Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Student class standing, Facebook use, and academic performance

Reynol Junco
School of Education and Human Computer Interaction Program, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although some research has shown a negative relation between Facebook use and academic performance, more
Received 22 February 2013 recent research suggests that this relation is likely mitigated by multitasking. This study examined the time stu-
Received in revised form 23 October 2014 dents at different class ranks spent on Facebook, the time they spent multitasking with Facebook, as well as the
Accepted 6 November 2014
activities they engaged in on the site (N = 1649). The results showed that seniors spent significantly less time on
Available online xxxx
Facebook and spent significantly less time multitasking with Facebook than students at other class ranks. Time
Keywords:
spent on Facebook was significantly negatively predictive of GPA for freshmen but not for other students. Multi-
Facebook tasking with Facebook was significantly negatively predictive of GPA for freshmen, sophomores, and juniors but
Multitasking not for seniors. The results are discussed in relation to freshmen transition tasks and ideas for future research are
Social and academic integration provided.
Academic performance © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Postsecondary education

Unquestionably, Facebook is the most popular social networking site be used as environments that support learning but also as places
(SNS) in the both the United States and Europe (Ellison, Steinfield, & where youth learn as well as environments that can help youth be
Lampe, 2007; Hampton, Sessions Goulet, Rainie, & Purcell, 2011; more civically and academically engaged.
Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009; Stutzman, 2006). Of all social Facebook has been the most researched platform for teaching and
networking site users, 92% use Facebook (Hampton et al., 2011) while learning (Manca & Ranieri, 2013; Tess, 2013). In their review, Manca
71% of all adult Internet users use Facebook (Pew Research Internet and Ranieri (2013) discovered 23 empirical studies of using
Project, 2014). While Facebook is popular with all Internet users, it is Facebook as a learning environment. Manca and Ranieri (2013) iden-
even more so with college students. Research shows that between tified five main educational uses of Facebook: 1) Support class
67% and 75% of college-aged adults used SNS (Jones & Fox, 2009; discussions and helping students engage in collaborative learning;
Lenhart, 2009; Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). The last time 2) Developing content; 3) Sharing educational resources; 4) Deliver-
they asked the question in their yearly study, the EDUCAUSE Center ing content to expose students to extra-curricular resources; and
for Applied Research (ECAR) found that 90% of college students used 5) To support self-managed learning. They note that only four
Facebook with a majority (58%) using it several times a day studies have examined how Facebook relates to learning outcomes
(Dahlstrom, de Boor, Grunwald, & Vockley, 2011). In large sample stud- and found positive impacts on learning outcomes such as improve-
ies conducted at single institutions, 92% of students reported using ment in English writing skills, knowledge, and vocabulary (Manca
Facebook and spending an average of over one hour and forty minutes & Ranieri, 2013). Robelia, Greenhow, and Burton (2011) examined
a day on the site (Junco, 2012a,b). a Facebook application designed to raise awareness about climate
Facebook is also the most popular social media website used by change. They found that users of the app reported above average
higher education faculty for personal purposes. Seaman & Tinti-Kane knowledge of climate change science and reported increased pro-
(2013) found that 57% of faculty members reported visiting Facebook environmental behaviors because of peer role modeling on the site
“at least monthly.” They also found that 8.4% of faculty reported using (Robelia et al., 2011).
Facebook for teaching purposes, much more than Twitter but less than Facebook has been used as a replacement for learning and course
blogs and wikis, podcasts, and LinkedIn. Some scholars have suggested management system (LCMS) discussion boards. For instance, Hurt
that using Facebook for teaching and learning can promote active learn- et al. (2012) examined student outcomes from and preferences for
ing, student engagement, support knowledge construction, and be used Facebook use. They assigned students to either use Facebook or the
as a communication tool congruent with the preferences of today’s learning management system (LMS) in two courses. They found that
students (Junco, 2012b; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010; Selwyn, 2010). the Facebook group reported better educational outcomes than the
Greenhow (2011) suggests that social network sites like Facebook can LMS group. They also found that 43% of the LMS users said they would
have contributed more if they had used Facebook; while only 12% of
Facebook users said they would have participated more with a switch
E-mail address: [email protected]. to the LMS. Hollyhead, Edwards, and Holt (2012) found that students

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.001
0193-3973/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29 19

preferred to create their own Facebook groups when no official-course be differences in how students use Facebook and how this relates to
related ones were available instead of using the LMS. Schroeder and academic outcomes, a factor examined in only one of the studies
Greenbowe (2009) found that while only 41% of a Chemistry class (Junco, 2012a).
joined the course Facebook group, the number of posts on Facebook
were 400% greater than on the course management system. Further- Relationship building and maintenance
more, they reported that postings on the Facebook group “raised more As students transition into and move through college, they have to
complex topics and generated more detailed replies” than postings on develop new skills in order to be successful (Upcraft, Gardner,
the CMS (Schroeder & Greenbowe, 2009). Barefoot, & Associates, 2005). Some of these skills are academic such
Because of its popularity with students, its popularity with faculty, as learning how to engage in progressively more difficult levels of
and its potential to support teaching and learning, it is important to un- academic work. For instance, as first year students transition to college,
derstand the relation between Facebook use and student learning. Re- they need to learn how to manage their time so that they spend an
searchers have examined how Facebook is related to various aspects appropriate amount of time studying for their courses (Upcraft et al.,
of the college student experience including engagement (Junco, 2005). Social skills are equally important for student success. An impor-
2012b), multitasking (Junco, 2012c; Junco & Cotten, 2012), political ac- tant social task for new college students is the building and mainte-
tivity (Vitak et al., 2011), life satisfaction, social trust, civic engagement, nance of friendships at their new institution (Pascarella & Terenzini,
and political participation (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009), development 2005; Tinto, 1993; Upcraft et al., 2005).
of identity and peer relationships (Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, Students use Facebook to maintain their former network of high
2009), and relationship building and maintenance (Ellison, Steinfield, school friends and also to build and sustain bonds with new friends
& Lampe, 2011; Ellison et al., 2007; Valenzuela et al., 2009). Although on their campuses (Ellison et al., 2007, 2011; Junco & Mastrodicasa,
research has been conducted on other facets of the student experience, 2007). They use Facebook to initiate and maintain friendships and to
little research exists examining how Facebook relates to student learn- seek out new information about those in their social circle (Ellison
ing (Aydin, 2012; Junco, 2012a; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Kolek & et al., 2011). The practice of social information seeking is related to stu-
Saunders, 2008; Manca & Ranieri, 2013; Pasek, More, & Hargittai, dent’s perceived levels of social capital (the resources obtained from
2009; Tess, 2013). their relationships and interactions such as emotional support; Ellison
et al., 2011). Social capital is related to improved self-esteem, fewer psy-
Facebook use and educational outcomes chological and behavioral problems, and improved quality of life
(McPherson et al., 2014). Furthermore, increased social capital can
Academic performance help students feel more of a connection to their institution, which is re-
In the broadest sense, the desired outcomes of a college education lated to more positive educational outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini,
include subject area content achievement, general education knowl- 2005).
edge, the acquisition of skills such as critical thinking, moral develop- Facebook use can help a student connect with a new peer group as
ment, development of civic engagement skills, and psychological well as maintain relationships with their high school friends in order
maturation (Hersh, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). However, to mitigate feelings of homesickness thereby allowing them to develop
research on college outcomes focuses alomost exclusively on academic new connections while keeping the support of their old ones. Such
performance and persistence (Robbins et al., 2004). Academic perfor- interactions are important for student success: students who interact a
mance is typically measured by cumulative GPA which is connected to great deal with their peers, who have broad social ties and reciprocated
class and subject matter achievement (Robbins et al., 2004). In addition relationships, and who have strong bonds in their social network
to being the most common measure of academic performance in the are more likely to persist to graduation (Eckles & Stradley, 2011;
literature on college outcomes, GPA is the sole measure of academic Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Thomas, 2000). Indeed, Yu, Tian, Vogel,
performance used in the literature on Facebook (Junco, 2012a; and Kwok (2010) showed that Facebook use was directly related to de-
Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Kolek & Saunders, 2008; Pasek et al., veloping relationships, which mediated the association between
2009). Facebook use and self-esteem, satisfaction with university life, and the
Research on the relation between Facebook use and academic per- student’s evaluation of their own performance.
formance has yielded mixed results. Pasek et al. (2009) found there
was no relation between Facebook use and grades. Kolek and Multitasking and academic outcomes
Saunders (2008) found that there were no differences in overall grade
point average (GPA) between users and non-users of Facebook. While Facebook use can help students develop new connections in
Kirschner and Karpinski (2010), on the other hand, found that Facebook their transition to college, researchers have found that students are
users reported a lower mean GPA than non-users; additionally, likely to multitask while using the platform (Junco & Cotten, 2011,
Facebook users reported studying fewer hours per week than non- 2012). For this paper, multitasking is defined as “consumption of more
users (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010). Lastly, Junco (2012a) found that than one item or stream of content at the same time” and is described
number of logins and time spent on Facebook were related to lower in cognitive science research as task switching (Ophir, Nass, &
overall GPA; however, sharing links and checking to see what friends Wagner, 2009, p. 15,583; Tombu et al., 2011). Today’s college students
are up to were positively related to GPA. Junco (2012a) also found multitask more than any other generation of students (Carrier,
that there was a negative relation between time spent on Facebook Cheever, Rosen, Benitez, & Chang, 2009; Rosen, Carrier, & Cheever,
and time spent preparing for class. 2013; Rosen, Lim, Carrier, & Cheever, 2011). Carrier et al. (2009)
There are a number of possible reasons for the disparate findings examined the multitasking behaviors of different generations and
among studies. The studies may have been limited by the measures found that those in the “Net Generation” (born after 1978) multitasked
used to evaluate Facebook use and/or grades. These studies may have significantly more and reported that multitasking was “easier” than
also been limited due to their sampling designs (Junco, 2012a). For older generations. The market firm Wakefield Research surveyed 500
instance, Facebook use was measured in different ways such as through college students and found that 73% said they were not able to study
a measure of time spent on the site (Junco, 2012a) or by splitting users without some form of technology and 38% reported that they couldn’t
and non-users (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010). Additionally, grades were go more than 10 minutes without checking an electronic device such
measured either through self-report (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; as their phone or laptop (Kessler, 2011).
Kolek & Saunders, 2008; Pasek et al., 2009) or through data collected While today’s students multitask a great deal, much research has
from the university registrar (Junco, 2012a). Furthermore, there may shown the detrimental effects of multitasking on human information
20 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29

processing. In 1967, Welford introduced the concept of a “cognitive text messages sent by the researchers. Students were split into three
bottleneck” which is a limitation in decision-making seen when trying groups based on frequency of received messages: a low group (that
to perform two tasks that slows down the second task. For instance, received 0–7 messages), a moderate group (8–15 messages), and a
trying to attend to more than one task at a time “clogs” up the bottle- high group (16 or more messages). Immediately after the session,
neck by overloading the capacity of the human information processing students were given an information posttest. The high group performed
system (Koch, Lawo, Fels, & Vorländer, 2011; Marois & Ivanoff, 2005; worse by one letter grade than the low group; however, there was no
Strayer & Drews, 2004; Tombu et al., 2011; Wood & Cowan, 1995). difference in posttest scores between the moderate group and the two
Since Welford (1967) described the cognitive bottleneck, numerous other groups. The results of the Junco (2012c), Junco and Cotten
studies have supported its existence. In more recent times, Koch et al. (2012), Wood et al. (2012), and Rosen et al. (2011) studies all suggest
(2011) found that there were significant performance costs in accuracy that some ways that technologies are used and some types of technolo-
and reaction time when switching between two auditory stimuli. gies may not be as detrimental to academic performance as suggested
Additionally, Tombu et al. (2011) found that participants responded by previous research in information processing.
more slowly and had poorer accuracy on dual task trials than on single The “cognitive bottleneck” theory has been supported by decades of
task trials. Therefore, there are real-world consequences associated research on information processing (Welford, 1967). Specifically,
with a reduced ability for information processing which include a researchers such as Koch et al. (2011), Marois and Ivanoff (2005),
lessened awareness of stimuli, disruption of decision-making, and Strayer and Drews (2004), Tombu et al. (2011), and Wood and Cowan
behavioral impairment on one or more tasks. (1995) have all found that attempting to focus on more than one task
The real-world consequences of multitasking can affect educational at the same time interferes with awareness, memory, decision-making,
outcomes (Fried, 2008; Junco, 2012a,c; Junco & Cotten, 2011, 2012; and task performance. If their findings were congruent with previous
Karpinski, Kirschner, Ozer, Mellott, & Ochwo, 2012; Rosen et al., 2011; research, Junco (2012c), Junco and Cotten (2012), Wood et al. (2012),
Wood et al., 2012). The connection between multitasking and educa- and Rosen et al. (2011) would have discovered performance deficits
tional outcomes is especially important given the high rates of technol- across all technologies. Certainly, the detrimental performance effect of
ogy use by today’s college students as well as university “laptop focusing on multiple tasks should extend to broader measures of learn-
initiatives” that encourage or require students to own a laptop comput- ing outcomes.
er (Carrier et al., 2009; Weaver & Nilson, 2005). Having a laptop com- One possibility for this discrepancy is the load that certain technolo-
puter in class might increase the possibility that students will engage gies place on working memory. Fockert (2013) reviewed recent research
in multitasking, leading to reduced academic performance. Indeed, on load theory, which suggests that a person’s ability to effectively multi-
research has shown that unstructured use of laptops in class (i.e., not task depends on working memory resources. In other words, when
incorporating them into the learning process) is related to performing working memory is taxed, a person is more likely to be distracted by
more off-task activities such as checking email and playing games additional stimuli. Fockert (2013) states “there is much evidence that
(Kay & Lauricella, 2011). Presumably, these off-task activities would processing of task-irrelevant information is enhanced when load on a
lead to more negative educational outcomes. In fact, Fried (2008) concurrent task of working memory is high, implying that working
found that laptop use was negatively related to multiple learning memory plays a role in the active control against distractor interference.”
outcomes such as course grades, how much attention students reported (p. 5). Load theory may explain the discrepancies in research conducted
paying to lectures, reported clarity of lectures, and understanding of by Junco (2012c), Junco and Cotten (2012), Wood et al. (2012), and
course material. Rosen et al. (2011). Perhaps social technologies like Facebook and text
Research has examined how students are using technology during messaging require more working memory resources than do other
study periods and class times. Junco and Cotten (2011) found that stu- technologies like emailing. Furthermore, there may be a threshold level
dents who reported studying while IMing were more likely to report at which working memory is taxed to the point that learning detriments
that IM interfered with their completion of their schoolwork (Junco & are seen, such that as found in the Rosen et al. (2011) study.
Cotten, 2011). In a similar, yet more recent study, Junco and Cotten
(2012) surveyed another large sample of students about how they
used technology while studying; they also collected GPA data directly Purpose of the study and research questions
from university records. Junco and Cotten (2012) found that there was
a negative relation between student use of Facebook and texting while Research suggests there are differences in how well students can
studying and overall GPA (Junco & Cotten, 2011). However, they regulate their Facebook usage (Rouis, Limayem, & Salehi-Sangari,
found that other activities such as emailing, searching for content not 2011) and their multitasking while using Facebook (Karpinski
related to courses, talking on the phone, and instant messaging were et al., 2012). Furthermore, research suggests that in order to be
not related to GPA, even though emailing and searching were conducted successful, first year college students must effectively learn to
at rates equal to Facebook use and at much lower rates than text balance academic and social demands in their new academic envi-
messaging (Junco & Cotten, 2011). In a related study, Junco (2012c) ronment (Tinto, 1993; Upcraft et al., 2005). Specifically, incoming
found that even though emailing and searching were conducted at students must adjust to college-level work by increasing the quality
rates equal to using Facebook, only Facebooking and text messaging and quantity of their self-directed academic study while at the same
during class were negatively related to semester GPA while emailing time engaging with a new social support system (Tinto, 1993;
and searching during class were not. These latter studies suggest that Upcraft et al., 2005).
there is something unique about technologies like Facebook and text While some research has found a negative relation between Facebook
messaging that more negatively impacts educational outcomes when use and academic performance, newer research has revealed that the re-
using them during the learning process. lation is possibly mitigated by multitasking (Karpinski et al., 2012). There-
Two recent studies have used experimental designs to test the fore, it is hypothesized that time spent on Facebook while trying to do
effects of multitasking on learning. A study by Wood et al. (2012) schoolwork will be negatively related to academic performance. Given
assigned students to one of four experimental conditions that had stu- that students have to learn to balance social and academic demands as
dents use Facebook, text messaging, IM, or email during a 20-minute they move from their first-year through their senior year in order to be
simulated lecture and three control conditions. Students who used successful, it is hypothesized that the relation between Facebook use
Facebook scored significantly lower on tests of lecture material than and academic performance will be different based on the student’s class
those who only took notes using paper and pencil. Rosen et al. (2011) standing (Tinto, 1993; Upcraft et al., 2005). Specifically, since first year
had students watch a 30-minute lecture video while responding to students are focused on important friendship building and maintenance
 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29 21

