This document summarizes research on the relationships between personality traits of neuroticism and locus of control with Facebook use. It finds that individuals high in neuroticism, who tend to experience more negative emotions, spend more time actively engaged on Facebook. They are particularly drawn to features like the news feed that allow them to check on and connect with others. However, the amount of time spent on Facebook overall was not related to neuroticism. Locus of control, which reflects a person's perception of control over their environment, was also found to contribute to greater Facebook use.

1. 1
An investigation into the contributions of Neutoticism and Locus of Control
as predictors for Facebook use.
By Nicole Abbott (2013)
Abstract
Facebook is used in most Westernised countries and has recently reached out to
one billion and counting people, with an average of eight hundred and forty-five
million monthly users (Anson, 2012). This project is looking at whether people who
score high in the personality trait neuroticism, as defined by Costa and McCrae
(1992), and whether external Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966), contribute to the
amount of time people spend actively engaging with Facebook per day, and their
reasons for doing so. Ross, Orr, Sisic, Arseneault, Simmering and Orr (2009)
discovered that people who score high in the personality trait neuroticism prefer
using the news feed feature of Facebook and Siedman (2012) states that people
who score high in neuroticism want to create social connections. Interestingly,
Clark and Leung (2004) state that people who have an external Locus of Control
enjoy the powers that the Internet offers them because they feel more able to
control the environment that they are in. This project has one hundred and
seventeen participants, each filled in three questionnaires. The participants were
recruited via the University of Bolton and through an electronic link. The mean age
of participants was twenty-three, with the majority being females. The results show
that both neuroticism and external Locus of Control contribute towards the amount
of hours actively spent on Facebook. However, there are no significant findings
between feelings of anxiety whilst not logged in to Facebook and neuroticism, and
no significant differences between reasons of Facebook use and neuroticism.
There are also no significant findings for external Locus of Control and deletion of a
status if no one has liked or commented on it.

2. 2
1.0 Introduction
Social connections and interactions are basic human needs (Becker, 1974). So it is
no surprise then, that through modern technology, these interactions are now
taking place online, with specific websites dedicated to these social interactions.
These websites are formally known as social networking sites. The current project
focuses on the social networking site Facebook, which in September 2012 reached
its one billionth member (Olanoff, 2012) and has an average of eight hundred and
forty-five million monthly users (Anson, 2012).However, are there certain aspects
of Facebook that are appealing to these one billion, and counting, members?
Could it be that there are certain personality traits which make the social
networking site Facebook more attractive to certain people?
There has been much research into personality factors which contribute to
Facebook use, for instance Ross, Orr, Sisic, Arseneault, Simmering and Orr (2009)
discovered that people high in, the personality trait extroversion were more likely to
join Facebook groups than any other personality dimensions. However, the
personality factor which is of high interest for this dissertation is the trait
neuroticism, as defined by Costa and McCrae (1992). One key aspect of the
personality trait neuroticism is that people who score high on neuroticism, are likely
to have negative feelings, such as depression, anxiety and anger; usually this is a
mixture of all three (Costa and McCrae 1992) Therefore due to being more prone
to anxiety, it is reasonable to assume, then, that people who score high in the
personality trait neuroticism are more likely to use Facebook for checking

3. 3
behaviours. An example of this would be checking what their friends have posted
or who has commented or liked their own status update. There is no surprise then
that Ross et al (2009) reported that people who scored high in the neuroticism
personality dimension where more likely to prefer the Facebook news feed, this is
where people can read other peoples status updates.
Additionally, this study looks at whether a person’s locus of control (Rotter,
1966) contributes to the alluring features that Facebook has to offer. More
specifically, whether high external Locus of Control contributes to Facebook use,
the reason being that Facebook is a-synchronous in communication. Therefore
people are able to control and think about what they say, which would be appealing
to people with external Locus of Control. There is insufficient research on the
effects that Locus of Control has on Facebook use; however there is evidence
between Locus of Control and on-line gaming addiction and Internet addiction
(Koo, 2009; Iskender and Akin, 2010). Koo (2009) rationalizes that people with
high external Locus of Control find on-line games appealing as they are able to
control their avatar and the virtual world around them. Likewise, even though the
individual is not controlling a virtual world or an avatar, Facebook offers the user
the option to “delete” a status, comment or picture, making it a controllable on-line
environment for them; so in effect making it a very attractive feature for people who
feel they have little control over their day to day lives.
The following information is going to explain what Facebook is; and the
appealing applications that it offers its one billion users, the personality traits that
are associated with neuroticism (McCrae and Costa, 1992), and what the Locus of
Control scale (Rotter, 1966)measures and what it can tell us about individuals.

4. 4
1.1 Facebook
The internet has opened many ways in which people can connect and
communicate with others, Social networking sites, such as Facebook, have played
a huge role in this because individuals are able communicate with one another via
a-synchronous communication. They can even be up to date about what is
happening in another individual’s life without even communicating with them at all,
i.e. by the means of viewing the individual’s Facebook profile. This is because a
person’s Facebook profile holds as much information as one is willing to share, i.e.
place of employment, place of education, marital status, birthday, etc… Facebook
was developed by Mark Zuckerberg in February 2004 and was exclusively used for
Harvard students, however, now Facebook is available almost all across the globe
(Olanoff, 2012). According to Ross et al (2009), Facebook is a fast growing,
computer-mediated social networking site that has become one of the most
popular means of communicating, and according to Olanoff (2012), Facebook is
most commonly used in Asia, Europe, the USA and Canada. Furthermore,
according to Olanoff (2012), in September 2012, there were five hundred and
eighty four million daily active users and Facebook has now crossed the billion
user mark with all together users.
Facebook has many features, one of these features being a news feed,
which is where an individual can view all of their Facebook friend’s current status
updates; photograph uploads, what photographs they have commented on or liked;
and what status’s they have commented on or liked. An important note is that just

