The Intersection of Personality Traits and Social Media Usage: Large-Scale Representative Samples of Internet Users in Sweden

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is coherent and well-written, however there are no outbreaking research results and practical implications are not clear enough. Links between personality and social media usage have been previously researched by many and there is no clear novelty in the study. 

A way of adding something new compared to previous researches could be the use of novel statistics, such as neural network modelling. The use of simple correlational and linear regressional analyses has many drawbacks, and in fact, normality tests should preceed the analyses, and linear models should be run if normality is present.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Personality and Social Media Usage: Large-scale Representative Studies of the Swedish Population." The purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between the Big Five model of personality and social media usage. It uses the representative sampling method, which contains seven nationally representative and yearly samples (i.e., 2010-2014 and 2019-2020) in Sweden, to examine the conflicting results of previous research. The data set and methods used are appropriate. The consistent and inconsistent findings are well-discussed. The key limitation is the insufficient theoretical development.

My review and related suggestions for improvement are provided below. 

1.       The first key concern is that this article lacks of hypothesis. Different from the purpose of the study (which is to examine the relationship between personality and social media usage), the hypothesis can give a specific proposition or predictive statement about the possible outcome of the research. Thus, I recommend the hypothesis be stated at the beginning of the article on how each dimension of the Big Five personality relates to social media usage.

2.       The second key concern is the theoretical evidence for the hypothesis. The article reviews the mixed findings of previous literature but does not draw upon theory. It is not convincing by merely demonstrating empirical evidence since the research outcomes can easily be influenced by sampling. Particularly, the effect size in the article, indicating how much personality dimension can predict social media usage, is small (<=.10) and unstable across three studies after controlling for age and gender. The author can consider drawing on theory of personality or social interaction to support the hypothesis.

3.       Theoretical contribution is recommended in the "Discussion" part to highlight the novelty of this paper. 

4.       Figure or list is recommended to demonstrate the conflicting results of past research and the hypotheses of this study.

5.       As for the explanation of mixed results, consider distinguishing the purposes of social media usage (as indicated by Zúñiga et al., 2017, cited in this paper), such as social connection, information searching(news) or relaxation...   

6.       In line 44, 'The psychological factors, such as personality traits, are less studied...' This expression is not quite accurate. The literature on the relationship between personality and social media usage is broad. The number of publications on this topic is more than 3000+ (based on a literature search in Web of Science™ using personality and social media usage as the search term) and 600+ (using Big Five and social media usage), respectively. I recommend modify it.

7.       In line 48, 'Studies that have examined the relationship between personality and social media usage ... have yielded conflicting results.' It is suggested to describe more about the conflict results.

8.       In line 147, 'Only internet users and people that have answered all items related to specific personality factors were included in the analysis (N = 10 924)'. Does this number align with the sample number in the tables? Please justify.   

9.       In Table 3 Step 3, it should be ‘BFI(HP5i), gender, age’?

10.   For all the tables, please double check the format——italic for the statistical letters. 

11.   The reference literature does not seem to be sufficient.

12.   It is recommended to add numbers for references so that it is easy to count.

13.   Some references did not use the italic format for the journal. please double-check.

14.   There are some grammar mistakes, such as “Only Internet users and people that have answered all items related to a(should be taken out) specific personality factors were included in the analysis (N = 10 924).” please check carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1) Introduction: "Studies that have examined the relationship between personality and social media usage are largely conducted on the basis of non-representative samples, and have yielded conflicting results." Please (a) provide citations and (b) elaborate on the conflicting results.

2) Introduction: Kindly highlight why this research is needed since the relationship between the Big Five model and the use of social media has been well-established.

3) 3.1. Participants and procedures: "Swedish citizens in the age range of 16 to 85" Participants below age 18 are considered minor, any informed and parental consent required?

4) 3.2. Measures: Please report the internal consistency for all the scales.

5) Discussion: Kindly summarize the findings in Study 1, 2, and 3. How are they similar and/or different from each other?

6) Discussion: Please rephrase "Our results are consistent with the notion that social media primary is used as spontaneous amusement rather than for work and study" since it's only the first two studies. This could help avoid confusion.

7) Discussion: What are the implications of this study?

8) Discussion: Any limitations and suggestions for future research?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for addressing my initial comments. The paper has been greatly improved. Following the revision, my remaining comments are as below.

 

#1. First of all, I’d like to invite authors to explain how the results and conclusions will be affected by the use of different subjects in the three samples.

 

#2. In line 185, it is said that the number of people included in the analysis was 10 924, while in line 177, the final sample received was 13 166. These two numbers seem confusing——which one should be the final sample size? Please confirm.

 

#3. From line 129 to line 132, “Based on the recent research on the relationship between Extraversion and the use of social media and based on the development of social media towards more and more activities that according to the Big Five Model seem to be particularly relevant for people high on Extraversion and who strive for excitement and other positive emotions,....”, This long sentence seems to need grammatical revision. I suggest the author check and modify it.

 

#4. Please describe how the gender was coded in relevant tables.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

All of my comments have been well addressed, except for the last paragraph:

1) The "implication" provided sounds like a suggestion for future research. Please provide practical implications this study could offer (how we can apply the findings of this study in real life in regards to social media usage???).

2) Throughout the manuscript, I don't see any support for the claim "the relationship (between personality and social media usage) differs across cultures and times." Kindly elaborate more on this since this claim was repeated 4 times in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf