The Relationship Between Co-Rumination and Health in Young Women:Evidence from Facebook Communications

Running head: Co-Rumination on Facebook

The Relationship Between Co-Rumination and Health in Young Women:

Evidence from Facebook Communications

CaSandra Swearingen, Jennifer Byrd-Craven, Ph.D., and Shelia M. Kennison, Ph.D.

Oklahoma State University

Please Address Correspondence to:

Shelia Kennison, Ph.D.

116 North Murray Hall

Department of Psychology

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK 74078

405-744-7335

[email protected]

Running head: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 2

Abstract

Prior research has shown that face-to-face communications that involve excessive focus on

problems and negative aspects of situations are related to higher stress. This type of

communication has been called co-rumination (Rose, 2002). We hypothesized that co-rumination

can also occur in communications carried out on Facebook. We report a study involving 100

college students. We analyzed their communications carried out through Facebook and

examined their self-reported co-rumination behaviors from daily life. The results confirmed the

hypothesis that participants that individuals co-ruminate when communicating through Facebook

that is similar to the way that individuals communicate face to face. The results also showed that

co-rumination in daily life was significantly correlated (negatively) with health in an analysis

that took into account the positive effects of social support. Implications for interventions

designed to reduce stress and to improve overall health of Facebook users are discussed.


The Relationship Between Co-rumination and Health in Young Women:

Evidence from Facebook Communications

Reliance on technology for communication has increased dramatically over the last three

decades (Tapscott, 2009). Social networking websites, such as Facebook, provide users with

new ways to communicate. Recent statistics estimate that over 500 million people are using

Facebook daily (Facebook, 2012). As new ways of communicating are developed, there is a

need to understand the effects that these new forms of communication may have the health and

well-being of individuals. Prior research has shown that some forms of interpersonal

communication maybe adversely associated with health and well-being (Byrd-Craven, Geary,

Rose, & Ponzi, 2008; Byrd-Craven, Granger, & Auer, 2011; Rose, 2002; Rose, Carlson, &

Waller, 2007; Calmes & Roberts, 2008). Rose (2002) identified a type of communication that

focuses on negative topics, in which individuals excessively rehash problems, as co-rumination.

Higher levels of co-rumination have been found to be positively related to symptoms of

depression and anxiety (Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2007; See also Calmes et al., 2008). Recent

work has also shown that higher levels of co-rumination are related to higher levels of cortisol

and alpha amylase, which are two biological indicators of stress (Byrd-Craven et al., 2008; Byrd-

Craven et al., 2011). The purpose of the present research was to investigate the extent to which

individuals using Facebook engage in co-rumination and whether co-rumination carried out on

Facebook is associated with health.

Researchers have found that co-rumination occurs more often in the friendships of young

girls than the friends of young boys (Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2007). This research has shown that

co-rumination is positively related to beneficial aspects including relationship satisfaction and to

detrimental aspects including depression. Young women and girls who report higher levels of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


co-rumination in their friendships feel closer to their friend than do those who report lower levels

of co-rumination (Rose, 2002). Friends who engage in higher levels of co-rumination also rate

their friendships as higher quality than those engage in lower levels of co-rumination (Rose et

al., 2007). However, number of friends has been negatively associated with co-rumination

(Tompkins et al., 2011). The same research has also shown that the amount of co-rumination

occurring in friendships was positively related to depression and anxiety (Rose et al., 2007).

Recent work by Byrd-Craven and colleagues (Byrd-Craven et al., 2008; Byrd-Craven et

al., 2010) has shown that co-rumination has biological consequences, which are likely related to

negative health outcomes. In a study of young college women, Byrd-Craven et al. (2008) found

that higher levels of co-rumination occurring between friends were related to higher levels of

cortisol, a stress hormone. In a more recent study, Byrd-Craven et al. (2011) found that higher

levels of co-rumination were related to higher levels of alpha-amylase, an enzyme associated

with the stress response, as well as higher levels of cortisol. They point out the biological effects

of co-rumination are complex, involving both the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis (cortisol)

and the sympathetic nervous system (alpha-amylase). Stress has been shown to have negative

effects on the immune system (For review, see Denson, Spanovic, & Miller, 2009). Stress is also

believed to be a major factor in many physical illness, such as cancer, asthma, and gastric

condition (Goldstein & Kopin, 2007).