5. 5
because a person is friends with someone on Facebook, this does not necessarily
mean they are friends with each other in real life, which for someone who struggles
to create social connections in real life; this could be a good substitute. However,
the trend seems to be that the majority of friends one may have on their Facebook
are, in fact, acquaintances in real life. For instance, Johnstone, Todd and Chua
(2009) reported that Facebook was an important social factor for participants in
their research. Johnstone et al (2009) discovered that Facebook was important to
the participants involved in the study because they were able to talk to people they
didn’t know very well and felt able to express themselves in a way they wouldn’t
normally do in real life; and that not only where Johnstone et als. (2009)
participants able to make new social connections, but it helped them keep in touch
with their old school friends.
Another feature that Facebook has is instant messenger, which by nature is
a-synchronous communication, thereby giving the individual time to think about
his/her response to a message. This could be why the participants in Johnstone et
als. (2009) study felt like they were able to express themselves better on Facebook
than in real life, because via a-synchronous communication, they are also able to
think strategically about what they want to say, and how they want to come across
(Vonderwell, 2003).
Yet another feature that Facebook possesses is an individual is able to set
their own privacy settings. For example, an individual can make their information
and profile available only to people on their friends list, or can make them publically
viewable. Also, an individual can accept or decline a friend request, so they are
able to control who is actually on their friends list, and are able to delete them as a
friend if they desire to do so. Which can be an important feature for people who are

6. 6
conscientious about who can see their information, or how much information about
them is viewable. For instance, even if an individual doesn’t want people on their
friends list to view their personal information, then they are able to set it so that
these people cannot do so. Facebook is now accessible via a mobile phone
application. This is where a person can set their mobile phone to receive all the
same notifications, i.e. when a friend has updated their status, via alerts on their
mobile phone or by text messages from Facebook, so in a way, they are constantly
on Facebook, even though they are not engaging with it, which according to Fach
(2012), Facebook has four hundred and twenty-five million people with the
Facebook mobile phone application.
So, a question that is brought to attention is what features of Facebook do
people who score high on neuroticism and/or external Locus of Control find most
alluring about Facebook? And does this affect the amount of time they spend on
Facebook?
1.2 The Big Five Personality and Neuroticism
Costa and McCrae (1992) proposed that there were five broad domains of human
personality which and can also account for individual differences. The five
personality traits that Costa and McCrae (1992) used to define human personality
are; extroversion/introversion; openness to experience/ conventionalism;
conscientiousness/ carelessness; agreeableness/ disagreeableness;
neuroticism/emotional stability. They suggest that every individual will fall
somewhere on the continuum between the two polar ends of the spectrum (Costa
and McCrae, 1992). For example, one individual may score closer to neuroticism
than emotional stability, whereas another individual may score closer to emotional

7. 7
stability than neuroticism. This current research is examining neuroticism on
Facebook use, so the following information explains personality traits associated
with high neuroticism scores.
People who score closer to neuroticism have a tendency to feel more
anxious, depression and anger than those who score closer to emotionally stable,
who tend to experience happiness and high life satisfaction and tend to deal with
stress more efficiently (Hills and Argyle, 2001). It is no surprise then, that people
who score higher on neuroticism tend to have regular depressive mood states and
respond to emotional and environment stress poorly, in comparison with someone
who scores closer to emotional stability (Anonymous, 2012). As well as this, Butt
and Phillips (2008) found that neuroticism is connected with information control and
a need to check what information has been shared. Another interesting finding
comes from what DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan and Gray
(2010) discovered, which is that neuroticism is associated within the brain regions
that are believed to be associated with threat and negative affect, i.e. the middle
temporal gyrus and the right pre-central gyrus; and that people who score high on
neuroticism are sensitive to threat and punishment due to this. This therefore,
validates that neuroticism may be caused by brain chemistry; making negative
mood states a natural impulse for people who score high on neuroticism.
1.3 Neuroticism and Facebook
An interesting question is do these negative mood states take place in an on-line
environment? If neuroticism is indeed a natural impulse for people, then all
personality traits that are associated with neuroticism, i.e. negative mood states,
should be witnessed in all social situations; including the social networking site
Facebook. Ross et al (2009) stated that people who score high on neuroticism

8. 8
reported using the news feed on Facebook more than any other personality traits.
The Facebook news feed is where an individual can see other people’s status
updates, photograph uploads and what other people have said on them, or
whether other people have ‘liked’ the status update or photographs. In relation to
Butt and Phillips (2008) explanation that people who score high in the neuroticism
personality trait, tend to be more conscientious about what information they share,
Facebook is a form of a-synchronous communication, which means that people
have time to think about what they want to say, making it easier for people with
neuroticism to control what information they choose to share. Furthermore,
Seidman (2012) reports that people who score high on the personality trait
neuroticism may look for social connections and social acceptance through the
means of Facebook because they are more prone to rejection and that they feel
the need to belong, which, in itself is a basic human need (Becker, 1974). This
therefore makes Facebook an obvious choice when wanting to make these social
connections, due to the many advantages it has for people who feel uncomfortable
in real life social situations. For example, a person can see what their friends are
doing without asking them, they can update their own Facebook status so people
know what they are doing; and also not having to visibly see the person they are
communicating with, which would make social interaction easier for people who
feel inadequate in these situations normally.
Another reason why people who score high in neuroticism spend longer
amounts of time on Facebook could be because they may feel anxious about what
is happening on Facebook whilst not logged on due to, as Reichelt (2007)
describes it, ambient intimacy. This is where people may feel anxious about what is
going on in their friend’s lives, i.e. how they are feeling, what they have eaten,

9. 9
event invitations, etc... Facebook gives people the opportunity to be more intimate
with their friends than before as they know all of these details about their lives.
Therefore, people who tend to feel more anxious, like people who score high on
neuroticism, are more likely to spend more time on Facebook due to this feeling of
ambient intimacy (Reichlet, 2007). Knowing what is happening in their friend’s lives
can create stronger social connections between them and their contacts on their
friends list because they are able to start a conversation with them, give them
support and vice versa when they upload a Facebook status. Which, according to
Seidman (2012), is what people who score high on neuroticism desire, that being
strong social connections.
Seidman (2012) also found that neuroticism was a significant predictor in
self- presentation, which supports Butt and Philips (2008) findings of information
control and neuroticism, and Ross et al’s (2009) findings of neuroticism and the
Facebook news feed feature; this could be due to the fact that in real life situations
the way a person presents themselves is important for impression formation that
other people create of that individual (Higgins, Rholes and Jones, 1977). Whereas
in an on-line environment, such as Facebook, self-presentation is easier to
manage, because people can think about what they are going to say and can
strategically plan how they want themselves to come across to other people. This
could therefore make it easier for people who score high in neuroticism to create
the social connections and the feeling of belonging that they desire (Seidman,
2012). This therefore supports Johnstone et al’s (2009) findings that Facebook
helped to create, and maintain, strong social connection for their participants;
therefore it would make sense that for people who score high on neuroticism will

10. 10
seek social connections on Facebook. Therefore spending more time on Facebook
to help create and maintain these connections.
In contrast to the previous research outlined, Skues, Williams and Wise
(2012), found that there was no significant relationship between the amount of time
an individual spends on Facebook and high neuroticism scores. Skues et al (2012)
explained this by the fact that people who score closer to neuroticism and people
who score closer to emotional stability spend the same amount of time as each
other on Facebook, but for different reasons. Therefore suggesting that the amount
of time a person spends on Facebook isn’t related to what a person scores in
relation to their neuroticism levels, however Skues et al (2012) didn’t investigate
what applications of Facebook people use regularly. In light of this, Gosling,
Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman and Gaddis (2011), research contradicts Ross et als.
(2009) findings that people who score high on neuroticism are more likely to prefer
the Facebook wall feature. Gosling et al (2011) discovered that people who scored
higher on neuroticism were far more likely to view their own Facebook page more
than other peoples Facebook pages. This could be due to them checking to see
whether or not people have commented or liked any of their status updates,
because it could be seen that the more people who like or comment on an
individual’s status, the more social connections they have, which is according to
Becker (1974), a basic human requirement, as it is a sign of social support and
acceptance. However, an individual does not have to view another person’s profile
if they use the Facebook wall feature, as this is where they can view everybody on
their friend’s list status updates, so it could be that people who score high in
neuroticism prefer to read peoples updates without actually viewing their friend’s
profiles.

11. 11
1.4 Locus of Control
The Locus of Control scale is a set of twenty nine questions, each question has
two statements, and the participant has to indicate which statement they agree with
the most, (Rotter, 1966). One statement measures internal Locus of Control, the
other external Locus of Control. Rotter (1966, as cited by Clarke and Leung, 2004),
defined Locus of Control as the “degree to which a person believes that control of
reinforcement is internal versus the degree to which it is external.” (Clarke and
Leung, 2004, p 562). For instance, internal Locus of Control refers to a person’s
perception that they are in full control of their life, i.e. what happens to them, their
actions and the consequences of these actions (Rotter, 1966). This project is
investigating the contributions external Locus of Control has on Facebook use,
therefore the following information is going to be about external Locus of Control.
External Locus of Control is the belief that outside forces beyond a person’s
own personal control affect why they do or do not succeed; and believe that they
have very little control over what happens to them (Rotter, 1966). People, who
score higher on external Locus of Control, tend to believe that external forces such
as; luck, fate, God or the environment shape ‘who’ they are; what has happened to
them, and what will happen to them in their future (Myers, n.d). So it can be
assumed then that for people who score high on external Locus of Control may
prefer an environment in which is malleable for them, for example, an on-line
environment in which they are able to control.

12. 12
1.5 External Locus of Control and the Internet
There is no research to knowledge about a person’s Locus of Control and their
Facebook use; however, there is sufficient research into why people who have an
external Locus of Control may spend more time on-line than people who have an
internal Locus of Control. For instance, Clark and Leung (2004) discovered that
people who have an external Locus of Control are more likely to engage in on-line
activities for a longer period of time than people who have an internal Locus of
Control because they enjoy the “illusory power” (Clark and Leung, 2004, p 568)
that the Internet provides them. In support of this, Iskender and Akin (2010) study
of Internet addiction, found that internal Locus of Control was negatively correlated
with the amount of time an individual spends on the Internet, therefore means that
people who have an external Locus of Control are more likely to spend more time
on an on-line environment. This could be explained by the fact that the Internet is a
malleable environment; therefore an individual is able to control exactly what
happens to them and around them in their virtual settings. This supports Koo
(2009) suggestion that people with an external Locus of Control prefer on-line
environments as they are able to control the virtual world.
The findings previously outlined for external Locus of Control and Internet
use can be used to predict why an individual with external Locus of Control uses
Facebook and the amount of time they use it for. For example, as previously
mentioned, Facebook is a-synchronous in communication, a person is also able to
delete their own status, or comments that people have made on their status,
making it a controllable environment, giving them “illusory power” as Clark and
Leung (2004, p 568) describes it. Also, people are able to control what information
is distributed and what photographs are put up. Therefore if people who have

13. 13
external Locus of Control are more likely to spend more time in an on-line
environment than people with an internal Locus of Control, it can be assumed that
they are also more likely to spend more time on a social networking site, such as
Facebook, than people who have an internal Locus of control.
1.6 This Projects research questions and hypothesis
So, after outlining the previous literature, this project is going to attempt to answer
six research questions, which are:
1) How much does the personality trait neuroticism, as defined by Costa and
McCrae (1992), contribute to the amount of hours actively spent on Facebook?
2) How much does external locus of control, as defined my Rotter (1966),
contribute to high levels to the amount of hours actively spent on Facebook?
3) Do high levels of the personality trait neuroticism, as defined by Costa and
McCrae (1992), increase levels of anxiety when not on Facebook?
4) Do high levels of external locus of control, as defined by Rotter (1966), increase
the likelihood that an individual will delete a status if no one has commented or
liked it?
5) Do people who have high levels of the personality trait neuroticism, as defined
by Costa and McCrae (1992), use the newsfeed application of Facebook more
than any other Facebook feature?
6) Do high levels of the personality trait neuroticism, as defined by Costa and
McCrae (1992), contribute to checking whether a person has liked or commented
on a status?

14. 14
From these six research questions, seven hypotheses were formed. These are:
A) The more neurotic an individual is, the more hours they will spend on Facebook
B) The more a person scores on External Locus of Control, the more hours they
will spend on Facebook
C) Neuroticism will predict why people anxious whilst not logged onto Facebook.
D) External Locus of Control will predict why people delete their Facebook status
if no one has liked or commented on it.
E) The more neurotic an individual is, the more they will check their newsfeed on
Facebook
F) The more neurotic an individual is, the more they will check to see if anyone
has commented or liked their Facebook status
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Design
The design of this study was a within participant design, with all of the participants
filling out three questionnaires. The predictor variables for this study are external
locus of control (Rotter 1969) and neuroticism (1999), the criterion variables are
Facebook activity, that is, time spent on Facebook and how often the participant
checked how many likes or comments their status(s) have received, and whether
they view their newsfeed often.
2.2 Participants
Participants were recruited through opportunity sampling, and the majority of the
participants were people who do not attend the University of Bolton (sixty three) as

15. 15
these were the participants who were recruited through an electronic link to the
questionnaires on Facebook. The other fifty four of the participants being
psychology students at the University of Bolton. The ages ranged from 18 to 64,
with the mean age being 23. The gender of participants was majority female (78
female and 39 male). Participants were recruited by going into one of the lectures
with the lecturer’s permission. All participant’s gave consent for their answers to be
used in the research and where aware of what the research was about.
2.3 Materials and stimuli
The materials used for this research was McCrea and Costa’s (1999) Big Five
Personality Questionnaire (see appendix three), Rotter’s (1966) Locus of Control
Scale (see appendix four), as well as a questionnaire that measured the
participant’s Facebook use i.e. how often they were actively on Facebook daily and
how many times they checked their status(s) for likes or comments (see appendix
five). Rotter’s (1966) locus of Control Scale was used to measure the participant’s
level of external locus of control. McCrea and costa’s (1999) Big Five Personality
Questionnaire was used to measure the where the participant’s fell in the spectrum
between the two poles of emotional stability and neuroticism.
2.4 Procedure
Those participants who participated in the study via the lecture room were told to
read the statement of informed consent (see appendix six) as it contained
information about what the study was about and if they wished to continue, to sign
the statement and continue onto completing the questionnaires. Participants, who
were recruited via a link on Facebook, were advised to read the statement of

16. 16
informed consent and if they were willing to still take part to continue onto
completing the questionnaires. Participants were assigned three questionnaires to
complete. Costa and McCrae’s (1992) Big Five Personality Questionnaire, Rotter’s
(1966) Locus of Control Scale, and a questionnaire to measure the participants
Facebook usage. They were to answer all the personality variables on the Big Five
Personality questionnaire to try and avoid demand characteristics, however the
participants were unaware of this.
Rotter’s (1966) locus of control scale consists of twenty nine questions,
each question has two statements (A and B), which measure whether a person has
an internal or external Locus of Control. Costa and McCrae’s (1992) Big Five
Personality Questionnaire was used to measure the participant’s level of
neuroticism. The Big Five Personality Questionnaire consists of fifty questions,
which participant s answer on a scale of one to six (one being strongly disagree
and six being strongly agree). These responses measure where the participants
fall between the two poles on the each of the five personality spectrums. The
personality poles are extroversion and introversion; openness to experience and
conventionalism; conscientiousness and carelessness; neuroticism and emotional
stability, and agreeableness and disagreeableness. The questionnaire that was
used to measure a participants Facebook use included questions such as how long
they actively spent on Facebook per day; whether they felt anxious when not
logged in on Facebook; the main reason why they chose to go on Facebook; and
whether they deleted their Facebook status if no one had liked or commented on it.
The questionnaire also included a section for people who had deactivated their
Facebook account which included the same questions as the section for people
who had an active Facebook account, however they were written in past tense.

