte, 2014). According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), we are motivated to evaluate our current abilities and opinions by comparing ourselves to better-off others (upward social comparison) or worse-off others (downward social comparison). Furthermore, social comparison is a spontaneous process as long as individuals are exposed to others’ information (Niu et al., 2016), and others’ positive self-presentation initiates the upward social comparison process (Kim and Chock, 2015). In the process, individuals focus on the perfect image of others, ignoring their own positive performance (Fox and Vendemia, 2016), which undermines individuals’ self-evaluation and self-esteem (Wang et al., 2017). Drawing on upward social comparison theory, prior research indicates a negative relationship between social media usage and individuals’ subjective well-being through negative emotions (envy, depression, mental burden) (Tandoc et al., 2015; Verduyn et al., 2015), reducing life satisfaction (Frison and Eggermont, 2016) and increasing feelings of unattractiveness (de Vries and Kuhne, 2015). However, few studies clarify why others’ self-presentation affects individuals’ subjective well-being. In fact, others’ self-presentation (especially positive presentation) decreases subjective well-being by increasing the feeling of relative deprivation (Barcena-Martin et al., 2017). Relative deprivation theory contends that individuals evaluate themselves according to the relative status position of the group they belong to and identify with (Mummendey et al., 1999). Runciman (1993) delineated relative deprivation as egoistic/individual relative deprivation (IRD) and fraternal/group relative deprivation (GRD). The former refers to individuals comparing themselves with another individual, or the current situation with a past or future status. The latter refers to comparing the group the individual belongs to with another group. Crosby (1976) proposes five preconditions to predict whether an individual is in a state of relative deprivation or not. An individual who lacks X must: (1) see that another has X, (2) want to acquire X, (3) feel that he deserves X, (4) consider it feasible to obtain X, and (5) feel that the lack of X is not his mistake. Moreover, Smith et al. (2012) define relative deprivation as occurring in three steps. First, individuals must compare themselves to others; second, there must be a cognitive appraisal that leads individuals to perceive that their ingroup is at a disadvantage; and third, the perceived disadvantage must be viewed as unfair. Unlike Mummendey et al. (1999), the current research focuses on egoistic deprivation, because in contrast to fraternal deprivation, it is related to intragroup behavior on social media. In general, egoistic relative deprivation refers to feelings of 88

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

resentment and dissatisfaction stemming from the belief that an individual is deprived of a desired and deserved outcome compared to some referent (Crosby, 1976; Callan et al., 2011). Thus, in the context of others’ self-presentation on social media, upward social comparison makes people with a relatively low level of well-being feel their basic rights are deprived (Xiong and Ye, 2016). This feeling of deprivation impairs their psychological health (Ding et al., 2018). Given the distinction between the cognitive and affective dimensions of relative deprivation, we include measures to assess the cognitive perception of deprivation and emotional concomitants of that perceived deprivation (Walker, 1999). Previous research employed measures for relative deprivation from both the economical and psychological perspectives (Smith et al., 2012; Blazquez Cuesta and Budria, 2015; Kim et al., 2018). As this research focuses on the effect of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ psychological perception, we measure relative deprivation at the personal psychological level (Callan et al., 2011). 2.5. General self-efficacy Self-efficacy, a theoretical component of social cognitive theory, can be considered a self-confident view of one’s capability to deal with life pressures and accomplish a certain level of performance (Schwarzer et al., 1997; Alshahrani and Pennington, 2018). Yan et al. (2017) argue that self-efficacy is people’s subjective perception of their capabilities, not their objective abilities, and people’s actions are based more on what they feel confident about than on what is objectively true. Self-efficacy has become an important variable in the social, psychological, and health arenas as well as in subjective well-being (Hocevar et al., 2014). It has been applied as a domain-specific concept to many areas including mental and physical health, career research, student performance, and technology usage (Alshahrani and Pennington, 2018). Some scholars highlight general self-efficacy, namely global confidence in an individual’s coping ability, across a wide range of demanding or novel contexts (Schwarzer et al., 1997). Considering that the current research focuses on the moderation effect of self-efficacy on others’ self-presentation and subjective well-being, here, self-efficacy refers to a general confidence in people’s own ability, rather than a specific ability (Yan et al., 2017). Instead of social media selfefficacy (Hocevar et al., 2014), the concept of general self-efficacy is employed in this study. 3. Research hypotheses 3.1. Others’ self-presentation and subjective well-being Previous studies yielded mixed results regarding the positive effects of social media usage on subjective well-being through using social media to share life experiences (Qiu et al., 2012; Jang et al., 2018; Pang, 2018b), manage impressions (Ellison et al., 2006), seek social support (Jung et al., 2012), strengthen self-esteem (Gonzales and Hancock, 2011), and build social capital (Lee et al., 2011; Brandtzaeg, 2012; Pang, 2018a) from the promulgator’s perspective. The negative effects derive from envy (Krasnova et al., 2015), passive usage (Wang et al., 2017), stress (Vanman et al., 2018), and upward social comparison (Frison and Eggermont, 2016) from the perspective of visitors who read others’ presented materials. On WeChat moments, people often present a positive and idealized life experience rather than negative information (Shim et al., 2016), and tend to directly express the outcome they achieved rather than the difficult process of attaining this end. Therefore, when people browse others’ positive materials, they think others are living happier and easier lives (Chou and Edge, 2012). In contrast, “working hard without getting the life I want” can trigger negative emotions such as sadness, envy, and depression, and reduce individuals’ evaluation of their life satisfaction. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1a: Others’ self-presentation on social media will diminish individuals’ affective well-being. H1b: Others’ self-presentation on social media will diminish individuals’ cognitive well-being. 3.2. Others’ self-presentation and relative deprivation Crosby (1976) proposed determinants of relative deprivation such as an individual’s personality, personal past, biological needs, and immediate environment. Among these, immediate environment depicts the proportion, attractiveness, power, similarity, and period of others possessing X, the factors exaggerated on social media through others’ self-presentation. For instance, people can easily access others’ WeChat moments and browse their shared materials. In this process, comparing what “he has that I do not, but that I want” may increase people’s negative feelings of inequity, envy, and depression, finally leading to relative deprivation. Thus, others’ self-presentation on social media increases individuals’ relative deprivation. As such, the following hypothesis is put forward: H2: Others’ self-presentation on social media will increase individuals’ relative deprivation. 3.3. Relative deprivation as a mediator As mentioned, social comparison is a spontaneous and unconscious process (Niu et al., 2016), and others’ positive self-presentation on social media induces individuals’ upward social comparison and reduces their subjective well-being (Tandoc et al., 2015; Verduyn et al., 2015). Social context does not have a direct long-term impact on subjective well-being through social comparison (Diener et al., 1999); thus, social comparison cannot directly explain effect on subjective well-being. However, relative deprivation is a cognitive process (Smith et al., 2012), and the prior literature shows that emerges during social comparison (Crosby, 1976; Mummendey et al., 1999; Walker, 1999; Xiong and Ye, 2016), affecting subjective well-being (Schmitt et al., 2010). Thus, relative deprivation as a mediator can explain how others’ positive self-presentation on social media influences individuals’ subjective well89