Similarly to co-rumination, social networks have been associated with beneficial aspects

to relationships including increasing social capital through maintenance of close and distant

relationships (Steinfield, et al., 2008; Subrahmanyam, et al., 2008). Raacke and Bond-Raacke

(2007) found that social networks, such as Facebook, are used to locate old friends and to form

new friendships. Users of Facebook are able to communicate with one another in several ways,

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44


such as communicating in real time or sending messages that may be read and responded to at a

later time. Users may also play games (e.g., Farmville, Mafia Wars), which frequently involve

other users. Many of these games often allow users to exchange messages in real time (Pempek

et al., 2009). Sheldon (2008) investigated individual differences in willingness to communicate

and found that users of Facebook communicate via Facebook the way they do in face-to-face

communications.

In the present study, we aimed to determine the extent to which college students engage

in co-rumination when using Facebook and the extent co-rumination through Facebook relates to

health. Adult females are more likely than adult males to endorse facebook relationship status as

containing more meaning such as exclusive relationships and long-term stability (Fox & Weber,

2013) and report having more online relationships (Nice & Katzev, 1988). Females are also

more likely to higher levels of internalizing problems (Tompkins, et al., 2011). While facebook

is used more often for social interaction, facebook has been associated with identity expression

in emerging adulthood (Pempek et al., 2009). Older adolescents have also been shown to use the

internet to communicate with existing personal networks more than younger adolescents who

establish more relationships with strangers (Valkenburg, et al., 2005). Because social networks

such as facebook has been shown to relate to more young adult females than males and young

adolescents, the focus of the research is on a college female population. By analyzing facebook

conversations between same-sex friendship dyads for co-rumination and assessing health

outcomes, the relationship between co-rumination, health, and social networks can be studied.

Additionally, much of the research on co-rumination has found that females co-ruminate more

than males, particularly with same-sex friends, in both adolescent (Rose, 2002; Rose et al., 2007)

and emerging adult populations (Byrd-Craven, Granger & Auer, 2011). As this was our primary

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67


construct of interest, we decided to limit the sample to young women. We hypothesized that

individuals would co-ruminate in their Facebook communications in a similar way that

individuals communicate face-to-face. Furthermore, we hypothesized that co-rumination would

be negatively related to overall health, with higher levels of co-rumination being associated with

lower health scores.

Method

Participants

Participants were 100 female undergraduates enrolled in psychology and speech

communication courses at a large public university. All participants were 18 years of age or

older All 100 participants submitted copies of their Facebook interactions with a friend. The

100 participants included 11 dyads (i.e., 22 participants in which both friends participated in the

study and contributed 11 Facebook conversations).

Materials

All participants completed the co-rumination questionnaire (Rose, 2002), the RAND

Health Survey (Version 1.0, Ware & Sherbourne, 1992), the Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule (PANAS, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), and the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)

Social Support Survey (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991).

The co-rumination questionnaire (Rose, 2002) was administered to assess participants’

levels of co-rumination in their friendships. The questionnaire contains 27 statements that relate

to the type of conversation that the participants have when they talk to another person about their

problems and contains statements such as “After my friend tells me about a problem, I always try

to get my friend to talk more about it later.” The participants were asked on a scale of 1-to-5

how well the statement describes them (1 = not at all true, 5 = really true). Higher scores on the

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90


co-rumination questionnaire indicate that participants engage in higher amounts of co-

rumination. The co-rumination questionnaire has been found to have high internal reliability ( =

.96, Rose, 2002). In the current study, we observed its reliability to be = .98.

The RAND 36-Item Health Survey (Version 1.0, Ware & Sherbourne, 1992) was used to

establish a general overview of the participants’ health conditions. The RAND asked questions

that covered the participant’s personal physical and emotional health. Some questions were

reversed scored in order to account for both positive and negative stated health questions. The

RAND includes two questions which measure global self-rated health and how one’s health has

changed over the past 12 months. The RAND also includes eight other subscales: energy level,

pain, physical functioning, role limitations resulting from physical problems, role limitations

resulting from emotional problems, social functioning, general health perceptions, and general

mental health. A total RAND score can be calculated by combining average responses to each

of the ten components (i.e., two general questions and questions for the 8 subscales). Higher

scores on the RAND indicate healthier response to questions. The reliability of the RAND has

been found to be ≥ 0.70 (Busija, Pausenberger, Haines, Haymes, Buchbinder, & Osborne,

2011). In the current study, we observed its reliability to be = .98.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule questionnaire (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,

1988) was used to assess the average mood of the participants. The PANAS contains twenty

different positive and negative adjectives. The participants were asked on a scale of 1 through 5

how well the adjective describes them (1 being very slightly/ not at all and 5 being extremely).

Some questions were reversed scored in order to account for both positive and negative

adjectives used to describe the mood of the participants and create a total PANAS score.

Questions were also divided into positive and negative adjectives to describe the mood. Higher

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113


scores on the PANAS indicate that participants considered themselves to have more positive

attitudes. The reliability of the PANAS has been found to be .85 for negative affect and .89 for

positive affect (Crawford & Henry, 2004). In the current study, we observed its reliability to be

= .92.

The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) of Social Support (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991)

was modified from its original form to apply to an individual instead of a group. The survey

measures the overall functional social support that the participant receives and contains four

subscales of social support. Higher scores on the overall social support and on the four subscales

indicate higher social support. Participants were instructed to complete the survey when

considering the social support of their friend. The reliability of the MOS has been found to be

between .92 and .97 (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991). In the current study, we observed its

reliability to be = .93.

Procedure

Participants were recruited using an online system (i.e., SONA), which allows

researchers to post descriptions of research studies and allows participants to sign up for

appointments. Only females were allowed to sign up for the study. Participants were given

either course credit or extra credit in a course as compensation for participating in the study.

Participants who signed up for the present study received an email asking them come to the

laboratory with a copy of Facebook conversations that occurred between the participant and a

close, female friend. They were sent a consent form for their friend, which gave permission for

the conversations to be used in the research. The conversations were to have occurred over a

three day period for at least 15 minutes a day. Participants were asked to save the formatted

conversations into a word document and to replace the names involved in the conversation with

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136


the letters A for themselves and B for the other party in the conversation. When participants

arrived to the lab session that were asked to sign a consent form and provide the consent form

from their friend in the conversation. They were asked for the formatted conversations and

asked to fill out the four additional questionnaires. All participants received instructions to a)

pick a close female friend with whom they regularly uses Facebook Chat; b) chat with the friend

at least 15 min. each day through Facebook Chat; c) save each file with their participant

identification number; d) copy and paste ALL conversation from your text window on facebook

chat into the word document; e) remove your name from the transcript; and f) print the transcript

to submit to the laboratory.

The Facebook conversations were coded for the content and amount of co-rumination

within the conversation. The coding for each conversation was conducted by three research

assistants. The system of coding co-rumination developed by Rose et al. (2005) was adapted for

this study. The conversations were divided into four areas of co-rumination: rehashing,

speculating, dwelling on negative affect, and encouraging problem talk. Examples of each of the

areas were provided for clarification for the coders. Rehashing was characterized by “talking

about every detail of the problem, talking about parts of the problem over and over.” Examples

of speculating were “talking about why the problem may have happened, talking about bad

things that might happen because of the problem, talking about parts of the problem that are not

understood.” Dwelling on negative affect pertained to “talking about how bad the person with

problem feels, talking about how upset, sad, or mad the person with the problem feels (or should

feel).” Encouraging problem talk was exemplified by “trying to keep one another talking about

the problems, trying to get each other to tell every detail about the problems.” Each coder rated

the conversations on a 1 to 5 scale for the four different areas. The inter-rater reliability for each

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159


area was as follows: rehashing (alpha = .82); speculation (alpha = .88); negative affect focus

(alpha = .92); mutual encouragement (alpha = .89). When the total scores for all areas were

calculated the average of the three raters was taken whenever the raters score fell within 2 points

of each other. If differences between the raters were more than 2 points apart, the outlier was

dropped and the average of the two similar scores was taken. The averages from the coders

provided an indication of the amount of co-rumination that was found within the conversations.

Results

We analyzed participants’ self-reported daily co-rumination, their co-rumination carried

out through Facebook, as well as their self-reported health, mood, and social support. In effort to

address the data dependency, participants filled out questionnaires separate from their dyadic

partner. Conversations were also scored individually without consideration to what the other

individual in the conversation stated. Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for these

variables. The results supported our hypothesis that individuals co-ruminate in daily life when

communicating through Facebook. Similar amounts of co-rumination were observed in each of

the three conversations carried out through Facebook. Total observed co-rumination was used as

a predictor in lieu of average observed co-rumination to reduce the influence of outliers, as has

been done in previous studies (Byrd-Craven et al., 2008; Byrd-Craven et al., 2011). The total

observed co-rumination in the first conversation significantly predicted the total observed co-

rumination in the second conversation, F(1,88) = 34.53, p < .001, β = .531, and that the total

observed co-rumination in the second conversation significantly predicted the total observed co-

rumination in the third conversation, F(1,88) = 24.42, p < .001, β = .466.

Further analyses were conducted to analyze the subcomponents of co-rumination (i.e.,

Rehashing, Speculation, Encouraging Problem Talk, and Negative Affect). The results showed

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182


that Rehashing observed in Facebook communications predicted the amount of rehashing

occurring in reported communications, F(1,88) = 16.18, p < .001, β = .394. The amount of

Rehashing in the second conversation predicted Rehashing in the third conversation, F(1,88) =

25.18, p < .001, β = .538. Speculation in the first conversation predicted Speculation in the

second conversation, F(1,88) = 5.4, p = .022, β = .229. Negative Affect Focus in the first

conversation predicted Negative Affect Focus in the second conversation, F(1,88) = 10.75, p

= .001, β = .317, and Negative Affect Focus in the second conversation predicted Negative

Affect focus in the third conversation, F(1,88) = 14.64, p < .001, β = .454. Encouraging Problem

Talk in the first conversation predicted Encouraging Problem Talk in the second conversation,

F(1,88) = 16.83, p < .001, β = .349, and Encouraging Problem Talk in the second conversation

predicted Encouraging Problem Talk in the third conversation, F(1,88) = 16.55, p < .001, β

= .488.

Correlational analyses were conducted to investigate the interrelatedness of the subscales

of the RAND, the PANAS, the MOS, co-rumination on Facebook, and self-reported co-

rumination. A summary of these results are displayed in Table 2. As in prior research (Hays,

Ron, Sherbourne & Mazel, 1995), the subscales of the RAND health measure were positively

related to one another. Total social support measured through MOS scale was positively

correlated with general health scores (r = .228, p = .023). Further analyses suggested self-

reported co-rumination was positively associated emotional limitations (r = .20, p = .048) and

observed co-rumination was positively associated with physical health (r = .209, p = .049) and

physical functioning (r = .23, p = .028). Physical functioning was negatively related to the

positive subscale of the PANAS (r = -.21, p = .04), as higher levels of physical function were

related to lower levels of positive affect.

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205


In order to investigate how self-reported co-rumination and co-rumination on Facebook

predicted health, we conducted a multiple regression using a hierarchical approach. We used the

total score for the RAND for each participant as the dependent variable in the hierarchical

regression. We investigated whether self-reported co-rumination and co-rumination on Facebook

could significantly improve model fit, explaining variance in addition to the variance accounted

for by the total social support as measured by MOS. Table 3 displays a summary of the

variables, standard errors, beta values, standardized betas, and R2 from this analysis. Both

models had acceptable Variance Inflation Factor and Tolerance values. In Block 1, VIF ranged

from 1.00 to 1.03, and Tolerance ranged from .70 to .87. In Block 2, VIF ranged from 1.05 to

1.44, and Tolerance ranged from .97 to .99. Additionally, with means at or around zero, the

following diagnostic statistics indicated that both models were a good fit: Residual, Cook’s

Distance, Studentized Residual, and Centered leverage Value. The predictor entered into the

first block was the MOS, which accounted for 4% of the variance, Block 1 [F(1, 89) = 3.35, p

< .07]. There was a non-significant trend for those with higher levels of social support being

related to higher levels of overall health. The predictors added into Block 2 along with MOS

were self-reported co-rumination and co-rumination on Facebook. The predictors included in

Block 2 [F(3,89) = 3.81, p < .02] accounted for 12% of the variance in overall health. As

expected, the addition of co-rumination significantly improved the fit of the model. Controlling

for social support, self-reported co-rumination was a significant predictor of overall health,

indicating that a higher level of co-rumination was associated with lower levels of health. Social

support also proved to be a significant positive predictor of health. Please see Table 3 for the

standardized beta weights, standard errors, beta values, and R-square change.

Discussion

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228


The results of the present research confirmed that co-rumination does occur in young

women’s communications through Facebook. The elements of co-rumination (i.e., Rehashing,

Speculation, and Negative Affect) were related in the three conversations carried out on

Facebook which suggest that co-rumination through Facebook continues throughout the

interaction. The results also confirmed that when the positive benefits of social support were

controlled in a hierarchical regression analysis, self-reported co-rumination negatively predicted

overall health (as measured by participants total Rand scores). It is important to note that

reported self-reported co-rumination and observed co-rumination are not correlated but are both

predictors of the total RAN health score. Given that both having an observer and self

perspective add unique view points to the situation, the lack of association it is not surprising.

The results suggest that some users of social networking sites, such as Facebook, are

unknowingly engaging in communications that may adversely affect their health. Because of the

increasing availability of smart cellular phones and other devices (e.g., pads) that allow users to

communicate through social networking throughout the day, we expect that individuals who

regularly engage in co-rumination with close friends will have more opportunities to do so.

Those individuals engaging in high-levels of co-rumination are likely to not only experience

higher levels of stress at the time that the communications are occurring, but may also put

themselves at risk in the future, as overall health can decline as the result of chronic stress.

In the present study, we allowed participants to select the conversations to submit to the

study for analysis. We recognize that this is an important limitation of the study. It is possible

that participants’ choices may have led to an underestimation of the co-rumination occurring in

their relationships, as participants may have avoided sharing conversations that focused on

especially private life experiences. In future research, it may be possible to enroll participants in

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251


the study and to collect conversations (with participants’ permission) as they occur in real-time.

This method would create a sample of conversations that are more representative of the entire

range of conversation topics that young women experience. Additional characteristics of the

individual’s social network such has number of friends and time spent using social networks

were also not assessed. Number of friends has been shown to be negatively related to

personality factors such as shyness (Orr, et al., 2009) and to co-rumination (Tompkins et al.,

2011). Future research should expand upon details of individual’s social networks that could be

influencing online behaviors.

Future research should also explore the extent to which co-rumination carried out on

social networking sites, such as Facebook, lead to changes in the biological markers for stress

(i.e., cortisol and alpha amylase). Prior research has found that co-rumination occurring in face-

to-face communications was related to higher levels of cortisol and alpha amylase (Byrd-Craven

et al., 2008). We expect that similar results would be obtained when participants are

communicating regardless of how they are communication (i.e., face-to-face vs. on a cellular

phone vs. via a social-networking site). Because individuals may be communicating more often

via cellular phones and social networking sites than they are communicating face-to-face and

because there may be differences in characteristics of the communications (e.g., duration,

intensity), differences in the biological stress responses may be found for the different methods

of communicating.