17. 17
These participants were also asked why they had deactivated their Facebook
account. Both sections of this questionnaire contained quantitative responses, i.e.
“please circle which response you agree with most”. However, if an answer that
was available wasn’t the main reason why they used Facebook or why they had
deactivated their account, they were asked to give their own reason(s).
After completion of the three questionnaires participants, who were recruited
through the lecture room, were asked to hand the questionnaires back to the
researcher. Participants, who were recruited via a link on Facebook, were asked to
submit their questionnaires through a “submit” button, so that they were submitted
electronically.

18. 18
3.0 Results
The descriptive Statistics for the results can be seen in the table one below.
Table one - Descriptive Statistics
No. Of
Participants
Mean Standard
Deviation
External Locus of
Control
117 13.07 4.57
Neuroticism
Scores
117 20.93 8.00
Hours spent on
Facebook
93 2.49 1.40
Feelings of
anxiety whilst not
on Facebook
110 1.44 0.71
Deletion of a
status if no one
has liked or
commented on it
109 2.06 0.45
This table shows that the mean score for the amount of hours the participants
spend on Facebook each day is between one and two hours. The table of
descriptive statistics also shows that the mean score on neuroticism for participants
is 20.93, which is quite a middle score as the scale ranges between zero and forty.
The table also shows that the mean score for external Locus of Control for

19. 19
participants is 13.07, the scale for Locus of Control is between one and twenty-
nine, however a person’s internal Locus of Control was not taken into account.
The table of descriptive statistics show the mean score for participants is
that they do not feel anxious whilst not on Facebook. A score of one means not
anxious, a score of two means sometimes anxious and a score of three means yes
they do feel anxious. The table also suggests that the mean score of deleting a
status if no one had liked or commented on it was no. One was coded in SPSS as
being yes; two was coded as being no and three was coded as sometimes.
3.1 Hypotheses A: the more neurotic an individual is, the more hours they
will spend on Facebook, and hypothesis B: which is the more a person
scores on External Locus of Control, the more hours they will spend on
Facebook.
Due to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for abnormality came back at >0.05, showing
that the data was in line with the assumptions of parametric data, two step-wise
regressions were performed to test hypothesis A, (the more neurotic an individual
is, the more hours they will spend on Facebook); and hypothesis B, (the more a
person scores on external Locus of Control, the more hours they will spend on
Facebook).
The R-Squared Value showed that external Locus of Control accounted for
9.4% of the variance. The R-squared adjusted is 8.4%. The R-squared value also
showed that neuroticism accounted for 8% of the variance. The R-squared
adjusted is 7%.
The ANOVA showed that external Locus of Control as a predictor for hours
spent on Facebook is significant. F(1,91)=9.45,p=0.003. This therefore shows that

20. 20
external Locus of Control does predict the amount of hours a person spends on
Facebook.
The ANOVA showed that neuroticism as a predictor for hours spent on
Facebook is significant. F(1,91)=7.88,p=0.006. This therefore shows that
neuroticism does predict the amount of hours a person spends on Facebook.
Table two below shows the coefficients, beta values and the probability levels of
the amount of variance there is with each predictor variable, i.e. external Locus of
Control and neuroticism against the amount of time a person spends on Facebook.
Table two- Table of coefficients
Predictor Variables Beta Value Probability
Neuroticism 0.28 0.006
External Locus of
Control
0.35 0.003
This table shows that both neuroticism and external Locus of Control are significant
predictors for how long a person spends on Facebook, with neuroticism being
significant at 0.006%, and external Locus of Control being significant at 0.003%.
3.2 Hypothesis C: Neuroticism will predict why people anxious whilst not
logged onto Facebook.
To test hypothesis C a linear regressions was conducted. The R-Squared value
showed that neuroticism accounted for 0.6% of the variance. The R-Squared
adjusted is -0.4%.
The ANOVA showed that neuroticism as a predictor for feeling anxious
whilst not on Facebook is insignificant. F(1,108) =0.61, p=>0.05%. This therefore
shows that neuroticism is not a significant predictor for feelings of anxiety whilst not
logged on Facebook.

21. 21
Table three below shows the coefficients, beta values and the probability
levels of the amount of variance for neuroticism against feelings of anxiety whilst
not logged on Facebook.
Table three- Table of Coefficients
Predictor Variable Beta Value Probability
Neuroticism 0.08 0.44
This table shows that neuroticism is an insignificant predictor for feelings of anxiety
whilst not on Facebook, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted.
3.3 Hypothesis D: External Locus of Control will predict why people delete
their Facebook status if no one has liked or commented on it.
To test hypothesis D, a linear regression was performed. The R-Squared value
showed that external Locus of Control accounted for 0.4% of the variance. The R-
Squared adjusted is -0.5%.
The ANOVA showed that external Locus of Control as a predictor for
deleting a status if no one has liked or commented on it is insignificant.
F(1,107)=0.44, p=>0.05%. This therefore shows that external Locus of control is an
insignificant predictor for why people deleted their status if no one has liked or
commented on it.
Table four below shows the coefficients, beta values and the probability
levels of the amount of variance for external Locus of Control and deleting a status
if no one has commented or liked it.

22. 22
Table Four- Table of coefficients
Predictor Variable Beta value Probability
External Locus of
Control
-0.64 0.509
This table shows that external Locus of Control is an insignificant predictor for why
people delete their status if no one has liked or commented on it. Therefore the null
hypothesis is accepted.
3.4 Hypothesis E: the more neurotic an individual is, the more they will check
their newsfeed on Facebook and Hypothesis F: the more neurotic an
individual is, the more they will check to see if anyone has commented or
liked their Facebook status.
To test hypothesis E, (the more neurotic an individual is, the more they will check
their newsfeed on Facebook), and hypothesis F, (the more neurotic an individual
is, the more they will check to see if anyone has commented or liked their
Facebook status), a one-way ANOVA was used to test for preference differences.
The descriptive statistics of the six levels of the question; “what is the main reason
you go on Facebook?” where also looked at to see the most common reason the
participants went on Facebook. The descriptive statistics for the responses given
for this question are shown in table five below. One of the factors received no
responses, i.e. “To meet new people” therefore it has not been added to the tables.
Also, the response “other” was classed as missing data as it was not taken into
account in regards of the research questions.
Table Five- Descriptive statistics of reasons the participant’s went on Facebook, in relation to
their neuroticism scores.
Reasons No. Of
Participants
Mean Score for
Neuroticism
Standard
Deviation
For Neuroticism
Status Check 15 25.00 5.26

23. 23
View The News
Feed
45 19.67 7.47
Talk To Friends 43 20.19 9.13
Browse
Total
2
105
15.50 4.95
This table demonstrates that the higher a person’s score in neuroticism, the
more likely they are to check whether or not someone has liked or commented on
their status. The fifteen participants who stated that the main reason they chose to
go on Facebook was to check whether or not a person has liked or commented on
their status had a higher mean score for neuroticism levels than the participants
who chose a different reason.
A one-way ANOVA was then conducted to test for differences in neuroticism
scores in the four ‘primary use of Facebook groups’. The results show the
probability level was above the 0.05% level, F(8,104) =2.06,p=>0.05. Therefore
there are no significant differences in neuroticism scores between the types of
Facebook users.
(Note, all raw data is available in appendix seven).

24. 24
4.0 Discussion
In reference to research questions one, (how much does the personality trait
neuroticism, as defined by Costa and McCrae (1992), contribute to the amount of
hours actively spent on Facebook?) and two,( how much does external locus of
control, as defined my Rotter (1966), contribute to high levels to the amount of
hours actively spent on Facebook?), it is clear from the results that both
neuroticism and external Locus of Control contribute to the amount of hours spent
on Facebook, as both are significant predictors. Also, when correlated together,
neuroticism and external Locus of Control, are highly significantly positively
correlated, suggesting that a person who scores high on neuroticism is also likely
to have an external Locus of Control. However, the results suggest that it is a
person’s external Locus of Control which contributes more to the amount of hours
a person actively spends on Facebook per day. This could be due to people who
have an external Locus of Control enjoying the “illusory powers” that Clark and
Leung (2004) make reference to. These current results support Clark and Leung’s
(2004) suggestion of these “illusory powers”, because people who score a higher
score on external Locus of Control are more likely to spend more time on

25. 25
Facebook than people with a lower score, due to the affordances that Facebook
offers, i.e. a controllable environment.
This, in turn, then supports Iskender and Akin’s (2010) results that people
with a high score on external Locus of Control spend more time on the Internet
than people with a low external Locus of Control score. This could be due to the
affordances that any Internet based environment offers, i.e. an easily controllable,
accessible, safe space. Therefore, it makes plausible sense that people who
believe they have little control over what happens to them in their day-to-day lives
prefer being in an environment, such as Facebook, where they are able to
strategically think about and control what is said, via a-synchronous
communication and having the option to delete other people’s comments if they do
not agree with them. They are also able to control the amount of personal
information that can be viewed by others and what pictures of them are viewable to
people. With all of this people are able to control what aspects of their personality
they want other people to see, which would be very appealing for people who have
a high score on neuroticism as well as an external Locus of Control. This therefore
supports Koo’s (2009) results as to why people with an external Locus of Control
enjoy on-line spaces, this is because they are able to control the virtual
environment that they are in, therefore enjoy the control they have because they
believe that they have little control over their everyday lives.
Furthermore, neuroticism was also found to be a significant predictor and
does explain some of the variance for the amount of hours a person is actively on
Facebook. An explanation of this could be due to all the affordances of Facebook,
which have been previously outlined in the literature review. So then, in relation to
this, Seidman’s (2012) statement about people who score high in neuroticism feel

26. 26
the need to belong, and crave social connections but can feel awkward in real life
social situations (Anonymous, 2012). This then support the findings of this project
because people who score high on neuroticism may feel more adequate when
online, and therefore prefer to make these social connections and maintain these
connections via Facebook. Therefore due to this, it makes plausible sense that
people who score high on neuroticism are more likely to spend longer on
Facebook. Also, being able to control what information is viewable, because
people who score high on neuroticism are likely to experience anxiety (Costa and
McCrae, 1992), so being able to control what aspects of one’s personality can be
seen is another explanation of why people who score high on neuroticism spend
longer on Facebook. This is due to the fact that people who have a high score on
neuroticism tend to experience anger, anxiety and depression (Costa and McCrae,
1992), which can be considered as socially undesirable personality characteristics.
Therefore, being able to control which aspects of one’s personality is shown could
be beneficial for these people, making the social connections stronger between
them and their Facebook friends, i.e. only showing the positive aspects of their
personalities, for example, talkative, outgoing, etc… This suggestion, in light of this
project’s findings, supports Butt and Phillips (2008) conclusions that people who
score high on neuroticism tend to be cautious about what personal information they
share. Facebook offers people privacy settings, therefore they can show as much
or as little information about themselves as they like, and can show as much or as
little about their personalities as they like.
However, these results go against Skues, Williams and Wise (2012) findings
that people who score closer to emotional stability spend the same amount of time
on Facebook as people who score closer to neuroticism. One reason for this could