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

being. Smith et al. (2012) highlight anger and resentment as essential affective correlates of relative deprivation. Essentially, if individuals recognize a comparative disadvantage, they will feel angry and resentful. Moreover, prior research demonstrated the negative influence of relative deprivation on subjective well-being (Schmitt et al., 2010; Blazquez Cuesta and Budria, 2015). Thus, on WeChat moments, others’ self-presentation would increase individuals’ feeling of relative deprivation, making them angry or resentful and undermining their subjective well-being. As subjective well-being can be measured according to affective and cognitive dimensions, the following hypotheses are proposed: H3a: Others’ self-presentation will diminish individuals’ affective well-being indirectly through the feeling of relative deprivation. H3b: Others’ self-presentation will diminish individuals’ cognitive well-being indirectly through the feeling of relative deprivation. 3.4. General self-efficacy as a moderator Although both downward and upward social comparison can potentially decrease or increase well-being, the directionality of a comparison does not consistently affect subjective well-being (Buunk et al., 1990). The direction and strength of the effect depends on how people use information to judge, which is influenced by feeling and thinking (Diener et al., 1999). According to Alshahrani and Pennington (2018), self-efficacy influences personal outcome expectations reflected in the feeling and thinking process. Regarding feeling, depression, anxiety, pessimistic thoughts, and helplessness are often related to a low sense of self-efficacy, while pleasant thoughts have been connected with a strong sense of self-efficacy. For thinking, a strong sense of self-efficacy can enhance cognitive processes and performance in many contexts, including social media (Schwarzer et al., 1997). Self-efficacy can enhance or impede individuals’ intention to take actions. A high sense of self-efficacy, which means high confidence, can enhance the capability to face difficulties. On social media, a high sense of self-efficacy can reduce the feeling of relative deprivation derived from others’ selfpresentation and thus increase subjective well-being. Thus, we conclude that general efficacy can moderate the mediation effect of others’ self-presentation on subjective well-being including affective and cognitive well-being. As such, the following hypotheses are proposed: H4a: The effect of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ relative deprivation will be negatively moderated by general selfefficacy. The effect will be weaker for individuals with higher general self-efficacy. H4b: The effect of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ affective well-being will be positively moderated by general selfefficacy. The effect will be stronger for individuals with higher general self-efficacy. H4c: The effect of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ cognitive well-being will be positively moderated by general selfefficacy. The effect will be stronger for individuals with higher general self-efficacy. The conceptual model includes five variables: others’ self-presentation, general self-efficacy, relative deprivation, affective wellbeing and cognitive well-being. The relationships between these variables are shown in Fig. 1. 4. Study 1 The goal of Study 1 was to examine whether others’ self-presentation on social media is associated with the subjective well-being

H1a Affective well-being H3a Others’

Relative

H2

self-presentation

deprivation H3b H4a

Cognitive

H4b

well-being H1b H4c

General self-efficacy Fig. 1. Conceptual Model. 90

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

of individuals who browse others’ positively presented materials. Study 1 was an exploratory study that examined a stimulus to depict the circumstances of others’ self-presentation and non-self-presentation. 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants and procedure In total, 120 undergraduate students from a university in Shanghai, China, participated in the study for a small monetary compensation. Respondents were randomly divided into two groups, each with 60 respondents. However, respondents who did not complete the questionnaire were removed from the database. The final sample (N = 100) comprised 28% males and 72% females, of which 50% were single and 49% spent less than 1500 RMB per month. Two research assistants collected data for this study. A between-subjects design was used to test the effect of the independent variable— others’ self-presentation— on the dependent variable subjective well-being. The manipulated variable was others’ selfpresentation (yes or no), and the dependent variables were affective well-being and cognitive well-being. First, participants were randomly divided into two groups. The research assistants asked them to read a stimulus, which was determined in the pre-experiment. In the others’ self-presentation group, the materials included numerous situations of others’ positive self-presentation on social media. For example, others posted material on their good lives, travel photos, their boy/girlfriend, high income, scholarships, and awards on WeChat moments. However, in the non-self-presentation group, materials about others transmitted news, knowledge, and other information unrelated to their self-presentation. Second, the concept of others’ self-presentation was conveyed to participants through the questionnaire and research assistants’ verbal expressions. Third, participants were asked to indicate their response to the questions on a scale. 4.1.2. Measures Considering that the instrument should be scientific and acknowledged by academic peers, all measures for our variables were adapted from existing scales employed in social media usage research and in the general marketing literature. We struggled to employ the maturity scales for social media research, and retained the original structure of scale as much as possible. Only slight modifications were made according to the research context, for example, to better relate the problem background description to WeChat moments. We followed the recommended translation-back-translation procedure by Wang et al. (2018a) to translate the original English language scale into Chinese. A professor at the English department translated the English language version into Chinese, which was then back-translated into English by another English professor. The two English language versions were then compared to ensure measurement quality. There were minor disagreements on a few items, but this was resolved after a discussion with the translators and consideration of related studies. Finally, an expert panel review by ten academicians with relevant expertise ensured content validity. See Appendix 1 for the questionnaire. The item “Do you think the person is presenting himself/herself” was measured for a manipulation check. We used five items from Krasnova et al. (2015) to measure the dependent variable affective well-being, and three from Diener et al. (1985) to assess cognitive well-being. We also measured dispositional envy and specific personality as control variables. Dispositional envy was measured using three items adapted from Diener et al. (1999), and specific personality using four items from Rammstedt and John (2007). Participants responded to items on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), except for five reversed items on affective well-being, which were rated on a five-point scale (converted to a seven-point scale for the convenience of calculation in the data analysis). 4.2. Results We followed the data analysis steps widely adopted in the existing literature (e.g., Wen et al., 2016; Barasch et al., 2018). First, reliability and validity of the scales were tested, including internal consistency, combined reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Second, an analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the hypotheses (Smith and Sanderson, 2015). In the ANOVA, the mean and F statistic were employed to test the variance between groups, and the level of significance used to determine whether a significant causal relationship exists between the independent and outcome variables. Third, a regression analysis was conducted to further calculate the influence of the coefficients of the independent variables on the dependent variables (Wen et al., 2016). 4.2.1. Reliability and validity test In this study, internal consistency and combined reliability were used to test the variables’ reliability. The results are provided in Table 1. According to Table 1, Cronbach’s α scores for all variables were from 0.742 to 0.801, all higher than 0.70, indicating that the internal consistency of all variables was higher than the critical value. The combined reliabilities of all variables were from 0.853 to 0.949, higher than 0.70 and thus all higher than the critical value. The validity test included the convergent validity and discriminant validity tests. In this study, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the convergent validity of variables, the results of which are shown in Table 1. The factor loadings were also assessed. The loading of only one item was in the 0.6–0.7 range, while the rest exceeded the 0.7 benchmark. Finally, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all variables was higher than 0.60. These results confirmed the high convergent validity of the scale. Furthermore, the discriminant validity was judged by the comparison between the square root of AVE and correlations coefficient of any latent variables. The square roots of AVE (Table 2) were much higher than the correlations between latent factors, indicating the 91

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

Table 1 Reliability and validity of the tested model. Variable

Item

Factor loading

Cronbach's α

AVE

CR

Affective well-being

AWB1 AWB2 AWB3 AWB4 AWB5 CWB1 CWB2 CWB3 DE1 DE2 DE3 SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4

0.815 0.925 0.813 0.931 0.950 0.683 0.875 0.868 0.842 0.885 0.826 0.771 0.781 0.787 0.840

0.790

0.790

0.949

0.742

0.662

0.853

0.796

0.725

0.885

0.801

0.632

0.873

Cognitive well-being

Dispositional envy

Specific personality

Note. AWB = Affective well-being, CWB = Cognitive well-being, DE = Dispositional envy, SP = Specific personality; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR = Composite Reliability. Table 2 Square root of AVE and correlations between latent factors.