In sum, the research provides evidence that young women co-ruminate when

communicating through Facebook. Their levels of co-rumination in daily life predicted overall

health with those engaging in the highest levels of co-rumination in daily life having the lowest

health scores when the positive benefits of social support were statistically controlled. We

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274


anticipate that the use of social networking sites, such as Facebook, will increase in the future.

Consequently, there is the danger that the prevalence of co-rumination will increase. We hope

that this initial study of co-rumination on Facebook provides an impetus for others to investigate

co-rumination, health, and/or stress response in studies of human communication.

275

276

277

278


References

Byrd-Craven, J., Granger, D.A., & Auer, B.J. (2011). Stress reactivity to co-rumination in young

women’s friendships: The relationship between cortisol and alpha-amylase. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 469-487.

Byrd-Craven, J., Geary, D. C., Rose, A. J., & Ponzi, D. (2008). Co- ruminating increases stress

hormone levels in women. Hormones & Behavior, 53, 489-492.

Calmes, C. A. & Roberts, J. E. (2008). Rumination in interpersonal relationships: Does co-

rumination explain gender differences in emotional distress and relationship satisfaction

among college students? Cognitive Therapy Research, 32, 577-590.

Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS):

Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical

sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265.

Denson, T. F., Spanovic, M., & Miller, N. (2009). Cognitive appraisals and emotions predict

cortisol and immune responses: A meta-analysis of acute laboratory social stressors and

emotion inductions. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 823-853.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social

capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.

Facebook (2012, May 3). Company figures [Statistics made available online]. Retrieved from

http://www.facebook.com/press / info.php?statistics.

Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2013). Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook: An

exploratory study of emerging adults' perceptions, motives, and behaviors.

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

http://www.facebook.com/press/

http://www.facebook.com/press/


Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 16(1), 3-7.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0288.

Goldstein, D.S., & Kopin, I. J. (2007). Evolution of concepts of stress. Stress, 10, 109–120.

Haggard, D. L., Robert, C. & Rose, A. J. (2011). Co-rumination in the workplace: Adjustment

trade-offs for men and women who engage in excessive discussions of workplace

problems. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 27-40.

Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Mao, Y. & Swafford, B. (2011).

Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook

communication and relational closeness. Communication Research, 38, 27-53.

Nice, M. L., & Katzev, R. (1998). Internet romances: The frequency and nature of romantic on-

line relationships. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 1(3), 217-223.

doi:10.1089/cpb.1998.1.217.

Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Ross, C., Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., & Orr, R. R. (2009). The

influence of shyness on the use of facebook in an undergraduate sample.

CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 337-340. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0214.

Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A. & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students' social networking

experiences on facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227-238.

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and

gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior,

11, 169-174.

Rose, A. J. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73,

1830-1843.

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322


Rose, A.J., Schwartz, R.A., & Carlson, W. (2005, April). An observational assessment of co-

rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. In Coie, J.D., Putallaz, M. (Eds.), The

costs and benefits of interpersonal processes underlying girls’ friendships. Symposium

conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development.

Rose, A. J., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. M. (2007). Prospective associations of co-rumination with

friendship and emotional adjustment: Considering the socioemotional trade-offs of co-

rumination. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1019-1031.

Sheldon K. M., Abad, N. & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use and

relatedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use and connection rewards it.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Advance online publication.

doi:10.1037/a0022407.

Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students’

facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20, 67–75.

Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social Science &

Medicine, 32 (6), 705-714,

Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D. & Rosen, D. (2011). Contingencies of self-worth and social-

networking-site behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 41-49.

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online

social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 29(6), 434-445. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002

Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline

social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420-433. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345


Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New

York, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tompkins, T. L., Hockett, A. R., Abraibesh, N., & Witt, J. L. (2011). A closer look at co-

rumination: Gender, coping, peer functioning and internalizing/externalizing problems.

Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 801-811. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.02.005

Valkenburg, P. M., Schouten, A. P., & Peter, J. (2005). Adolescents' identity experiments on the

internet. New Media & Society, 7(3), 383-402. doi:10.1177/1461444805052282

Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Weiser, E. (2000). Gender differences in internet use patterns and internet application

preferences: A two-sample comparison. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 167–78.