27. 27
be because all of Skues et al’s (2012) participants where from a Melbourne
metropolitan University, therefore demographic differences could be the reason the
findings differ as the vast majority of participants from the project lived within the
United Kingdom.
In regards to research question three (do high levels of the personality trait
neuroticism, as defined by Costa and McCrae (1992), increase levels of anxiety
when not on Facebook?), the results go against how Costa and McCrae (1992)
defined neuroticism, i.e. anger, anxiety and depressive feelings are common with
people who score high on neuroticism. This is because the results show that
neuroticism was an insignificant predictor for feelings of anxiety whilst not logged
onto Facebook and neuroticism levels. However, these results are more likely due
to the fact that people may not want to admit that they feel anxious whilst not on
Facebook, as this can be seen as an undesirable reaction, therefore less likely to
admit that they feel this way. Another reason could be that the results suggest that
people who score high on neuroticism are more likely to spend more time on
Facebook, therefore may not feel anxious as they could be on Facebook
throughout the day. This could be due to Reichelt’s (2007) theory of ambient
intimacy, i.e. constantly on Facebook as they fear that they miss something. Also,
Facebook is now accessible via mobile phone applications, therefore any
notifications, i.e. if anyone has posted on their wall, liked or commented their
status(s), or have uploaded a status, can be sent through to a person’s mobile
phone. Therefore, if an individual has this mobile phone application, they can
receive Facebook notifications as soon as something happens on Facebook.
Therefore this would reduce anxiety levels about what is happening on Facebook

28. 28
whilst they are not logged on, because in a way, they are constantly on Facebook,
even if they are not actively engaging with it.
In regards to research question four (do high levels of external locus of
control, as defined by Rotter (1966), increase the likelihood that an individual will
delete a status if no one has commented or liked it?), the results suggest that
external Locus of Control is an insignificant predictor for why people delete their
Facebook status(s) if no one has liked or commented on it. An explanation for this
could be that if an individual feels more in control of their environment, even if this
is a virtual environment, and they are already able to strategically think about what
they are going to write as their status, then this would help them create a more
internal Locus of Control for that environment, i.e. Facebook. For example, Clark
and Leung (2004) and Koo (2009) state that people who have an external Locus of
Control enjoy the control that the Internet offers them, and internal Locus of
Control, according to Rotter (1966), is the perception that people are in control of
their environment, therefore, people who have an external Locus of Control are
less likely to delete their status due to this. This could be because they may not
feel like they need approval of what they have said, due to them having an internal
Locus of Control whilst on Facebook, and having already thought about what they
are going to write.
In regards to research question five, (do people who have high levels of the
personality trait neuroticism, as defined by Costa and McCrae (1992), use the
newsfeed application of Facebook more than any other Facebook feature?), and
research question six, (do high levels of the personality trait neuroticism, as
defined by Costa and McCrae (1992), contribute to checking whether a person has
liked or commented on a status?), the results show that neuroticism is an

29. 29
insignificant predictor for any of the reasons given to go on Facebook, i.e. check to
see if somebody has liked or commented on their status; to look at the news feed;
to talk to friends and family and to browse other peoples profiles. However, the
results were only slightly above the significance level accepted in psychological
research. So, even though the results were insignificant, they go against Ross et al
(2009) findings that people who score high on the personality trait neuroticism are
more likely to use the news feed feature of Facebook. This is because the results
show that the mean for neuroticism scores where highest in the status checking
group of the participants. That being, the more neurotic a person is, the more likely
they are to check whether or not someone has liked or commented on their status.
However, this is an insignificant finding. The second reason, in relation to their
neuroticism scores, was to talk to their friends or family. This could be due to
Siedman’s (2012) suggestion that people who score high on neuroticism want to
make and maintain social connections, therefore communicate with their friends
and family via the Facebook instant messenger feature. This would help them
receive social contact and make the social connections between them and their
friends and family stronger, which according to Becker (1974), is a basic human
need.
However, the findings are insignificant. A reason for this could be shown
through Gosling et al’s (2011) findings, which are that people who score high in
neuroticism tend to view their own Facebook page more than anything else. This
could be because of Butt and Philips (2008) suggestion, that people who score
high on neuroticism are conscientious about what personal information is given
out. Therefore, people who score high on neuroticism could constantly check their
own page to make sure that no personal information is shown. This was not an

30. 30
optional response in the questionnaire the participants completed. Another reason
for this could be due to the mobile phone application for Facebook, therefore they
could be receiving Facebook notifications via their mobile phones. Therefore, they
do not need to check whether or not someone has liked or commented on their
status, or talk to their friends or family via Facebook instant messenger because
they receive this information, and reply to them through the Facebook application
which is connected to their mobile phones. Therefore, they are constantly up to
date with what is happening on Facebook.
A reliable aspect of this project is the measures that were used. This is
because both the Big Five Personality Questionnaire (Costa and McCrae, 1992)
and Rotter’s (1966) Scale of Locus of Control are both standardized tests,
therefore reliable and valid. However, the questionnaire in regards of the
participants Facebook use did not have a Cronbach Alpha performed due to time
constraints, making this a limitation to the project.
Another limitation of this research is the methodology used, i.e.
questionnaires. This being that people can lie to try and make them sound more
socially acceptable, one example of this is the question “do you feel anxious when
you are not logged on Facebook?” The participants may have not wanted to admit
that they felt anxious about Facebook when not logged on, so said that they did
not.
Yet another limitation of this research could be the sample design chosen,
i.e. opportunity sampling. The majority of participant’s filled out the questionnaires
online via a link that was posted on Facebook, therefore it was easily accessible for
them, however, in respect to the participants who took part in this study, they may