tasks, they might be less able to regulate their Facebook use to the detri- Two variables were created from the Facebook use questions: a
ment of their academic performance. measure of how much time students spent multitasking (doing school-
The research questions examined for the current study are: work at the same time as using Facebook) and a measure of how much
non-multitasking time students spent on Facebook. The multitasking
Question 1: How much time do students from different class standings variable was created by multiplying the percentage estimate of frequen-
spend using Facebook while doing schoolwork and how much time do cy of multitasking by overall time spent using Facebook. For instance, if
they spend on Facebook while they are not doing schoolwork? a student reported doing schoolwork 50% of the time that they used
Facebook and reported spending 100 minutes on the site overall, the
value of the multitasking variable would be 50. The non-multitasking
Question 2: Which Facebook activities do students engage in as a
variable was calculated by subtracting the multitasking variable from
function of class standing?
overall time spent using Facebook.
Students were asked to approximate the frequency with which they
Question 3: Do the relation between using Facebook while doing school- participated in various activities when they were on Facebook. The 14-
work and GPA and using Facebook while not doing schoolwork and GPA item list (see Appendix) of Facebook activities that was developed by
differ as a function of class standing? Junco (2012b) was used for this study. Junco (2012b) developed the
list by asking his Facebook network to identify activities they engage in
on the site. There were 39 submissions, which Junco (2012b) compiled
into a non-overlapping list of 14 items. The 14 items were shared with
Methods
two focus groups of undergraduate students for input and were revised
based on this input. Lastly, the list of 14 items was posted on Facebook
Participants
for further comments and a final revision. In the survey, students were
asked: “How frequently do you perform the following activities when
All students surveyed were U.S. residents admitted through the
you are on Facebook? (Note: Choosing “Very Frequently” means that
regular admissions process at a 4-year, public, primarily residential
about 100% of the time that you log on to Facebook, you perform that
institution in the Northeastern United States (N = 3866). The students
activity).” Facebook activity items were coded using a five-point Likert
were sent a link to a survey hosted on SurveyMonkey.com, a survey-
scale ranging from Very Frequently (close to 100% of the time) to Never.
hosting website, through their university-sponsored email accounts.
For this study, Never was coded as 1; Rarely (25%) as 2; Sometimes
For the students who did not participate immediately, two additional
(50%) as 3; Somewhat Frequently (75%) as 4; and Very 430 Frequently
reminders were sent, one week apart. Participants were offered a
(close to 100% of the time) as 5.
chance to enter a drawing to win one of 90 $10 Amazon.com gift
Overall time spent studying was included in the analyses to control
cards as incentive. A total of 1839 surveys were submitted for an overall
for the possibility that multitasking and time spent studying were relat-
response rate of 48%. The data were downloaded as an SPSS file directly
ed. For instance, it’s possible that students who multitask more increase
from SurveyMonkey, screened for anomalies and analyzed using SPSS
their amount of time studying in order to compensate. To evaluate time
Statistics Version 19. Initial screening showed that 65 survey responses
spent studying, students were asked: “About how many hours do you
were unusable because they were not completed; therefore, the final
spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following?” with a
sample size was 1774.
prompt for “preparing for class.” Hours and minutes for all variables
The overall sample was split into four subsamples corresponding to
were converted to minutes for this study.
class standing for the purpose of these analyses. The university uses
Internet skills were measured using a 27-item scale developed by
earned number of credits to categorize students into four categories.
Hargittai (2005). The original scale was created based on research that
Credits are earned by successful completion of courses and a typical
compared people’s actual online abilities with their responses to survey
course meets three hours per week and earns the student three credits.
questions about knowledge of Internet activities (Hargittai, 2005;
Students who are enrolled for the first time at a higher education insti-
Hargittai & Hsieh, 2012). Students were asked “How familiar are you
tution and have earned less than 30.0 credits are designated freshmen.
with the following computer and Internet-related items?” with prompts
Students who earned between 30.0 and 59.5 credits are designated
for 27 items focusing on Internet activities and technologies. Internet
sophomores. Students earning between 60.0 and 89.5 credits are desig-
skills items were coded using a five-point Likert scale ranging from Full
nated juniors. Lastly, students earning 90 or more credits are designated
to None. For this study, None was coded as 1; Little was coded as 2;
seniors.
Some was coded as 3; Good was coded as 4; and Full was coded as 5.
The Internet skills items have been used in a number of studies and
Instrument/measures have shown excellent internal consistency across datasets with
Cronbach’s αs above .90 (Hargittai & Hsieh, 2012). Indeed, data from
Key independent variables the current study found the Internet skills items to exhibit excellent in-
The survey questions can be found in the Appendix. Facebook usage ternal consistency with a Cronbach’s α of .96.
was evaluated with two survey questions that have been used in a Since high school GPA (HSGPA) is one of the consistently strongest
number of previous studies to measure frequency of use and multitask- predictors of overall college GPA, it was used as a control variable in
ing (Junco, 2012a,b,c, 2013a; Junco & Cotten, 2011, 2012). First, students these analyses (DeBerard, Speilmans, & Julka, 2004; Geiser & Santelices,
were asked “On average, about how much time per day do you spend on 2007; Williford, 2009). In this study, HSGPA was included in the analyses
the following activities?” with a prompt for Facebook. Students used a in order to parse out variance in the predictors attributable to pre-
pull-down menu to select the hours and minutes spent using Facebook. existing differences in academic ability and to also place the other
Second, frequency of multitasking with Facebook was evaluated by predictors in context. Academic ability might be a student background
asking students “How often do you do schoolwork at the same time characteristic related to multitasking frequency and to negative
that you are doing the following activities?” with a prompt for Facebook. outcomes of multitasking (Junco & Cotten, 2011). For example, students
The possible choices for multitasking frequencies were worded: Very with lower academic ability might be more susceptible to the negative
Frequently (close to 100% of the time); Somewhat Frequently (75%); Some- academic effects of multitasking. Students gave researchers permission
times (50%); Rarely (25%); and Never. For the analyses, these items were to obtain their actual HSGPA from their records, which were submitted
coded using a five-point Likert scale with Never coded as 1 and Very Fre- to the university during the admissions process. High school grades
quently (close to 100% of the time) coded as 5. were measured on a 4.0 scale ranging from 0 for ‘F’ to 4.0 for ‘A’.
22 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29

Fig. 1. Results of ANOVAs and Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons examining differences in time spent on Facebook, time spent on Facebook while doing schoolwork, and the frequency with
which students engaged in Facebook activities by class standing. Only variables with significant differences are shown. Means that do not share subscripts differ at p b .05 in the Tukey
honestly significant difference comparison. Frequency units are: 5 = “Very Frequently (close to 100% of the time); 4 = “Somewhat Frequently (75%)”; 3 = “Sometimes (50%)”; 2 = “Rare-
ly (25%)”; and 1 = “Never”. Error bars are standard errors of the means.
 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29 23

engaging in the 14 Facebook activities. The blocks were selected for

the following reasons: demographic variables were included in
their own block because previous research has found the effect of
gender, socioeconomic status and/or ethnicity in relation to technol-
ogy use is significant (Cooper & Weaver, 2003; DiMaggio, Hargittai,
Celeste, & Shafer, 2004; Junco, 2013b; Junco, Merson, & Salter,
2010). High school GPA was included as both a control variable and
in order to compare other predictors’ relative impact on the depen-
dent variables. Overall time spent preparing for class was included to
control for the possibility that time spent multitasking was related to
time spent studying. Internet skills were included because skills play
an important role in how technologies are used and presumably,
those with lower levels of Internet skills may use the Internet less and
be more prone to using it in problematic ways when they do
(Hargittai & Hsieh, 2012; Junco, 2013b; Junco & Cotten, 2011). Categor-
ical variables were dummy-coded for purposes of the regression analy-
ses. The reference categories for these variables were: female, Latino
students and “some college” for highest parental education.
Analyses were conducted to test whether the data met the
assumptions of hierarchical linear regression. To test for homosce-
dasticity, collinearity and important outliers, collinearity diagnostics
and examinations of residuals were performed. The curve estimation
procedure of SPSS was used to plot both linear and quadratic
functions to examine linearity and found that all variables met the
requirements of linearity needed for a hierarchical blocked linear
regression. Examination of model fit using the curve estimation
procedure indicated there were a number of outliers, which were
removed from subsequent analyses. In total, 125 outliers were
removed because of extreme scores on one of the variables of inter-
Fig. 1 (continued). est (high school GPA, reported time spent preparing for class,
frequency of Facebook use, etc.) thus bringing the total sample size
to 1649 students. Collinearity diagnostics found that the indepen-
Parental education was used as a proxy for socioeconomic status by dent variables were not highly correlated, with all tolerance coeffi-
asking students “What is the highest level of formal education obtained cients being greater than 0.20. Examination of the residual plots
by your parents?” with prompts for “Parent/Guardian 1” and “Parent/ show that variance of residual error was constant across all values
Guardian 2.” Parental education items were coded using a five-point of independents, indicating homoscedasticity.
Likert scale ranging from Advanced graduate to Less than high school de-
gree. For this study, Less than high school degree was coded as 1; High Results
school degree was coded as 2; Some college was coded as 3; College grad-
uate (for example: B.A., B.S., B.S.E) was coded as 4; and Advanced graduate Descriptive statistics
(for example: master’s, professional, J.D., M.B.A, Ph.D., M.D., Ed.D.) was
coded as 5. The higher of the two parental education levels was used Sixty-four percent of those who took the survey were female. The
for these analyses. Students were also asked to select their gender mean age of the sample was 21, with a standard deviation of 4. The
(male/female) and their ethnicity (African American, Asian American, age of participants ranged from 17–56, though 88% were between
Hispanic/Latino, Native American, White/Caucasian, or Other). 18 and 22 years old. Twenty-eight percent of students in the sample
were freshmen, 25% were sophomores, 22% were juniors and 26%
were seniors. Highest educational level attained by either parent
Outcome measure was as follows: 28% had a high school degree or less, 25%
Students gave the researcher permission to access their academic completed some college, 34% were college graduates and 13% had a
records to obtain their actual overall grade point averages (GPAs). Over- graduate degree. In terms of race and ethnicity, the sample was
all GPAs were measured on a 4.0 scale ranging from 0 for ‘F’ to 4.0 for ‘A’. overwhelmingly Caucasian, with 91% of students listing that as
their race. Additionally, 4% of the sample was African American, 2%
Analyses were Latino, 1% were Asian American, and 2% identified as “other”
(Native Americans were included in “other” because there were
Descriptive statistics were run to illustrate the demographic only three in the sample). The gender, race, and ethnic breakdown
characteristics of the sample and to describe Facebook use. Analyses of the sample was similar to that of the overall university population,
of Variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference excepting a slight overrepresentation of women in this sample. The
(HSD) post-hoc tests were used to evaluate differences in time average HSGPA in the sample was 3.24 (SD 0.47) and the average
spent on Facebook between students at different class ranks. To overall college GPA was 2.96 (SD 0.65). Lastly, students spent an
answer research question 3, separate hierarchical (blocked) linear average of 706 minutes (SD 508) per week preparing for class.
regression analyses were conducted within each class rank to deter-
mine which Facebook use variables predicted overall college GPA. ANOVAs
The blocks, in order, were: demographic variables (gender, ethnicity
and highest parental education level), high school GPA and overall Fig. 1 shows the results of ANOVAs and Tukey’s post-hoc compari-
time spent preparing for class, Internet skills, multitasking sons examining differences in time spent on Facebook, time spent on
and non-multitasking time spent on Facebook, and frequency of Facebook while doing schoolwork, and the frequency with which
24 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29

students engaged in Facebook activities by class standing. All of the equally as strong of a predictor as time spent preparing for class
significant omnibus ANOVAs are presented in Fig. 1. (just in the opposite direction).
These results show that seniors spent significantly less time on
Facebook than students at other class ranks and they spent less time Discussion
using Facebook while doing schoolwork than freshmen and sopho-
mores. Seniors were also less likely to post status updates, comment Research questions
on content, use Facebook chat, tag photos, view videos, and tag videos
than freshmen. Generally, the pattern of results shows that students
interact less with Facebook as they progress in class standing. Question 1: How much time do students from different class standings
spend using Facebook while doing schoolwork and how much time do
Hierarchical linear regression analyses they spend on Facebook while they are not doing schoolwork?

Tables 1–4 show the results of hierarchical linear regressions exam- As expressed in Fig. 1, freshmen spent 48 minutes per day, soph-
ining how demographic variables, HSGPA, Internet skill, Facebook use omores spent 46 minutes per day, juniors spent 41 minutes per day,
and Facebook multitasking are related to the overall GPA of freshmen, and seniors spent 31 minutes per day using Facebook while not
sophomores, juniors, and seniors. These tables show that both time doing schoolwork. Furthermore, the results showed that seniors
spent on Facebook and multitasking with Facebook were significantly spent significantly less time on Facebook than students from other
negatively predictive of GPA for freshmen. Furthermore, only multitask- class ranks.
ing with Facebook was significantly negatively predictive of GPA for When examining time spent using Facebook while doing school-
sophomores and juniors but not for seniors. Checking up on friends work, freshmen spent 64 minutes per day, sophomores spent 70 minutes
was positively predictive of GPA for freshmen, but not for students at per day, juniors spent 57 minutes per day, and seniors spent 49 minutes
the other class ranks. Posting status updates was negatively predictive per day (see Fig. 1). The ANOVA analyses showed that seniors spent
of GPA for sophomores. Posting photos was positively predictive of significantly less time using Facebook while doing schoolwork than
GPA for juniors, while tagging photos was negatively predictive. freshmen and sophomores.
Sending private messages and creating and/or RSVPing to events was
positively predictive of GPA for seniors while chatting on Facebook Question 2: Which Facebook activities do students engage in as a function
chat and watching videos were negatively predictive. of class standing?
For all students, High School GPA and time spent preparing for
class were strong positive predictor of GPA. For freshmen, checking As Fig. 1 shows, seniors were less likely to post status updates than
up on friends on Facebook was a stronger positive predictor of GPA freshmen and sophomores, comment on content less than the other
than time spent preparing for class. For juniors, posting photos on class ranks, use Facebook chat less than freshmen and sophomores,
Facebook was a much stronger positive predictor of GPA than time post photos less than juniors, tag photos less than freshmen and juniors,
spent preparing for class; while multitasking with Facebook was and view videos less than all the other class ranks.

Table 1
Hierarchical regression model exploring how demographics, academic variables, Internet skill, Facebook use and Facebook multitasking predict the overall GPA of Freshmen (n = 437).

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5

Demographics Academics Internet Skill FB Time FB Activities

Independent variables β β β β β

Male −.041 .034 .020 −.005 −.032

African American −.030 .035 .028 −.025 −.030
Asian American −.052 −.027 −.025 −.050 −.036
Other ethnicity −.026 −.020 −.024 −.047 −.054
Caucasian .035 .075 .074 .017 .009
Less than high school −.048 −.041 −.049 −.042 −.043
High school .008 .037 .043 .034 .045
College graduate .105 .086 .080 .069 .060
Advanced grad degree .113* .092 .095* .083 .087
High School GPA .396*** .403*** .387*** .371***
Time preparing for class .173*** .174*** .148*** .140***
Internet Skills .106* .114** .109*
Facebook Time −.103* −.100*
Facebook Multitasking −.118** −.130*
Playing games −.017
Posting status updates −.024
Sharing links .049
Private messaging −.025
Commenting −.054
Chatting −.038
Checking up on friends .191**
Events .048
Posting photos −.113
Tagging photos −.035
Viewing photos .041
Posting videos .000
Tagging videos .013
Viewing videos −.029
Adjusted R2 .009 .210 .219 .241 .249
R2 Change .030 .200*** .011* .025*** .031

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29 25

Table 2
Hierarchical regression model exploring how demographics, academic variables, Internet skill, Facebook use and Facebook multitasking predict the overall GPA of Sophomores (n = 401).