AWB CWB DE SP

AWB

CWB

DE

SP

0.275 0.001 0.282 0.046

0.279 −0.150 −0.140

0.892 0.359

0.679

Note. AWB = Affective well-being, CWB = Cognitive well-being, DE = Dispositional envy, SP = Specific personality. The diagonal value is the AVE value of each construct. The remaining values are correlation coefficients of each construct.

good discriminant validity of the tested model. 4.2.2. Manipulation check The mean value of participants perceived others’ self-presentation in the self-presentation group (M = 5.48, SE = 0.974) was significantly higher than (F (1, 98) = 13.295, p = 0.000) that for the non-self-presentation group (M = 4.50, SE = 1.632). Thus, the manipulation of others' self-presentation was successful. The results of the ANOVA show no significant difference between the two groups in dispositional envy (p = 0.410 > 0.050) and specific personality (p = 0.381 > 0.050), indicating that these variables had no interferential effect on the results of the experiment. 4.2.3. Hypotheses testing We employed a one-way ANOVA to test the H1a and H1b. The independent variable was measured according to others’ selfpresentation (1 = self-presentation group while 0 = non-self-presentation group), and the dependent variables by affective wellbeing and cognitive well-being. The results show that the affective well-being of the others’ self-presentation group (M = 4.23, SE = 0.827) was significantly lower than that of the non-self-presentation group (M = 4.61, SE = 0.937), F (1, 98) = 4.573, p = 0.035. Similarly, the cognitive well-being of the others’ self-presentation group (M = 3.64, SE = 0.785) was significantly lower than that of the non-self-presentation group (M = 4.12, SE = 1.038), F (1, 98) = 6.948, p = 0.005. Thus, others’ self-presentation predicts individuals’ lower affective and cognitive well-being more than does others’ non-self-presentation, supporting H1a and H1b. 4.3. Discussion Study 1 was a between-subjects analysis of self-presentation and non-self-presentation to explore whether others’ self-presentation on social media affects individuals’ subjective well-being. By manipulating the circumstances of others’ self-presentation, participants were asked to rate items on a scale including the variables of affective well-being, cognitive well-being, dispositional envy, and specific personality. The manipulation check showed that the stimulus was successfully manipulated, and that the control variables had no significant effect on the results of the study. The results of the ANOVA indicated that others’ self-presentation on WeChat moments significantly diminished individuals’ affective and cognitive well-being. In addition, the regression analysis demonstrated that others’ self-presentation negatively influenced individuals’ affective well-being (β = −0.392*, p = 0.018) and cognitive wellbeing (β = −0.512**, p = 0.008). Therefore, Study 1 supported H1a and H1b. However, Study 1 was exploratory research that only examined the direct effect of others’ self-presentation and individuals’ subjective well-being. It did not explain the mechanism of how it affects subjective well-being. Therefore, based on Study 1, we 92

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

considered a mediator and moderator in Study 2 to explore how others’ self-presentation affects individual’s subjective well-being and whether the effect was influenced by the moderator. 5. Study 2 Study 2 had two objectives. First, we aimed to replicate the findings of Study 1 using different data to again verify H1a and H1b. Second, we planned to find support for the mediation and moderation relationships between the variables, that is, whether relative deprivation would have a mediating effect with others’ self-presentation on individuals’ subjective well-being, and whether this relationship was moderated by individuals’ general self-efficacy. 5.1. Method 5.1.1. Participants and procedure In total, 170 undergraduate students from 2 universities located in Shanghai, China, participated in the study for a notebook. They were randomly divided into two groups, each with 85 respondents. Furthermore, respondents who did not complete the questionnaire were removed from the database. The final sample (N = 153) comprised 36.6% males and 63.4% females, 69.3% were single, and 71.9% spent less than 1500 RMB per month. Based on Study 1, a between-subjects design was used to test the causal relationship between the independent variable— others’ self-presentation— and dependent variable subjective well-being, with the indirect effect of relative deprivation and moderation effect of general self-efficacy. The manipulated independent variable was others’ self-presentation (yes or no), and the dependent variables were measured by affective and cognitive well-being, the mediator by relative deprivation, and moderator by general selfefficacy. First, four research assistants managed the two groups and asked respondents to read a stimulus adapted from Study 1. In the group of others’ self-presentation, the materials included numerous posts of others’ positive self-presentation on WeChat moments such as their good lives, travel photos, boy/girlfriend, their high income, scholarships, and awards. In the non-self-presentation group, news, knowledge, and other information unrelated to others’ self-presentation were included. Second, the concept of others’ self-presentation was conveyed to participants through the questionnaire and research assistants’ verbal expressions. Third, participants were asked to indicate their responses to the items for the variables on a scale. 5.1.2. Measures All measures for our variables were adapted from existing scales in prior research, and the selection process for the instrument was similar to that for Study 1. See Appendix 1 for the questionnaire. The two items “Do you think the person is presenting himself/ herself” and “Do you think the person achieved an ideal self” were measured in the manipulation check. We used five items from Krasnova et al. (2015) to measure the dependent variable affective well-being, and three from Diener et al. (1985) to assess cognitive well-being. Nine items adapted from Schwarzer et al. (1997) and five from Callan et al. (2011) were respectively used to measure general self-efficacy and relative deprivation. We also measured dispositional envy and personality as control variables. Dispositional envy was measured using three items adapted from Smith et al. (1999) and specific personality using four items from Rammstedt and John (2007). Similarly, participants responded to items on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), except for five reversed items about affective well-being rated on a five-point scale (converted into a seven-point scale for the convenience of calculation in the data analysis). 5.2. Results We followed the data analysis steps widely adopted in the existing literature (e.g., Wen et al., 2016; Barasch et al., 2018). First, reliability and validity of the scales were tested, including internal consistency, combined reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. Second, an ANOVA was performed to test the hypotheses (Smith and Sanderson, 2015). In the ANOVA, the mean and F statistic were employed to test the variance between groups, and the level of significance to determine whether a significant causal relationship exists between the independent and outcome variables. Third, we considered that the conceptual model includes independent, mediating, moderating, and dependent variables. The research followed Barasch et al. (2018), examining the path coefficients between the variables through a structural equation model (SEM) and the moderated mediation effects using the Process 3.0 method. 5.2.1. Reliability and validity test In this study, internal consistency and combined reliability were used to test the variables’ reliability. Table 3 shows the results. According to Table 3, Cronbach’s α scores of all variables were from 0.853 to 0.928, higher than 0.70, indicating that the internal consistency was higher than the critical value for all variables. The combined reliabilities of all variables were from 0.896 to 0.946, which are higher than 0.70 and thus, -higher than the critical value. The validity test included the convergent validity and discriminant validity tests. In this study, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the convergent validity of variables, the results of which are shown in Table 3. Only two items had loadings in the 0.6–0.7 range, and the rest exceeded the 0.7 benchmark. Furthermore, the AVE of all variables was higher than 0.60. These results indicated the high convergent validity of the scale. Finally, the discriminant validity was judged by the comparison between the square root of AVE and correlations coefficient of any latent variables. The square roots of AVE (Table 4) were much higher than the 93

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

Table 3 Reliability and validity of the tested model. Variable

Item

Factor loading

Cronbach's α

AVE

CR

Affective well-being

AWB1 AWB2 AWB3 AWB4 AWB5 CWB1 CWB2 CWB3 DP1 DP2 DP3 DP4 DP5 SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4 SE5 SE6 SE7 SE8 SE9 DE1 DE2 DE3 SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4

0.873 0.885 0.903 0.891 0.854 0.867 0.911 0.890 0.835 0.830 0.839 0.661 0.801 0.817 0.692 0.760 0.845 0.837 0.755 0.855 0.798 0.77 0.912 0.892 0.895 0.830 0.832 0.824 0.863

0.928

0.777

0.946

0.868

0.791

0.919

0.853

0.634

0.896

0.926

0.630

0.939

0.880

0.806

0.927

0.857

0.701

0.904

Cognitive well-being

Relative deprivation

General self-efficacy

Dispositional envy

Specific personality

Note. AWB = Affective well-being, CWB = Cognitive well-being, DP = Relative deprivation, SE = General self-efficacy, DE = Dispositional envy, SP = Specific personality; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR = Composite Reliability. Table 4 Square root of AVE and correlations between latent factors.

AWB CWB DP SE DE SP

AWB

CWB

DP

SE

DE

SP

1.837 1.279 −1.424 1.053 −0.173 0.008

1.333 −1.110 0.913 −0.107 0.158

1.544 −0.806 0.254 −0.135

1.333 0.066 −0.020

1.200 0.330

1.258

Note. AWB = Affective well-being, CWB = Cognitive well-being, DP = Relative deprivation, SE = General self-efficacy, DE = Dispositional envy, SP = Specific personality. The diagonal value is the AVE value of each construct. The remaining values are the correlation coefficients of each construct.

correlations between latent factors, confirming the good discriminant validity of the tested model. 5.2.2. Manipulation check The mean value of participants perceived others’ self-presentation in the self-presentation group (M = 5.47, SE = 0.973) was significantly higher than (F (1, 151) = 123.640, p = 0.000) that for the non-self-presentation group (M = 3.11, SE = 1.551). Similarly, the mean value of participants perceived “others’ achieved ideal self” for the self-presentation group (M = 4.49, SE = 1.435) was significantly higher than (F (1, 151) = 30.550, p = 0.000) that for the non-self-presentation group (M = 3.26, SE = 1.319). Therefore, the manipulation of others' self-presentation was successful. The results of the ANOVA show no significant difference between the two groups in dispositional envy (p = 0.660 > 0.050) and specific personality (p = 0.079 > 0.050), indicating that these factors had no interferential effect on the results of the experiment. 5.2.3. Hypotheses testing First, we employed an ANOVA to test the H1a, H1b, and H2. The independent variable was measured by others’ self-presentation (1 = self-presentation group while 0 = non-self-presentation group), and the dependent variables according to affective well-being and cognitive well-being. The results revealed that the affective well-being of those in the others’ self-presentation group (M = 4.27, SE = 1.505) was significantly lower than that for those in the non-self-presentation group (M = 5.42, SE = 0.983), F (1, 94

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

-0.02

SP

-0.08

AWB

0.06

-0.81

OS

0.46

DP -0.49

CWB

0.01

-0.01

-0.18

DE

Fig. 2. Path analysis in Mplus. Note. Solid lines represent significant path coefficients while dashed lines represent insignificant path coefficients. Independent Variable: OS = Others’ self-presentation; Mediating Variable: DP = Relative deprivation; Dependent Variables: AWB = Affective wellbeing, CWB = Cognitive well-being; Control Variables: SP = Specific personality, DE = Dispositional envy.

151) = 32.085, p = 0.000. Similarly, the cognitive well-being of the others’ self-presentation group (M = 3.79, SE = 1.183) was significantly lower than that of the non-self-presentation group (M = 5.00, SE = 0.984), F (1, 151) = 48.104, p = 0.000. Thus, others’ self-presentation has a significant negative impact on individuals’ affective and cognitive well-being. As such, Study 2 also supported H1a and H1b. Furthermore, the relative deprivation of others’ self-presentation group (M = 3.77, SE = 1.206) was significantly higher than that of the non-self-presentation group (M = 2.52, SE = 1.012), F (1, 151) = 48.730, p = 0.000. This confirms a positive association between others’ self-presentation and individuals’ feeling of relative deprivation, supporting H2. Second, we conducted a bootstrap analysis to estimate the mediation with 5000 samples (SPSS Process 3.0, Model 4), using others’ self-presentation as the independent variable, relative deprivation as the mediator, and individuals’ affective and cognitive well-being as the dependent variables. Unsurprisingly, relative deprivation mediates the effects of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ affective well-being (indirect effect = −0.373, SE = 0.052, 95% confidence interval = [−0.475, −0.274]; direct effect = −0.018, SE = 0.055, 95% confidence interval = [−0.127, 0.090]) and on their cognitive well-being (indirect effect = −0.230, SE = 0.037, 95% confidence interval = [−0.301, −0.160]; direct effect = −0.183, SE = 0.053, 95% confidence interval = [−0.288, −0.077]). Thus, H3a and H3b were supported in this study. The results of the path analysis in Mplus7.0 are provided in Fig. 2. The model fits: χ2 = 1.33; CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.989, SRMR = 0.023, RMSEA = 0.046. These results are better than the benchmark. The results indicate that others’ self-presentation increased individuals’ relative deprivation (β = 0.46***, p = 0.000), while individuals’ relative deprivation decreased their affective well-being (β = −0.81***, p = 0.000) and cognitive well-being (β = −0.49***, p = 0.000). In addition, others’ self-presentation directly decreased individuals’ cognitive well-being (β = −0.18***, p = 0.000), and the direct relationship between others’ selfpresentation and individual’s affective well-being was not significant (β = −0.02, p = 0.752). Figs. 3–5 presents the relationships among others’ self-presentation, relative deprivation, self-efficacy, and subjective well-being. Third, considering that general self-efficacy may moderate the direct and indirect effects of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ subjective well-being, we conducted a bootstrap analysis to estimate the moderated mediation using 5000 samples (SPSS Process 3.0, Model 8). We employed others’ self-presentation as the independent variable, relative deprivation as the mediator, general self-efficacy as the moderator, and individuals’ affective and cognitive well-being as the dependent variables. The results in Table 5 confirm that the index of moderated mediation was significant when the dependent variable was affective well-being (index = 0.026, confidence interval = [0.0003, 0.054]), and insignificant when the dependent variable was cognitive well-being

Relative Deprivation

6.00 5.00

4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Non-Self-Presentation

Self-Presentation

Low General Self-Efficacy High General Self-Efficacy Fig. 3. Interaction between others’ self-presentation and general self-efficacy on relative deprivation. 95

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

Affective Well-Being

7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Non-Self-Presentation

Self-Presentation

Low General Self-Efficacy High General Self-Efficacy Fig. 4. Interaction between others’ self-presentation and general self-efficacy on affective well-being.