31. 31
share similar personality characteristics that make them more likely to participate,
i.e. talkative, outgoing. For the participants who filled out the hard copy
questionnaires, due to how the sample was gathered, i.e. going into the lectures,
they may have felt pressured into participating, even though they were given the
right to withdraw, and therefore they may not have paid full attention to the
questions.
Another limitation of this dissertation is due to the fact that Facebook is used
almost globally, i.e. Asia, Europe, the USA and Canada. However, the majority of
participants in this research where English residents, with four participants living
outside of the United Kingdom. This means that these results only show how
people in this culture interact with Facebook. The results may show different
conclusions in other countries; therefore this research can be seen as culturally
bias.
Interestingly, even though the sample size was small, the questionnaire about
Facebook use also had a section for people who deactivated Facebook, these
people tended to score higher on the neuroticism scale. These results were not
statistically analysed. For the reasons why they deactivated Facebook, a few
stated it was too stressful for them as they were constantly checking their profile
and their newsfeeds. Another participant stated they preferred another social
networking site, and two more claimed that it caused arguments for them.
Therefore, do theses participants share another personality traits other than similar
scores in the neuroticism scale? Could it be that due to them scoring high on
neuroticism, that Facebook became too stressful for them? This would be
interesting for any further research being conducted in this area. Another
suggestion for further research could be to see whether or not these findings are

32. 32
consistent in other cultures, i.e. countries other than England. This would then help
make these findings culturally valid. Another interesting research topic could be
about why people have a Facebook application on their mobile phones, and
whether or not certain personality traits have a moderating effect on this. Yet
another research topic could be on whether or not people with an external Locus of
Control in their real life, actually have an internal Locus of Control whilst in an on-
line environment.
Reference List
Alexander, A. (2012). Facebook User Statistics [Infographic]. In Technology,
Tutorials, Social Media and Infographics. Retrieved March 21, 2013, from
http://ansonalex.com/infographics/facebook-user-statistics-2012-infographic/
Anonymous. (2012). What is Neuroticism? What Causes Neurosis? In Medical
News Today. Retrieved March 21, 2013, from
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/246608.php
Becker, G .S. (1974). A Theory of Social Interactions. Journal of Political
Economy, 82(6), 1063-1093.
Butt, S. & Phillips, J.G. (2008). Personality and self-reported mobile phone use.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(2), 346-360.
Clark, K., & Leung, L. (2004). Shyness and Locus of Control as predictors of
internet addiction and internet use. CyberPsychology and Behaviour, 7(5), 559-
570.
DeYoung,C .G., Hirsh,J. B., Shane,M.S.,Papademetris,X.,Rajeevan ,N. & Gray,J
.R. (2010). Testing Predictions From Personality Neuorscience: Brain Structure
and The Big Five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820-828.
Fach, M.(2012). Stats on Facebook 2012 [Infrographics]. In Search Engine
Journal. Retrieved March 21, 2013 from http://www.searchenginejournal.com/stats-
on-facebook-2012-infographic/40301/
Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N. & Gaddis, S. (2011).
Manifestations of Personality in Online Social Networks: Self-Reported Facebook-
Related Behaviours and Observable Profile Information. Cyberpsychology,
Behaviour, And Social Networking, 14 (9), 483-488.

33. 33
Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and
impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (2), 141-154.
Hills,.P & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness.
Personality and Individual Differences, 31 (8), 1357-1364.
Iskender , M. & Akin, A. (2010). Social self-efficacy, academic locus of control, and
internet addiction. Computers & Education, 54 (4), 1101-1106.
Johnstone, M.L., Todd, S. & Chau, A. P. H. (2009). Facebook: Making Social
Connections. Advances in Consumer Research, 3, 234-237.
Koo, D, M. (2009). The moderating role of Locus of Control on the links between
experiential motives and intention to playing online games. Computers in human
behaviour, 25 (2), 466-474.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus Of Control, Current Trends in Theory and Research
(2nd ed.).London. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McCrea, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr.(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-r) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Myers, J. (n.d).What is External Locus of Control? In wiseGEEK. Retrieved March
21, 2013, from http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-an-external-locus-of-control.htm
Olanoff, D. (2012). Facebook Announces Monthly Active Users Were At 1.01
Billion As Of September 30th, An Increase Of 26% Year-Over-Year. In TechCrunch.
Retrieved March 21, 2013, from http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/23/facebook-
announces-monthly-active-users-were-at-1-01-billion-as-of-september-
30th/#comment-box
Reichelt, L. (2007). Ambient Intimacy. In disambiguity. Retrieved March 21, 2013,
from http://www.disambiguity.com/ambient-intimacy/
Ross, C., Orr, E., Sisic, M., & Arseneault, J,M., Simmering, M, G., & Orr, R, R.
(2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 25,578-586.
Rotter, J, B.(1966). Generalised expectancies for internal versus external locus of
control of reinforcement. Psychology Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1-28.
Seidman, G. (2012). Self-presenation and belonging on Facebook: How
personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 54(3), 402-407.
Skues, J, L., Williams, B. & Wise, L. (2012). The effects of personality traits, self-
esteem, loneliness, and narcissism on Facebook use among university students.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 28 (6), 2414-2419.
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication
experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The
Internet and Higher Education, 6 (1), 77-90.

34. 34
Appendix One
Ethics Form.

35. 35
Appendix Two- Turn it in Report

36. 36
Appendix three- The Big Five Personality
Questionnaire

37. 37
Appendix four- Locus of Control Scale

38. 38
Appendix Five- Facebook use questionnaire

39. 39
Appendix Six- SPSS output