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5

Demographics Academics Internet Skill FB Time FB Activities

Independent variables β β β β β

Male −.268*** −.114* −.122** −.136** −.119*

African American −.111 −.070 −.069 −.074 −.056
Asian American .017 −.001 −.003 −.006 .005
Other ethnicity −.006 −.016 −.015 −.018 .002
Caucasian .088 .037 .042 .048 .063
Less than high school .044 .086 .087 .084 .085
High school .063 .044 .046 .051 .062
College graduate .063 −.006 −.004 .003 −.005
Advanced grad degree .030 −.003 −.001 .009 .021
High School GPA .422*** .422*** .413*** .405***
Time preparing for class .195*** .193*** .191*** .191***
Internet Skills .031 .034 .028
Facebook Time −.053 −.075
Facebook Multitasking −.081 −.128*
Playing games .065
Posting status updates −.116*
Sharing links .048
Private messaging .032
Commenting .092
Chatting −.002
Checking up on friends .110
Events −.010
Posting photos .058
Tagging photos −.037
Viewing photos −.047
Posting videos −.167
Tagging videos .121
Viewing videos .057
Adjusted R2 .091 .285 .284 .290 .299
R2 Change .111*** .193*** .001 .010 .033

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

Question 3: Do the relation between using Facebook while doing school- to class standing that influences how students interact with Facebook
work and GPA and using Facebook while not doing schoolwork and GPA and how such interactions are associated with academic outcomes.
differ as a function of class standing? Freshmen were the only group where non-multitasking use of
Facebook was negatively related to GPA even though they used
There are differences in the relation between Facebook use and GPA Facebook and multitasked with Facebook at the same rate as other
across class standing. As can be seen in Tables 1−4, there is a negative students with the exception of seniors. These results are congruent
relation between using Facebook while doing schoolwork and GPA with research on the freshman experience – that entering students
and non-multitasking uses of Facebook and GPA for freshmen; however, have yet to learn important academic skills in order to be successful
for sophomores and juniors, there is only a negative relation between (Upcraft et al., 2005). In the past, these skills included things like time
using Facebook while doing schoolwork and GPA. Lastly, there is no re- management, note taking, and organization (Upcraft et al., 2005).
lation between using Facebook while doing schoolwork and GPA and However, other studies have shown that students need help with regu-
non-multitasking uses of Facebook and GPA for seniors. lating their multitasking and the results of the current study suggest
There are also differences in how Facebook activities relate to GPA by that freshmen might be a group of students that need additional help
class standing. Freshmen’s GPAs are positively related to checking up on in this domain (Karpinski et al., 2012; Rouis et al., 2011).
friends. Posting status updates is negatively related to GPA for sopho- The difference in outcomes between regular use of Facebook
mores. Posting photos is positively related and tagging photos is between freshmen and students at the other class ranks might be due
negatively related to GPA for juniors. Private messaging and creating to their social uses of the site. As previous research has shown, students
and/or RSVPing to events are positively related to senior’s GPAs, while use Facebook to maintain a network of high school friends and also to
chatting and viewing videos are negatively related. build and maintain new friendships on their college campuses (Ellison
et al., 2007, 2011; Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). Entering college stu-
dents need to build a new network of friends in order to be both socially
General discussion and academically successful (Eckles & Stradley, 2011; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005; Thomas, 2000). It was no surprise then that while
The results support the hypothesis that the relation between there were no differences between groups in the frequency with
Facebook use and academic performance changes based on the which they used Facebook to check up on friends, this activity was relat-
student’s class standing. Specifically, both Facebook use variables were ed to higher GPAs only for freshmen. While all students check up on
negatively related to freshmen’s overall GPAs. Unlike students at the friends, it is the unique transitional nature of the freshmen experience
other class ranks just using Facebook had a negative relation to freshmen that requires building social supports. When students check up on
GPA. On the other hand, sophomores and juniors only exhibited a neg- friends, they are engaging in the practice of social information seeking
ative relation between multitasking on Facebook and GPA and seniors which has been shown to be directly related to social capital (Ellison
did not exhibit any relation between either of the Facebook use vari- et al., 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). When freshmen check up
ables and GPA. These results suggest there is a dynamic at play related on friends, they are doing so in the context of needing to build new
26 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29

Table 3
Hierarchical regression model exploring how demographics, academic variables, Internet skill, Facebook use and Facebook multitasking predict the overall GPA of Juniors (n = 345).

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5

Demographics Academics Internet Skill FB Time FB Activities

Independent variables β β β β β

Male −.158** −.102* −.070 −.094 −.075

African American −.041 −.089 −.084 −.059 −.061
Asian American .008 −.047 −.049 −.032 −.022
Other ethnicity .042 −.009 −.005 −.014 .004
Caucasian .099 −.034 −.028 −.020 .002
Less than high school .014 .015 .014 −.001 −.013
High school −.059 −.020 −.036 −.029 −.036
College graduate −.039 −.003 −.015 −.031 −.027
Advanced grad degree −.082 −.038 −.036 −.055 −.046
High School GPA .331*** .329*** .322*** .315***
Time preparing for class .154** .147** .129** .143**
Internet Skills −.105* −.081 −.089
Facebook Time −.033 −.023
Facebook Multitasking −.157** −.143*
Playing games .013
Posting status updates −.077
Sharing links .074
Private messaging .090
Commenting −.116
Chatting −.031
Checking up on friends .070
Events −.060
Posting photos .241**
Tagging photos −.192*
Viewing photos .037
Posting videos −.098
Tagging videos .075
Viewing videos −.018
Adjusted R2 .026 .151 .159 .179 .196
R2 Change .051* .127*** .010* .025** .049

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

relationships, while students in other classes are more focused on main- related to GPA for sophomores. Posting photos was positively related to
taining their current relationships. Therefore, when freshmen students GPA for juniors, while tagging photos was negatively related. Lastly,
build social capital, they are building their social support network nec- sending private messages and creating and/or RSVPing to events was
essary to promote a sense of connection to the institution leading to a positively related to GPA while chatting and viewing videos were nega-
greater degree of academic commitment and ultimately to improved ac- tively related to GPA for seniors. Previous research has found that post-
ademic performance (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993). In- ing status updates and chatting on Facebook chat were negatively
deed, for freshmen, checking up on friends was more strongly related related to GPA (Junco, 2012a). The pattern of results in the current
to academic performance than time spent preparing for class. study suggest that activities involving interpersonal connections (such
As has been found in previous research, multitasking with Facebook as checking up on friends and sending private messages) are more
was negatively related to GPA (Junco, 2012c; Junco & Cotten, 2012; positively related to GPA which is congruent with previous research
Rosen et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2012). Unlike previous research, the showing that these types of activities are related to student engagement
negative relation between multitasking with Facebook and GPA was (Junco, 2012b).
only found for freshmen, sophomores, and juniors. On the one hand,
the results are perplexing given previous research—multitasking with Limitations
Facebook should result in more negative educational outcomes for all.
On the other hand, perhaps there is something unique about being a se- The major limitation of this study is that it is cross-sectional and
nior that mitigates the negative effect of multitasking. It might be that correlational in nature, and therefore it is impossible to determine
seniors have reached a pinnacle of understanding what they need to the causal mechanisms between Facebook use, multitasking, and
do in order to be successful, given their earlier college experiences. Per- GPA. While the data show that Facebook use and GPA are negatively
haps seniors have learned appropriate self-regulation skills through related for freshmen, the direction of the effect is difficult to deter-
their time in college and apply these skills to their technology use. On mine. For instance, it could be that freshmen who spend more time
the other hand, it is possible that seniors’ level of social capital has on Facebook have lower GPAs; however, it is equally likely that
plateaued and they are less likely to use Facebook for the relationship freshmen who have lower GPAs spend more time on Facebook.
building and maintenance activities than their younger peers. It is whol- Further longitudinal and controlled studies are needed in order to
ly possible that there is something about the act of relationship building determine the mechanisms of causation. For instance, future
and maintenance that increases load demand in a way that affects mul- research might follow entering freshmen students through to gradu-
titasking with Facebook (Fockert, 2013). It will be important for future ation evaluating their technology use and social interactions each
research to investigate this dynamic further to elucidate the mecha- year. This would allow researchers to further explain how Facebook
nisms at play in the current findings. use and multitasking are related to academic performance, especial-
Facebook activities were also differentially related to outcomes by ly as students mature.
class standing. For example, checking up on friends was positively relat- A further limitation was related to estimating time spent on
ed to GPA for first-time freshmen. Posting status updates was negatively Facebook and time spent preparing for class. Specifically, regular time
 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29 27