Cognitive Well-Being

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Non-Self-Presentation

Self-Presentation

Low General Self-Efficacy High General Self-Efficacy Fig. 5. Interaction between others’ self-presentation and general self-efficacy on cognitive well-being. Table 5 Moderated mediation effect. Dependent Variable

AWB

CWB

General Self-Efficacy

Low Medium High Low Medium High

Indirect Effect

Direct Effect

Index of Moderated Mediation

Effect

LLCI

ULCI

Effect

LLCI

ULCI

Index

LLCI

ULCI

−0.248 −0.210 −0.184 −0.087 −0.074 −0.065

−0.351 −0.290 −0.269 −0.153 −0.130 −0.119

−0.149 −0.128 −0.104 −0.015 −0.012 −0.010

−0.164 −0.094 −0.044 −0.308 −0.270 −0.242

−0.294 −0.194 −0.164 −0.430 −0.363 −0.354

−0.034 0.005 0.076 −0.187 −0.177 −0.131

0.026

0.0003

0.054

0.009

−0.0002

0.023

Note. AWB = Affective well-being, CWB = Cognitive well-being. The rule of group: low = mean-1se, high = mean + 1se, low general self-efficacy = 3.16, medium general self-efficacy = 4.6, high general self-efficacy = 5.64.

(index = 0.009, confidence interval = [−0.0002, 0.023]). We also employed Process Model 7 to test whether general self-efficacy moderated the indirect effect of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ cognitive well-being, showing a significant index of moderated mediation (index = 0.025, confidence interval = [0.0026, 0.0519]). The results indicated that general self-efficacy moderates both the indirect and direct effects of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ affective well-being, but only moderates the indirect effect of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ cognitive well-being. Thus, H4a and H4b were supported, while H4c was not. 5.3. Discussion Based on Study1, Study 2 was a between-subjects design using self-presentation and non-self-presentation to explore how others’ self-presentation on social media affects individuals’ subjective well-being. By manipulating the circumstances of others’ self-presentation, participants were asked to rate items on a scale that included the variables of affective well-being, cognitive well-being, relative deprivation, general self-efficacy, dispositional envy, and specific personality. The manipulation check confirmed that the stimulus was successfully manipulated, and the control variables had no significant effect on the results of the study. First, the 96

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

ANOVA showed that others’ self-presentation on WeChat moments significantly increased individuals’ relative deprivation and decreased their affective and cognitive well-being. Second, the mediation effect analysis indicated that others’ self-presentation both indirectly (through the mediating variable: relative deprivation) and directly decreased individuals’ cognitive well-being, but only indirectly (through the mediating variable: relative deprivation) decreased affective well-being. Third, the moderated mediation analysis confirmed that general self-efficacy moderated the indirect (through the mediating variable: relative deprivation) and direct effects of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ affective well-being, and the indirect effect of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ cognitive well-being. Therefore, Study 2 supported H1a, H1b, H2, H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b, but not H4c. 6. General conclusion 6.1. Conclusion On social media, people tend to share some information with other users, which can be dichotomized into self-presentation (e.g., good life experiences through text and photo) and non-self-presentation (e.g., knowledge and news). The sharing of good life experiences increases the promulgator’s enjoyment (Barasch et al., 2018) and decreases the visitor’s quality of life, because the visitor compares their life with others’ good life experiences. Furthermore, sharing on social media is a widespread, inevitable phenomenon. This means that in the long term, people are exposed to others’ good life experiences, and thus experience chronic pressure from their peers. Previous studies indicated that in the context of social media, upward social comparison (Wojcik and Ditto, 2014; Shim et al., 2016) and relative deprivation (Schmitt et al., 2010; Ding et al., 2018) reduce subjective well-being, while general self-efficacy (Hocevar et al., 2014; Li et al., 2014; Yan et al., 2017) enhances it. Thus, the current research investigated whether and how others’ self-presentation influences individuals’ subjective well-being in the social media context. Using the two contexts of others’ selfpresentation and non-self-presentation, we explored the influence of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ subjective well-being through the mediation effect of relative deprivation and the moderation effect of general self-efficacy. As predicted by H1a and H1b, two laboratory experiments confirmed that, compared to others’ non-self-presentation, others’ selfpresentation leads to a lower evaluation of individuals’ well-being, because of upward social comparison. This effect held in both studies. Further analysis of the mediation effect postulated in H2, H3a and H3b revealed that others’ self-presentation increased individuals’ feeling of relative deprivation, and decreased affective well-being indirectly when relative deprivation was a mediator. However, it decreased individuals’ cognitive well-being directly and indirectly through the mediation effect of relative deprivation. The findings of Study 2 supported H2, H3a, and H3b. Considering general self-efficacy as having a moderating mediation effect in the first and third stage (moderated the direct and indirect effects) proposed in H4a, H4b and H4c, our findings indicated that general self-efficacy moderated both the direct and indirect effects of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ affective well-being, but only the indirect effect of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ cognitive well-being. Thus, H4a and H4b were supported, and H4c was not. Interestingly, some theoretical concepts that originated from Western scholars, such as social comparison, relative deprivation, general self-efficacy, and subjective well-being are valid in the Chinese and WeChat usage contexts. This is similar to the conclusions reached by other Chinese scholars (Li et al., 2014; Niu et al., 2016; Pang, 2018a; Wang et al., 2018b), indicating that these theories have strong applicability. As such, social comparison, relative deprivation, general self-efficacy, and subjective well-being remain relevant in Eastern and Western societies, as well as for Facebook or WeChat. 6.2. Theoretical contributions Drawing on the social comparison theory, this research explored the impact of others’ self-presentation on individuals’ subjective well-being in the social media context. As such, some theoretical contributions have been made. First, our findings are aligned with those of prior studies that show that social media usage decreases life satisfaction and the moment-to-moment feeling (Smith and Kim, 2007; Kross et al., 2013), and increases feelings of unfairness regarding users’ own lives (Chou and Edge, 2012). However, different from previous studies, ours explained why and how social media usage decreases life satisfaction through the indirect effect of relative deprivation based on upward social comparison theory. We found that others’ self-presentation directly and indirectly diminishes individuals’ subjective well-being through the mediation effect of relative deprivation. In addition, this research measured subjective well-being according to both affective and cognitive well-being, while previous studies focused only on one. Second, how did we apply social comparison theory to explain others’ self-presentation affects individuals’ subjective well-being? We highlighted that others’ self-presentation indirectly decreased individuals’ affective well-being, but increased their feeling of relative deprivation. Here, the direct effect was not significant. However, others’ self-presentation both directly and indirectly affects individuals’ cognitive well-being through the mediation effect of relative deprivation. For instance, compared to others’ good life experiences, individuals feel “my life is terrible.” In other words, others’ self-presentation directly decreases individuals’ life satisfaction, but not enough to bring about emotional change. This implies that social comparison directly affects cognitive well-being more than affective well-being. Essentially, only if others’ self-presentation arouses individuals’ feelings of relative deprivation will affective well-being decrease. Third, although prior research employed effortful control or other variables as moderators to explore social media usage (Chen et al., 2016), little attention was paid to general self-efficacy, which represents people’s general confidence in their own abilities and influences their response to external pressure (Schwarzer et al., 1997; Yan et al., 2017). Individuals with high general self-efficacy respond less to others’ self-presentation on social media than those with low general self-efficacy. Thus, a moderated mediation effect 97

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

was developed in Study 2. We found that when individuals’ general self-efficacy is low, others’ self-presentation both indirectly and directly decreases affective well-being. However, when individuals’ general self-efficacy is medium or high, the direct effect was not significant. 6.3. Practical implications The current research has some implications for using and developing social media. First, as with previous studies, we argue that users have the intention to share their modified, positive life experiences to present themselves in a way that will make them the target of upward social comparison (Wojcik and Ditto, 2014; Shim et al., 2016; Barasch et al., 2018). We found evidence that others’ self-presentation, not non-self-presentation, undermines individuals’ subjective well-being. However, some users tend to post nonself-presented content such as news, knowledge, and product information (Lee and Ma, 2012), indicating that SNS are valuable tools for the dissemination of knowledge and commerce. The research found that the news, knowledge, and product information shared by others is not considered self-presentation, and does not increase individuals’ relative deprivation or the decrease subjective wellbeing. Thus, considering the large volume of users and invaluable resource of customer-to-customer e-commerce, social media may become an ideal platform for the dissemination of knowledge and product information. Second, self-presentation on social media is an interactive process, in which individuals post their life experiences while simultaneously browsing others’ self-presentation content. Because upward social comparison with others’ self-presentation increases the feeling of relative deprivation and threatens individuals’ subjective well-being, to maintain and promote their own well-being, they are more likely to share selected, positive, and even false information to make themselves the target of upward social comparison. However, the sense of unreality brought about by some users’ excessively idealized images increases others’ cognitive burden and psychological pressure, decreasing their subjective well-being in a vicious circle. However, some users do take actions such as blocking when doubting others’ self-presentation content. Since SNSs play an important role in social communication, it is impossible for people to completely abandon social media, and therefore, others’ self-presentation may cause long-term problems for users. In this research, we hoped to provide guidance, as although overly idealized self-presentation can temporarily improve one’s subjective well-being, the subsequent upward social comparison with materials presented by others diminishes one’s well-being. We call on users to express themselves when self-presenting on social media by increasing their self-efficacy and avoiding social comparison to jointly maintain this community. Third, given that not all information decreases individuals’ subjective well-being, we also recommend that social media providers optimize the blocking function so that users can block information according to their needs. The existing blocking function for social media such as WeChat moments cannot meet users’ needs, because it can only block all the information of a certain person. In fact, only some self-presentation messages bother users. With the development of personalized recommendations, many browsers and ecommerce sites already offer technical support and enable users to where users can set keywords to select or block similar information. In this way, users can maximize the advantages of social media to maintain and promote psychological balance and subjective well-being on the condition that materials that increase the sense of relative deprivation and reduce subjective well-being can be blocked. 6.4. Limitations and future research Our research has several limitations that provide promising opportunities for future studies. First, the respondents in our study were from China, while the instrument originated in western research. We look forward to exploring more possible outcomes in a cross-cultural context and exploiting an instrument better suited to the Chinese context. Second, our respondents are college-age users, ubiquitous adopters who rely on social media rather than interpersonal communication. In the future, we should apply the results of our study to other demographic segments. Third, we chose WeChat because it is popular in China, although, many other SNSs are popular in other countries, including Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Pinterest. Future work should also explore the relationship between different features (including formats of information presentation, types of followed friends, and user interface) of SNSs and users’ subjective well-being. Fourth, we obtained our results from self-reported measures, meaning they may be subject to common variance. User behavior research based on social media is expected to remedy this deficiency in the future. Fifth, because the data was gathered from a sample of undergraduates at business schools, the number of respondents and demographic factors such as age and gender (a greater number of females) may undermine the results (including reliability). To resolve this limitation, in a future study, questionnaires can be collected from respondents of different ages and occupations. Sixth, we performed experiments to elicit participants’ responses by manipulating others’ self-presentation materials. Future work can try the questionnaire without material for priming, but use that imagined by the participants. In addition, materials can only be presented as text, excluding pictures and videos. Future work can compare the differences between text, pictures and videos. Furthermore, few interesting topics are also worthy of future research. For example, studies could focus on passive use (people who do not actively post, but lurk, merely viewing others’ self-presentations), authentic self-presentation, and others’ self-presentation versus individuals’ self-presentation. In addition, other outcome variables (e.g., giving up social media, online hate speech, addictive consumption, political protest) should be explored in future work. Despite the limitations, this study provided relevant results about others’ self-presentation and the relationship thereof with individuals’ subjective well-being on social media. Furthermore, it clarified the roles of relative deprivation as a mediator and general self-efficacy as a moderator. 98

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

Acknowledgement This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71702097, 71372187, 71772115). Meanwhile, the authors thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers of this paper for their constructive suggestions and comments. Appendix 1 Affective well-being When using Wechat moments, to what extent do you feel: AWB1: sad.a AWB2: blue.a AWB3: downhearted.a AWB4: alone.a AWB5: lonely.a Cognitive well-being To what extent to you agree with the following statements? CWB1: In most ways my life is close to my ideal. CWB2: The conditions of my life are excellent. CWB3: I am satisfied with my life. Dispositional envy To what extent to you agree with the following statements? DE1: I feel envy every day. DE2: The bitter truth is that I generally feel inferior to others. DE3: Feelings of envy constantly torment me. Specific personality I see myself as someone who … SP1: is reserved. SP2: is outstanding, sociable.a SP3: is relaxed.a SP4: gets nervous easily. Relative deprivation When using Wechat moments, to what extent do you feel: DP1: I feel deprived when I think about what I have compared to what the person has. DP2: I feel privileged compared to the person. DP3: I feel resentful when I see how prosperous the person seems to be. DP4: When I compare what I have with what the person has, I realize that I am quite well off. DP5: I feel dissatisfied with what I have compared to what the person has. General self-efficacy I see myself as someone who … SE1: I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough. SE2: If someone opposes me, I can find means and ways to get what I want. SE3: It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals. SE4: I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events. SE5: Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations. SE6: I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. SE7: I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities. SE8: When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions. SE9: If I am in a bind, I can usually think of something to do. Note: areversed coding. 99

