Associations between Self-Reports and Device-Reports of Social Networking Site Use: An Application of the Truth and Bias Model

ABSTRACT

People are generally poor reporters of time spent using digital technology. Advancing smartphone features, such as the iOS Screen Time application, allow researchers to obtain more objective measurements of digital technology use. Truth and Bias models were used to test how self-reported social networking site use aligns with device-reported use as recorded by the iOS Screen Time app (N = 1585). This study explored use across four major platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat) and examined how individual differences moderate biases in reports. Participants overestimated their use for all platforms at comparable levels. Moderation by individual differences was not consistent. These findings add to the growing call from researchers to utilize assessments other than self-reports in measuring digital technology use.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

Data, syntax, output, and supplemental materials are available on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/t5bjx/

Notes

1. Moderation by conscientiousness on directional bias was nearly consistent, with only restricted-to-active use failing to meet the p < .01 threshold (but still significant at p < .05). Simple slope analyses showed that those lower in conscientiousness (1 SD below the mean) over-estimated their Instagram use (directional bias = 31.44) significantly more than participants higher in conscientiousness (1 SD above the mean; directional bias = 23.56).

2. Screen Time checking was highly skewed as 78% of participants reported never checking the app. Recoding this variable dichotomously indicated that dichotomous Screen Time checking moderated tracking accuracy for Snapchat only, b = −0.13, SE = 0.05, p = .005. Tracking accuracy was stronger for those who checked their Screen Time app, b = 0.87, SE = 0.09, p < .001, compared to those who did not, b = 0.61, SE = 0.05, p < .001.

3. With improbable values included, the heteroscedasticity-corrected coefficient was no longer significant. However, given that the improbable value of interest equaled using Facebook 23.92 hours per day, we strongly suspect that this value was due to careless reporting and we place greater confidence in the results with this value excluded.

4. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting additional quantile regression analyses due to skewness (Tables S12-S15). These results indicated non-significant directional bias at the .25 quantile for Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat. Participants in the .25 quantile significantly underestimated their use for Facebook. Nonetheless, significant overestimation was observed for the .50 and .75 quantiles for all platforms. There was little evidence of moderation by individual differences.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Grant R01 HD060995.