Wise, K., Alhabash, S. & Park, H. (2010). Emotional responses during social information

seeking on facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13, 555-562.

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359


Table 1.

Summary of Descriptive Statistics for the measures used in the study.

Measure N Mean SD Variance Skewness Kurtosis Min. Max.

Physical Functioning 99 90.66 18.96 359.51 -3.21 10.39 100.00 90.66

Limitations (Physical) 99 91.92 18.84 354.95 -2.74 7.95 100.00 91.92

Limitations (Emotional) 99 68.35 37.31 1391.70 -.73 -.96 100.00 68.35

Energy 98 54.80 16.40 269.03 -.40 .36 90.00 54.80

Emotional Well Being 99 74.63 13.74 188.79 -.85 1.20 100.00 74.63

Social Functioning 98 79.85 22.46 504.62 -1.14 .28 100.00 79.85

Pain 99 83.28 18.16 329.80 -2.11 5.72 100.00 83.28

General Health 99 70.61 21.77 474.12 -.79 -.31 100.00 70.61

Physical Health 99 84.12 13.17 173.37 -1.74 4.95 100.00 84.12

Emotional Health 97 69.21 17.57 308.58 -.63 -.23 97.50 69.21

Total RAND 100 120.5 11.63 135.32 -.65 .66 146.00 120.50

MOS 100 80.07 8.93 79.78 -1.03 .59 90.00 80.07

PANAS (positive) 98 36.17 6.70 44.87 -.59 .45 15.00 50.00

PANAS (negative) 97 19.13 5.29 28.01 .87 .40 11.00 35.00

Co-Rumination 100 77.42 23.39 547.24 .27 -.04 135.00 77.42

Observed Co-rumination 90 30.63 8.86 78.47 .42 .74 59.00 30.63

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378


Table 2.

Summary of Correlational Analyses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Gen Health

2. Limitations (Emotional) .32**

3. Physical Health .60** .06

4. Physical Functioning .09 -.11 .68**

5. Limitations (Physical) .13 -.14 .72** .47**

6. Energy .31* .31* .29** .10 .13

7. Emotional WB .31** .47** .18 .03 -.09 .49**

8. Social Functioning .32** .45** .33** .13 .13 .45** .62**

9. Pain .31* .03 .73** .32** .40** .24* .19 .33**

10. Emotional Health .42** .84** .25* .01 .02 .64** .76** .79** .23*

11. Total RAND .04 -.18 -.06 -.12 -.06 .05 -.04 .05 -.02 -.07

12. MOS .23* .10 .04 -.12 -.08 -.07 .01 .05 .05 .11 .15

13. Postive PANAS -.04 -.02 -.18 -.21* -.13 -.08 -.09 -.11 -.11 -.07 -.03 -.03

14. Negative PANAs -.08 .04 -.13 -.12 -.04 .04 .02 -.02 -.12 .04 -.02 -.04 -.19

15. SR Co-Rumination -.00 .20* -.10 .02 -.14 -.01 .13 .04 -.15 .16 -.18 .17 -.03 -.09

16. FB Co-Rumination .10 .02 .21* .23* .15 .20 -.02 -.02 .09 -.05 .09 -.07 -.02 .13 .02

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397


Note: WB = Well Being, SR = Self- Reported, FB = Facebook, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 398


Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Results with Social Support, Self-reported Co-rumination, and Co-

Rumination on Facebook Predicting Health.

Block 1 Block 2

Predictors B SE β p-value B SE β p-value

Intercept101.2

210.65

101.1

111.53

Social Support .24 .13 .19 .07 .31 .13 .24 .02

SR Co-Rumination -.13 .05 -.27 .01

FB Co-Rumination .15 .13 .12 .25

R² .04 .12

ΔR² .03

Note. Dependent variable = Total RAND; SR = Self-Reported; FB = Facebook.

399

400

401

402

403

Documents

The Relationship Between Co-Rumination and Health in Young Women:Evidence from Facebook Communications