Table 4
Hierarchical regression model exploring how demographics, academic variables, Internet skill, Facebook use and Facebook multitasking predict the overall GPA of Seniors (n = 406).

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5

Demographics Academics Internet Skill FB Time FB Activities

Independent variables β β β β β

Male −.147** −.075 −.058 −.066 −.058

African American −.186* −.165* −.157* −.171* −.159*
Asian American .043 .030 .040 .035 .047
Other ethnicity −.112* −.093 −.090 −.091 −.075
Caucasian −.012 −.005 .012 −.001 .024
Less than high school −.024 .013 .009 .010 .024
High school .039 .064 .063 .066 .079
College graduate .020 .044 .041 .049 .064
Advanced grad degree .100 .133** .141** .137** .134**
High School GPA .372*** .373*** .363*** .332***
Time preparing for class .191*** .191*** .191*** .209***
Internet Skills −.083 −.073 −.072
Facebook Time −.093* −.084
Facebook Multitasking −.015 −.007
Playing games .081
Posting status updates −.050
Sharing links .008
Private messaging .130*
Commenting −.007
Chatting −.117*
Checking up on friends −.058
Events .117*
Posting photos −.082
Tagging photos .084
Viewing photos .088
Posting videos .061
Tagging videos −.054
Viewing videos −.139*
Adjusted R2 .057 .231 .236 .241 .262
R2 Change .078*** .174*** .006 .009 .046*

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

spent on Facebook and multitasking with Facebook were assessed via have been reflected in how different types of usage was related to
self-report. Previous research (Junco, 2012a) has shown that there are academic outcomes.
differences in outcomes based on how frequency of Facebook use is While the data from the current study are suggestive of a develop-
measured. Newer research by Junco (2013a) has found that self- mental process involved in the differences between classes, more
reported estimates of Facebook usage are considerably overestimated research is necessary to elucidate the latent constructs involved in
when compared to actual use. Such overestimation can obfuscate the these dynamics. Previous research shows that first-year students must
relation between Facebook use and academic performance, although it learn to effectively balance academic and social demands in order to
is unclear in which direction. Therefore, future research will want to be successful (Tinto, 1993; Upcraft et al., 2005). A possible mechanism
combine multiple measures of Facebook frequency of use to arrive at a for future investigation is self-regulation which is the “voluntary control
more complete picture of the relation between Facebook use and out- of attentional, emotional, and behavioral impulses in the service of
come variables. Future research might use logging techniques like personally valued goals and standards.” (Duckworth & Carlson, 2013,
user-installed monitoring software combined with in-vivo observations p. 209). Indeed, Rouis et al. (2011) found that students with stronger
and student self-report to triangulate the actual frequency of Facebook self-regulation skills were more able to control their Facebook use in
use. Such additional research could help identify the most appropriate the service of academic performance. Previous research on multitasking
combination of measurement techniques to get at the true nature of stu- also points to the possible role of self-regulation as a factor that
dent Facebook use. mediates whether students can focus on a single task (Rosen et al.,
2011, 2013. Perhaps the research on media multitasking has discovered
Conclusion a tangible measurement of overall self-regulation skills, that is, the
ability for youth to withhold their impulses to use social technologies
The results of this study are congruent with some of the previous while engaged in academic work.
literature on student technology use and academic performance. For Previous research has emphasized the importance of building social
instance, like previous research (Junco, 2012c; Junco & Cotten, 2012; connections for new college students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005;
Rosen et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2012) the current study found a negative Tinto, 1993; Upcraft et al., 2005). While technological mediation of
relation between multitasking while using Facebook and GPA; however, social connections is an important facet of the experience of today’s
this relation was only found for freshmen, sophomores, and juniors. college students, such mediation might hinder the learning process.
These results may be explained by the demands faced by students at The results of the current study suggest that general use of one of the
each level: freshmen must not only adapt to a new academic environ- very tools that helps incoming students develop important social
ment, but also a social one in order to be successful (Pascarella & bonds (i.e., Facebook) is also negatively related to academic perfor-
Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993). These students use Facebook as a method mance. However, engaging in a Facebook activity that helps build
to engage in and maintain previous relationships as well as to build new these social connections (i.e., checking up on friends) is more strongly
ones (Ellison et al., 2007, 2011). Beyond their first year of college, related to academic performance in the first year than a purely academ-
students might use Facebook less for building friendships, which may ic task like time spent preparing for class. In other words, the academic
28 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29