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

References Alshahrani, H., Pennington, D.R., 2018. “Why not use it more?” Sources of self-efficacy in researchers' use of social media for knowledge sharing. J. Doc. 74 (6), 1274–1292. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-04-2018-0051. Barasch, A., Zauberman, G., Diehl, K., 2018. How the intention to share can undermine enjoyment: photo-taking goals and evaluation of experiences. J. Consum. Res. 44 (6), 1220–1237. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx112. Barcena-Martin, E., Cortes-Aguilar, A., Moro-Egido, A.I., 2017. Social comparisons on subjective well-being: the role of social and cultural capital. J. Happiness Stud. 18 (4), 1121–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9768-3. Bareket-Bojmel, L., Moran, S., Shahar, G., 2016. Strategic self-presentation on Facebook: personal motives and audience response to online behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 788–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.033. Blazquez Cuesta, M., Budria, S., 2015. Income deprivation and mental well-being: the role of non-cognitive skills. Econ. Hum. Biol. 17, 16–28. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ehb.2014.11.004. Brandtzaeg, P.B., 2012. Social networking sites: their users and social implications - a longitudinal study. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 17 (4), 467–488. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01580.x. Bruni, L., Stanca, L., 2008. Watching alone: relational goods, television and happiness. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 65 (3–4), 506–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo. 2005.12.005. Buunk, B.P., Collins, R.L., Taylor, S.E., VanYperen, N.W., Dakof, G.A., 1990. The affective consequences of social comparison: either direction has its ups and downs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59 (6), 1238–1249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1238. Callan, M.J., Shead, N.W., Olson, J.M., 2011. Personal relative deprivation, delay discounting, and gambling. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 (5), 955–973. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0024778. Chen, W., Fan, C.-Y., Liu, Q.-X., Zhou, Z.-K., Xie, X.-C., 2016. Passive social network site use and subjective well-being: a moderated mediation model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 64, 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.038. Chou, H.-T.G., Edge, N., 2012. “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: the impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others' lives. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 15 (2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0324. Chua, T.H.H., Chang, L., 2016. Follow me and like my beautiful selfies: Singapore teenage girls' engagement in self-presentation and peer comparison on social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.011. Crosby, F., 1976. A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychol. Rev. 83 (2), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85. de Vaate, A.J.D.B., Veldhuis, J., Alleva, J.M., Konijn, E.A., van Hugten, C.H.M., 2018. Show your best self(ie): an exploratory study on selfie-related motivations and behavior in emerging adulthood. Telemat. Inform. 35 (5), 1392–1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.010. de Vries, D.A., Kuhne, R., 2015. Facebook and self-perception: individual susceptibility to negative social comparison on Facebook. Pers. Individ. Differ. 86, 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.029. Di Martino, S., Di Napoli, I., Esposito, C., Prilleltensky, I., Arcidiacono, C., 2018. Measuring subjective well-being from a multidimensional and temporal perspective: Italian adaptation of the I COPPE scale. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0916-9. Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Lucas, R.E., Smith, H.L., 1999. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 125 (2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037// 0033-2909.125.2.276. Diener, E.D., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S., 1985. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Pers. Assess. 49 (1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327752jpa4901_13. Ding, Q., Tang, Y., Wei, H., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., 2018. The relationship between relative deprivation and online gaming addiction in college students: a moderated mediation model. Acta Psychol. Sin. 50 (9), 1041–1050. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01041. Djafarova, E., Trofimenko, O., 2017. Exploring the relationships between self-presentation and self-esteem of mothers in social media in Russia. Comput. Hum. Behav. 73, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.021. Ellison, N., Heino, R., Gibbs, E., 2006. Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 11 (2), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x. Festinger, L., 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7 (2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202. Fox, J., Vendemia, M.A., 2016. Selective self-presentation and social comparison through photographs on social networking sites. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 19 (10), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0248. Frison, E., Eggermont, S., 2016. “Harder, better, faster, stronger”: negative comparison on Facebook and adolescents' life satisfaction are reciprocally related. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 19 (3), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0296. Gerson, J., Plagnol, A.C., Corr, P.J., 2016. Subjective well-being and Social media use: do personality traits moderate the impact of social comparison on Facebook? Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.023. Goffman, E., 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York. Gonzales, A.L., Hancock, J.T., 2011. Mirror, mirror on my facebook wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (1–2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411. Graham, C., Nikolov, M., 2013. Does access to information technology make people happier? Insights from well-being surveys from around the world. J. Socio-Econ. 44, 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2013.02.025. Grieve, R., Watkinson, J., 2016. The psychological benefits of being authentic on Facebook. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 19 (7), 420–425. https://doi.org/10. 1089/cyber.2016.0010. Hocevar, K.P., Flanagin, A.J., Metzger, M.J., 2014. Social media self-efficacy and information evaluation online. Comput. Hum. Behav. 39, 254–262. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.020. Jang, W., Bucy, E.P., Cho, J., 2018. Self-esteem moderates the influence of self-presentation style on Facebook users' sense of subjective well-being. Comput. Hum. Behav. 85, 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.044. Jung, Y., Song, H., Vorderer, P., 2012. Why do people post and read personal messages in public? The motivation of using personal blogs and its effects on users' loneliness, belonging, and well-being. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (5), 1626–1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.001. Kim, H., Callan, M.J., Gheorghiu, A.I., Skylark, W.J., 2018. Social comparison processes in the experience of personal relative deprivation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 48 (9), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12531. Kim, J., Lee, J.-E.R., 2011. The Facebook paths to happiness: effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (6), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0374. Kim, J.W., Chock, T.M., 2015. Body image 2.0: associations between social grooming on Facebook and body image concerns. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.009. Kosinski, M., Matz, S.C., Gosling, S.D., Popov, V., Stillwell, D., 2015. Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. Am. Psychol. 70 (6), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039210. Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P., Wenninger, H., Benbasat, I., 2015. Why following friends can hurt you: an exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among college-age users. Inf. Syst. Res. 26 (3), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0588. Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D.S., Lin, N., Ybarra, O., 2013. Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS One 8 (8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841. Lee, C.S., Ma, L., 2012. News sharing in social media: the effect of gratifications and prior experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2), 331–339. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.chb.2011.10.002. Lee, G., Lee, J., Kwon, S., 2011. Use of social-networking sites and subjective well-being: a study in South Korea. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 14 (3), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0382.

