Participant recruitment and data collection through Facebook: the role of personality factors1

As participant recruitment and data collection over the Internet have become more common, numerous observers have expressed concern regarding the validity of research conducted in this fashion. One growing method of conducting research over the Internet involves recruiting participants and administering questionnaires over Facebook, the world’s largest social networking service. If Facebook is to be considered a viable platform for social research, it is necessary to demonstrate that Facebook users are sufficiently heterogeneous and that research conducted through Facebook is likely to produce results that can be generalized to a larger population. The present study examines these questions by comparing demographic and personality data collected over Facebook with data collected through a standalone website, and data collected from college undergraduates at two universities. Results indicate that statistically significant differences exist between Facebook data and the comparison data-sets, but since 80% of analyses exhibited partial η2 < .05, such differences are small or practically nonsignificant in magnitude. We conclude that Facebook is a viable research platform, and that recruiting Facebook users for research purposes is a promising avenue that offers numerous advantages over traditional samples.

[1]  Leman Pinar Tosun,et al.  Does Internet use reflect your personality? Relationship between Eysenck's personality dimensions and Internet use , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  C. Ferguson.  An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. , 2009 .

[3]  Chet Robie,et al.  Measurement Equivalence of a Personality Inventory Administered on the Internet versus a Kiosk , 2007 .

[4]  Peter Burnap,et al.  Making sense of self-reported socially significant data using computational methods , 2013 .

[5]  S. Gosling,et al.  Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. , 2004, The American psychologist.

[6]  Mitsutoshi Okazaki,et al.  Revised NEO Personality Inventory（NEO-PI-R）を用いたてんかん患者におけるパーソナリティ傾向に関する検討 , 2018 .

[7]  Yair Amichai-Hamburger,et al.  Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members , 2008, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[8]  Craig Ross,et al.  Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  Krista Casler,et al.  Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  Tammy D. Allen,et al.  The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work–family conflict ☆ , 2003 .

[11]  Thomas E. Whalen,et al.  A k-sample significance test for independent alpha coefficients , 1976 .

[12]  A. Furnham.  Knowing and Faking One's Five-Factor Personality Score , 1997 .

[13]  Yair Amichai-Hamburger,et al.  Social network use and personality , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[14]  P. Costa,et al.  NEO inventories for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3), NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3), NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) : professional manual , 2010 .

[15]  Cameron Marlow,et al.  A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization , 2012, Nature.

[16]  J. Arnett.  The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[17]  Yoram Bachrach,et al.  Personality and Website Choice , 2012 .

[18]  Jim Jansen,et al.  Use of the internet in higher-income households , 2009 .

[19]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Affect in Computer-Meditated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[20]  Daniele Quercia,et al.  The personality of popular facebook users , 2012, CSCW.

[21]  Jessica L. Tracy,et al.  Personality Correlates of Self-Esteem , 2001 .

[22]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[23]  Stefan Stieglitz,et al.  Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: metrics for tweeting activities , 2013 .

[24]  Yair Amichai-Hamburger,et al.  "On the Internet No One Knows I'm an Introvert": Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Internet Interaction , 2002, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[25]  C. B. Colby.  The weirdest people in the world , 1973 .

[26]  Danielle E. Ramo,et al.  Broad Reach and Targeted Recruitment Using Facebook for an Online Survey of Young Adult Substance Use , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[27]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  S. Levinson,et al.  WEIRD languages have misled us, too , 2010, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[29]  Lindsay T. Graham,et al.  A Review of Facebook Research in the Social Sciences , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[30]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Internet Paradox Revisited , 2002 .

[31]  Christopher J. Carpenter,et al.  Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behavior , 2012 .

[32]  Martyn Denscombe,et al.  Web-Based Questionnaires and the Mode Effect , 2006 .

[33]  Eva Garrosa Hernández,et al.  Personality and subjective well-being: big five correlates and demographic variables , 2005 .

[34]  Richard J Tunney,et al.  Effects of measurement methods on the relationship between smoking and delay reward discounting. , 2012, Addiction.

[35]  Reynol Junco,et al.  Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[36]  D. Mccloskey,et al.  The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives , 2008 .

[37]  T. Graepel,et al.  Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Samuel J. Best,et al.  An Assessment of the Generalizability of Internet Surveys , 2001 .

[39]  Winter A. Mason,et al.  Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  John A. Johnson.  Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from Web-based personality inventories. , 2005 .

[41]  Tom W. Smith,et al.  Survey-Research Paradigms Old and New , 2013 .

[42]  R. Procter,et al.  Reading the riots on Twitter: methodological innovation for the analysis of big data , 2013 .

[43]  T. Joubert,et al.  Psychometric comparison of paper-and-pencil and online personality assessments in a selection setting , 2009 .

[44]  T. Judge,et al.  Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[45]  Pushmeet Kohli,et al.  Personality and patterns of Facebook usage , 2012, WebSci '12.

[46]  Catriona M. Morrison,et al.  The Relationship between Excessive Internet Use and Depression: A Questionnaire-Based Study of 1,319 Young People and Adults , 2010, Psychopathology.

[47]  C. B. Bhutta.  Not by the Book Facebook as a Sampling Frame , 2012 .

[48]  S. Schwartz,et al.  The Big Five Personality Factors and Personal Values , 2002 .

[49]  Kate Lorig,et al.  Internet Versus Mailed Questionnaires: A Randomized Comparison , 2004, Journal of medical Internet research.

[50]  Fiona Gill,et al.  Data and archives: The Internet as site and subject , 2012 .

[51]  Adam D. I. Kramer.  An unobtrusive behavioral model of "gross national happiness" , 2010, CHI.

[52]  Pushmeet Kohli,et al.  Colonel Blotto on Facebook: the effect of social relations on strategic interaction , 2012, WebSci '12.

[53]  R. Robins,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Personality Predictors of Academic Outcomes: Big Five Correlates of GPA and SAT Scores , 2007 .