outcomes of different types of Facebook use reflect the complex Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Data memo. Washington, DC: Pew
Internet and American Life Project (Retrieved October 23, 2014, from http://www.
interplay between the academic and social demands of the first year pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Generations_2009.pdf).
of college (Tinto, 1993; Upcraft et al., 2005). Knowing this, higher Junco, R. (2012a). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between mul-
education professionals can appropriately plan educational interven- tiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(1), 187–198.
tions to help teach students the importance of regulating Facebook Junco, R. (2012b). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in
usage. Specifically, they can do this without adopting an abstinence- Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171.
only perspective, which would serve to alienate students and not Junco, R. (2012c). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243.
allow for the leveraging of the important social affordances of Facebook Junco, R. (2013a). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use.
in support of the first year transition process. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 626–631.
Junco, R. (2013b). Inequalities in Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6),
2328–2336.
Acknowledgements Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use.
Computers & Education, 56(2), 370–378.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and ac-
The author would like to thank the blind reviewers of this paper for
ademic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505–514.
their helpful feedback and suggestions. Furthermore, the author would Junco, R., & Mastrodicasa, J. (2007). Connecting to the Net. Generation: What higher educa-
like to thank Judit García Martín for her suggestions on one of the drafts. tion professionals need to know about today’s students. Washington, DC: NASPA.
Junco, R., Merson, D., & Salter, D. W. (2010). The effect of gender, ethnicity, and income on
college studentsʼ use of communication technologies. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and
Appendix A. Supplementary data Social Networking, 13(6), 37–53.
Karpinski, A. C., Kirschner, P. A., Ozer, I., Mellott, J. A., & Ochwo, P. (2012). An exploration of
social networking site use, multitasking, and academic performance among United
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. States and European university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3),
doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.001. 1182–1192.
Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Unstructured vs. structured use of laptops in higher ed-
ucation. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 33–42.
References Kessler, S. (2011). 38% of college students can’t go 10 minutes without tech [STATS].
Mashable Tech (Retrieved October 23, 2014, from: http://mashable.com/2011/05/
Aydin, S. (2012). A review of research on Facebook as an educational environment. 31/college-tech-device-stats/).
Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1093–1106. Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers
Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245.
across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations Koch, I., Lawo, V., Fels, J., & Vorländer, M. (2011). Switching in the cocktail party: Explor-
of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 483–489. ing intentional control of auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental
Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 37(4), 1140–1147.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kolek, E. A., & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: An empirical examination of under-
Dahlstrom, E., de Boor, T., Grunwald, P., & Vockley, M. (2011). ECAR National Study of Un- graduate Facebook profiles. NASPA Journal, 45(1), 1–25.
dergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2011. Retrieved October 23, Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social network websites. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and
2014, from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/ERS1103W.pdf American Life Project (Retrieved October 23, 2014, from: http://www.pewinternet.
DeBerard, M. S., Speilmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement org/2009/01/14/adults-and-social-network-websites/).
and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and young adults. Wash-
38(1), 66–80. ington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project (Retrieved October 23, 2014 from:
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/02/03/social-media-and-young-adults/).
access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and infor-
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. mal learning at university: "It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work
Duckworth, A. L., & Carlson, S. M. (2013). Self-regulation and school success. In B. W. than for actually doing work". Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155.
Sokol, F. M. E. Grouzet, & U. Müller (Eds.), Self-regulation and autonomy: Social and Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical review of the
developmental dimensions of human conduct (pp. 208–230). New York, NY: Cam- literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced learning environment. Journal of
bridge University Press. Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 487–504.
Eckles, J., & Stradley, E. (2011). A social network analysis of student retention using archi- Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain.
val data. Social Psychology of Education, 15(2), 165–180. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(6), 296–305.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the web
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer- 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software.
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implica- McPherson, K. E., Kerr, S., McGee, E., Morgan, A., Cheater, F. M., McLean, J., et al. (2014). The
tions of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13(6), association between social capital and mental health and behavioural problems in chil-
873–892. dren and adolescents: an integrative systematic review. BMC Psychology, 2(7), 1–16.
Fockert, J. D. (2013). Beyond perceptual load and dilution: a review of the role of working Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
memory in selective attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (Retrieved May 18, 2014 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587.
from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3659333/). Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA:
Fried, C. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Jossey-Bass.
Education, 50(3), 906–914. Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance: Reconcil-
Geiser, S., & Santelices, M. (2007). Validity of high-school grades in predicting student ing a media sensation with data. First Monday, 14(5).
success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social network-
of four-year college outcomes. University of California, Berkeley Center for Studies in ing experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3),
Higher Education Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.6.07. 227–238.
Greenhow, C. (2011). Online social networks and learning. On the Horizon, 19(1), 4–12. Pew Research Internet Project (2014). Social networking fact sheet. Retrieved December 18,
Hampton, K., Sessions Goulet, L., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and 2014, from: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/.
our lives. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project (Retrieved October Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psycho-
23, 2014 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/06/16/social-networking-sites- social and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological
and-our-lives/). Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288.
Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Robelia, B. A., Greenhow, C., & Burton, L. (2011). Environmental learning in online social
Computer Review, 23(3), 371–379. networks: adopting environmentally responsible behaviors. Environmental
Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct survey measures of web-use skills. Social Education Research, 17(4), 553–575.
Science Computer Review, 30(1), 95–107. Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it:
Hersh, R. H. (2009). A well-rounded education for a flat world. Educational Leadership, Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3),
67(1), 50–53. 948–958.
Hollyhead, A., Edwards, D. J., & Holt, G. D. (2012). The use of virtual learning environment Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An empirical examination of
(VLE) and social network site (SNS) hosted forums in higher education: A prelimi- the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Ed-
nary examination. Industry and Higher Education, 26(5), 369–379. ucational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 17(2),
Hurt, N. E., Moss, G. S., Bradley, C. L., Larson, L. R., Lovelace, M. D., Prevost, L. B., et al. 163–177.
(2012). The “Facebook” effect: College students’ perceptions of online discussions Rouis, S., Limayem, M., & Salehi-Sangari, E. (2011). Impact of Facebook usage on students’
in the age of social networking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching academic achievement: Roles of self-regulation and trust. Electronic Journal of
and Learning, 6(2), 1–24. Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 961–994.
 R. Junco / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36 (2015) 18–29 29

Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2013). Social media for teaching and learning. Pearson annual Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates (Eds.). (2005). Meeting challenges
survey of social media use by higher education faculty. Retrieved December 18, 2014, and building support: Creating a climate for first-year student success. San Francisco, CA:
from: http://www.pearsonlearningsolutions.com/higher-education/social-media- Jossey-Bass.
survey.php. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?
Schroeder, J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2009). The chemistry of Facebook: Using social network- Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of
ing to create an online community for the organic chemistry laboratory. Innovate: Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875–901.
Journal of Online Education, 5(4) (Retrieved October 23, 2014, from http://gator.uhd. Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It’s complicated:
edu/~williams/AT/ChemOfFB.htm). Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology,
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educa- Behavior and Social Networking, 14(3), 107–114.
tional technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. Weaver, B. E., & Nilson, L. B. (2005). Laptops in class: What are they good for? What can
Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: effects of cell phone you do with them? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2005(101), 3–13.
conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46(4), 640–649. Welford, A. (1967). Single-channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychologica, 27, 5–22.
Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network Williford, A. M. (2009). Secondary school course grades and success in college. College &
communities. International Digital and Media Arts Journal, 3(1), 10–18. University, 85(1), 22–33.
Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – Wood, N., & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited. How frequent
A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60–A68. are attention shifts to one’s name in an irrelevant auditory channel? Journal of
Thomas, S. L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 255–260.
integration and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 591–615. Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Exam-
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. ining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365–374.
Tombu, M. N., Asplund, C. L., Dux, P. E., Godwin, D., Martin, J. W., & Marois, R. (2011). A Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogel, D., & Kwok, R. C. -W. (2010). Can learning be virtually
unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain. Proceedings of the National boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts. Computers &
Academy of Sciences, 108(33), 13426–13431. Education, 55, 1495–1503.