100

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

Li, C., Shi, X., Dang, J., 2014. Online communication and subjective well-being in Chinese college students: the mediating role of shyness and social self-efficacy. Comput. Hum. Behav. 34, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.032. Lin, R., Utz, S., 2015. The emotional responses of browsing Facebook: happiness, envy, and the role of tie strength. Comput. Hum. Behav. 52, 29–38. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.064. Liu, C.-Y., Yu, C.-P., 2013. Can Facebook use induce well-being? Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 16 (9), 674–678. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0301. Liu, J., Li, C., Carcioppolo, N., North, M., 2016. Do our Facebook friends make us feel worse? A study of social comparison and emotion. Hum. Commun. Res. 42 (4), 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12090. Liu, P., Tov, W., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D.J., Qiu, L., 2015. Do Facebook status updates reflect subjective well-being? Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 18 (7), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0022. Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., Mielke, R., 1999. Strategies to cope with negative social identity: predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76 (2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.2.229. Niu, G., Bao, N., Zhou, Z., Fan, C., Kong, F., Sun, X., 2015. The impact of self-presentation in online social network sites on life satisfaction: the effect of positive affect and social support. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 31 (5), 563–570. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2015.05.07. Niu, G., Sun, X., Zhou, Z., Kong, F., Tian, Y., 2016. The impact of social network site (Qzone) on adolescents’ depression: the serial mediation of upward social comparison and self-esteem. Acta Psychol. Sin. 48 (10), 1282–1291. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01282. Pang, H., 2018a. How does time spent on WeChat bolster subjective well-being through social integration and social capital ? Telemat. Inform. 35 (8), 2147–2156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.015. Pang, H., 2018b. Microblogging, friendship maintenance, and life satisfaction among university students: the mediatory role of online self-disclosure. Telemat. Inform. 35 (8), 2232–2241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.08.009. Penguin, 2016. WeChat influence report. Retrieved from http://tech.qq.com/a/20160321/007049.htm#p=1. Qiu, L., Lin, H., Leung, A.K., Tov, W., 2012. Putting their best foot forward: emotional disclosure on Facebook. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 15 (10), 569–572. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0200. Rammstedt, B., John, O.P., 2007. Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J. Res. Pers. 41 (1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001. Reinecke, L., Trepte, S., 2014. Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: a two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication. Comput. Hum. Behav. 30, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.030. Runciman, W.G., 1993. Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century. University of California Press, England. Russell, E., Daniels, K., 2018. Measuring affective well-being at work using short-form scales: implications for affective structures and participant instructions. Hum. Relat. 71 (11), 1478–1507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717751034. Schimmack, U., Schupp, J., Wagner, G.G., 2008. The influence of environment and personality on the affective and cognitive component of subjective well-being. Soc. Indic. Res. 89 (1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9230-3. Schmitt, M., Maes, J., Widaman, K., 2010. Longitudinal effects of egoistic and fraternal relative deprivation on well-being and protest. Int. J. Psychol. 45 (2), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590903165067. Schwarzer, R., Bassler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schroder, K., Zhang, J.A.X., 1997. The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general self-efficacy scale. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. Psychol. Appl. Rev. Int. 46 (1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x. Seidman, G., 2013. Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: how personality influences social media use and motivations. Pers. Individ. Differ. 54 (3), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009. Shim, M., Lee-Won, R.J., Park, S.H., 2016. The self on the Net: the joint effect of self-construal and public self-consciousness on positive self-presentation in online social networking among South Korean college students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.054. Smith, H.J., Pettigrew, T.F., Pippin, G.M., Bialosiewicz, S., 2012. Relative deprivation: a theoretical and meta-analytic review. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16 (3), 203–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311430825. Smith, L.R., Sanderson, J., 2015. I'm going to Instagram it! An analysis of athlete self-presentation on Instagram. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 59 (2), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1029125. Smith, R.H., Kim, S.H., 2007. Comprehending envy. Psychol. Bull. 133 (1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46. Smith, R.H., Parrott, W.G., Diener, E.F., Hoyle, R.H., Kim, S.H., 1999. Dispositional envy. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25 (8), 1007–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 01461672992511008. Steers, M.-L.N., Wickham, R.E., Acitelli, L.K., 2014. Seeing everyone else's highlight reels: how Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 33 (8), 701–731. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.701. Tandoc Jr., E.C., Ferrucci, P., Duffy, M., 2015. Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: is facebooking depressing? Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053. Tufekci, Z., 2008. Grooming, gossip, Facebook and MySpace: what can we learn about these sites from those who won't assimilate? Info. Commun. Soc. 11 (4), 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801999050. Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J., Schouten, A.P., 2006. Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents' well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychol. Behav. 9 (5), 584–590. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584. Vanman, E.J., Baker, R., Tobin, S.J., 2018. The burden of online friends: the effects of giving up Facebook on stress and well-being. J. Soc. Psychol. 158 (4), 496–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1453467. Verduyn, P., Lee, D.S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., Kross, E., 2015. Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: experimental and longitudinal evidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144 (2), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057. Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Resibois, M., Jonides, J., Kross, E., 2017. Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Soc. Issue Policy Rev. 11 (1), 274–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033. Walker, I., 1999. Effects of personal and group relative deprivation on personal and collective self-esteem. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2 (4), 365–380. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1368430299024004. Walther, J.B., 2007. Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23 (5), 2538–2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002. Wang, J.-J., Wang, L.-Y., Wang, M.-M., 2018a. Understanding the effects of eWOM social ties on purchase intentions: a moderated mediation investigation. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 28, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.01.011. Wang, J.-L., Wang, H.-Z., Gaskin, J., Hawk, S., 2017. The mediating roles of upward social comparison and self-esteem and the moderating role of social comparison orientation in the association between social networking site usage and subjective well-being. Front. Psychol. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00771. Wang, Y.N., Nie, R., Li, Z., Zhou, N., 2018b. WeChat Moments use and self-esteem among Chinese adults: the mediating roles of personal power and social acceptance and the moderating roles of gender and age. Pers. Individ. Differ. 131, 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.012. Wen, Z., Geng, X., Ye, Y., 2016. Does the use of Wechat lead to subjective well-being?: the effect of use intensity and motivations. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 19 (10), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0154. Wojcik, S.P., Ditto, P.H., 2014. Motivated happiness: self-enhancement inflates self-reported subjective well-being. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 5 (7), 825–834. https://doi. org/10.1177/1948550614534699. Xiong, M., Ye, Y., 2016. The concept, measurement, influencing factors and effects of relative deprivation. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 24 (3), 438–453. https://doi.org/10. 3724/sp.j.1042.2016.00438. Xue, Y., Dong, Y., Luo, M., Mo, D., Dong, W., Zhang, Z., Liang, H., 2018. Investigating the impact of mobile SNS addiction on individual's self-rated health. Internet Res. 28 (2), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0198. Yan, Y., Zhang, X., Zha, X., Jiang, T., Qin, L., Li, Z., 2017. Decision quality and satisfaction: the effects of online information sources and self-efficacy. Internet Res. 27

101

Telematics and Informatics 41 (2019) 86–102

X. Fan, et al.

(4), 885–904. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04-2016-0089. Xiaojun Fan is a professor at the school of management, Shanghai University, PR China. His research interests include network marketing and marketing channel. His work has been published in European Journal of Operational Research, International Journal of Market Research, Journal of Cleaner Production, Online Information Review, Expert Systems with Applications, et al. Nianqi Deng is a PhD at the school of management, Shanghai University, PR China. His research interests include network marketing and CnSR. His work has been published in Transformations in business & economics, Sustainability. Xuebing Dong is an assistant professor at the School of Management, Shanghai University, PR China. His research interests include network marketing and consumer behavior. His work has been published in Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Internet Research, Expert Systems with Applications, Journal of Cleaner Production, Online Information Review, Information Technology and People, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Information Development, et al. Yangxi Lin is a postgraduate at the school of management, Shanghai University, PR China. Her research interests include network marketing. Junbin Wang is a PhD at the school of management, Shanghai University, PR China. His research interests include marketing channel.

102