https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN23.2.98 Self-Esteem, Self-Disclosure, Self-Expression, and Connection on Facebook: A Collaborative Replication Meta-Analysis Dana C. Leighton*, Southern Arkansas University; Nicole Legate*, Illinois Institute of Technology; Sara LePine, Gordon College; Samantha F. Anderson, University of Notre Dame; Jon Grahe*, Pacific Lutheran University ABSTRACT. This replication meta-analysis explored the robustness of a highly cited study showing that those with low self-esteem perceived benefits for self-disclosure through Facebook compared to face-to-face interactions (i.e., Forest & Wood, 2012, Study 1). Seven preregistered direct replication attempts of this study were conducted by research teams as part of the Collaborative Replication and Education Project (CREP), and results were meta-analyzed to better understand the strength and consistency of the effects reported in the original study. Half of the original results were clearly supported: Self-esteem negatively predicted perceived safety of self-disclosure on Facebook as compared to face-to-face interactions (meta-analytic effect size = -.28, original effect size = -.31), and self-esteem did not relate to perceived opportunities for self-expression; across the 7 replications, all 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect sizes included 0. However, 2 other findings received less support: Self-esteem only weakly and inconsistently predicted perceived advantages of self-disclosure on Facebook (meta analytic effect size = -.16, original effect size = -.30), and contrary to the original study, there was no evidence for self-esteem predicting perceived opportunities for connection with others on Facebook (6 of Open Data, Open Materials, Preregistration, the 7 replication effect size CIs contained 0). The results and Replications badges provided further evidence regarding the original study’s earned for transparent research practices. generalizability and robustness. The implications of the Data and materials are available at https:// research and its relevance to social compensation theory is osf.io/yb9cv/. Links to presented, and considerations for future multisite replications Preregistrations for each project are available at are proposed. https://osf.io/yb9cv/. mong social network sites, Facebook is a Indeed, since its advent in 2004, scholars have dominant platform that affects the thinking, published over a thousand articles on psychological A emotions, behavior, and interactions of its issues related to Facebook. active users, some two billion people worldwide, Forest and Wood (2012) provided one of the SPECIAL ISSUE 2018 including 70% of the U.S. population (Facebook, first and most highly cited psychological examina- 2017; Fiegerman, 2017; Kemp, 2017). It is therefore tions of Facebook use and psychosocial factors. As PSI CHI JOURNAL OF important that psychologists better understand how of December 2017, Elsevier’s Scopus citation met- PSYCHOLOGICAL Facebook use is related to psychosocial factors. rics show the article has been cited 145 times (12.17 RESEARCH 98 COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (SPECIAL ISSUE, VOL. 23, NO. 2/ISSN 2325-7342) *Faculty mentor Leighton, Legate, LePine, Anderson, and Grahe | Facebook and Self-Esteem Meta-Analysis times the average for similar articles), putting it Increasingly, replications are seen as a mechanism in the 99th percentile of citations for psychology to improve our scientific enterprise (Edlund, 2016). articles in the previous 18 months. Forest and Wood Social media and technology have increasingly speculated that Facebook had benefits for people been used to conduct large-scale crowd-sourced with low self-esteem who might otherwise have replications, including the Reproducibility Project difficulty with face-to-face (FTF) interactions, and for Psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), hypothesized that people with low self-esteem would whereby 200 researchers replicated 100 studies perceive Facebook as a safer place to self-disclose, published in three top journals in 2008, as well as and a better place to express their emotions with the various Many Labs projects (Many Labs 1–5; others as compared to FTF interactions. Study Ebersole et al., 2016; Ebersole et al., 2017; Klein 1 provided mixed support for their hypothesis: et al., 2014; Klein, Ebersole, et al., 2017; Klein, Compared with higher self-esteem individuals, Vianello, et al., 2017). CREP developed to address those lower in self-esteem saw Facebook as a safer the replication crisis by capitalizing on research and more advantageous place for self-disclosure projects completed by undergraduate psychology as compared to FTF interactions (Forest & Wood, majors in methods and capstone courses1 (Grahe 2012, Study 1), but self-esteem did not predict et al., 2012; Grahe & Hauhart, 2013; Hauhart & participants’ perceptions of Facebook as offering Grahe, 2010). These projects reflect major advances greater opportunities for self-expression. Thus, the in replication methodology and meta-science by authors concluded that people with low self-esteem going beyond single “episodes” of replications, might prefer Facebook over FTF interactions as a taking better account of the “historical track record” means to improve their social relations. of scientific theories (Faust & Meehl, 2002, p. 2). Given the potential implications of these find- The CREP compiles replication efforts from ings and their high impact, several research teams independent teams of undergraduate researchers at U.S. colleges and universities replicated the study across the United States. Projects are peer-reviewed as part of the Collaborative Research and Education before the data collection begins to ensure fidelity Project (CREP; Grahe et al., 2016; https://osf.io/ to the original procedures. Data and results are wfc6u/). CREP was designed to verify research made publically available on the Open Science findings that are highly cited in top journals by Framework (OSF) repository, and a researcher conducting large-scale replications, and to give might include the results of individual replications valuable research experience to undergraduate into a meta-analysis as Calin-Jageman, Lehmann, psychology students. Thus, as they complete their and Elliott (2017) are doing with both published courses, students have become producers of sci- and CREP samples. ence rather than merely consumers. The present There have been debates about the “proper” research presented a meta-analysis of these studies way to conduct replications. For example, one and, to our knowledge, was the first published debate distinguished between direct (also called meta-analysis of a CREP replication and the first “close”) and conceptual replications (Brandt et al. published replication of Forest and Wood (2012; 2014; Simons, 2014; Stroebe & Strack, 2014). Direct Study 1). Moreover, the novelty of the statistical replications approximate the exact conditions of methods used to assess the replicability of Forest the original study to report the degree of similarity and Wood (2012) made the present research an between the original research findings and the instrumental contribution to replication science. replication(s). Conceptual replications alter one or more aspects of the study to extend the original Replications as a Tool for conclusions. All studies reported in this research Generalizability and Meta-Science were direct replications of the original. Social psychology is currently recovering from a Beyond the degree of match between the origi- crisis of confidence in published findings (Earp nal and replication, the goals of replication also & Trafimow, 2015; Edlund, 2016; Pashler & vary across studies. Anderson and Maxwell (2016) Wagenmakers, 2012; Stroebe, 2016) that arose identified six goals of replications: (a) to infer the from concerns about rampant publication bias existence of an effect, (b) to infer the null effect, (c) (Ioannidis, 2005), under-reporting of researcher to accurately estimate the effect size, (d) to combine SPECIAL ISSUE 2018 degrees of freedom (John, Lowenstein, & Prelec, 1It is important to note that the CREP is not the only PSI CHI 2012), and revelations of scientific misconduct meta-science project for undergraduate research (see e.g., JOURNAL OF (Earp & Trafimow, 2015), among other factors. Registered Reports and Pipeline projects; Grahe et al., 2016). PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (SPECIAL ISSUE, VOL. 23, NO. 2/ISSN 2325-7342) 99 Facebook and Self-Esteem Meta-Analysis | Leighton, Legate, LePine, Anderson, and Grahe the results between replication and original, (e) to mentors followed the same methodology, with slight determine if the replication and original provide deviations. inconsistent results (disparity of effect sizes), and (f) to determine if the replication and original Method provide consistent results (equivalence of effect The General CREP Procedure sizes). In their content analyses of 50 studies, there The CREP Advisory Board (see https://osf.io/ was a clear preference for Goal 1, to infer the zt4k5/) selected high-impact studies for replica- existence of an effect, but they recommended that tion. Specifically, the board selected the top three researchers broaden their definition of replication or four most-cited articles from the top journal in by recognizing these various goals in planning and each of nine subdisciplines from the prior three reporting