Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences Volume 14, Issue 2, (2019) 313-321 www.cjes.eu The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s Cemaliye Direktor*, Department of Psychology, European University of Lefke, 99728 Lefke, Turkey Cahit Nuri, Department of Special Education, Cyprus International University, Nicosia, Turkey Zihniye Okray, Department of Psychology, European University of Lefke, 99728 Lefke, Turkey Anjelika Huseyinzade Simsek, Cag University, Mersin, Turkey Suggested Citation: Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. Received from September 12, 2018; revised from March 12, 2019; accepted from May 13, 2019. Selection and peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Cyprus. © 2019. All rights reserved. Abstract The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between site use intentions and personality beliefs of social network users. The Education faculty students at a private university in North Cyprus were informed about the research and the questionnaires were applied by the researchers to volunteer students. From total of 198 students, 143 (72.2%) were females and 55 (27.8%) males. Socio-demographic Information Form and Personality Belief Scale were used. The results show that participants who reported political opinion had significantly higher scores of schizoid, antisocial and narcissistic personality beliefs than those who did not. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict personality beliefs of purpose, sharing and profile information. When the t-test is examined, it is seen that commenting on only the shares of the subject variables is a significant predictor of the narcissistic personality belief. In this study, participants who have narcissistic, passive-aggressive, paranoid and antisocial personality beliefs usually and more frequently share songs on social networks. Keywords: Belief, personality, social networks, university students, social sharing. * ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Cemaliye Direktor, Department of Psychology, European University of Lefke, 99728 Lefke, Turkey. E-mail address: cdirektor@eul.edu.tr / Tel.: +0-392-660-2627 Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. 1. Introduction The increasing use of smartphones with the rapid development of technology makes use of the internet widespread (Bozkurt, 2013). Chat rooms, virtual communities, social networks, Wikis, blogs or video sharing sites become a centre of people’s lives (Acohido, 2010; Reed, 2012). New forms of communication are determined by the social networks (Boyd & Crawford 2012). Social sharing sites constitute the biggest stake in the use of the internet. Blank (2013) reports that two thirds of internet users are the members of social networking sites. Social networks are characterised by the importance of everyday life, especially for young people because they prefer virtual communication (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008), rather than centimetre communication (Sheldon, Abad & Hinsch, 2011). Social networks are defined as systems that enable an individual to create a unique profile within certain boundaries, connect with other individuals, share with them and see the sharing of others (Boyd & Ellison, 2011). In addition to profile information, groups, such as creating and participating in or share ideas (Kim, Jeong & Lee, 2010), also present the social needs that can be met. Social networks contribute to social interaction by giving individuals opportunity beyond place and time (Goker, Demir & Dogan, 2010). Developed by Mark Zukerberg, Facebook is known as the community with the most members among social networking sites (Ozata, 2013). According to April 2016 data, Facebook has 1.59 billion active users per month and is the leader of social networking sites. Followed by Instagram with 400 million users and Twitter with 320 million users (Statista, 2016). Research held by Ceyhan (2013) stated that 66% of Facebook members in Turkey use the social network to communicate with their friends. When literature is examined, it seems that many studies according to social network take place. Studies emphasises the importance of social interaction but also state the negative relationship of students’ success (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010) and shares may cause negative emotions in individuals (Hew, 2011). In a study of Facebook users, it is reported that users with narcissistic characteristics are more likely to share photos and update their status (Carpenter, 2012). In a study by Correa, Hinsley and De Zuniga (2010), anxious individuals say they spend more time on Facebook. Similarly, there is a relationship between the frequency of Facebook usage and the narcissistic trait (Mehdizadeh, 2010). Although theories that define personality have different perspectives, they conclude that personality includes cognitive, emotional, social and physical domains (Ewen, 2003). Cloninger and Svrakic (2000) refer to the adaptive effect of personality to the environment. While Cognitive Theory deals with the dimension of belief, it also explains personality disorders with nonfunctional beliefs (Turkcapar et al., 2007). The basic beliefs shaped by individual experiences conduct the individual's feelings and behaviours (Beck, 2014; Taymur & Turkcapar, 2012). Beliefs that become active in a living situation, if not functional, affect the person's experience in the negative (Hjemdal, Stiles & Wells, 2013). Cognitive Theory states that each personality disorder has its own nonfunctional beliefs (Turkcapar et al., 2007). The place and importance of social sharing sites in the individual's experience is increasing day by day. Individuals express themselves in these ways and prefer to use these sites for social interaction. They are trying to reflect their own properties in a virtual way with customised profiles and shares. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between site use intentions and personality beliefs of social network users. 2. Research method 2.1. Sampling The Education faculty students at a private university in North Cyprus were informed about the research and the questionnaires were applied by the researchers to volunteer students. From total of 198 students, 143 (72.2%) were females and 55 (27.8%) males. 314 Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. 2.2. Data collection tools 2.2.1. Sociodemographic information form The form prepared by the researchers directed to the purpose of the study, consists of questions age, gender, social sharing site membership, usage frequency, usage areas and sharing areas. 2.2.2. Personality belief scale There is a scale of 126 items according 9 personality beliefs. They are: passive aggressive, obsessivecompulsive, antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic, schizoid and paranoid attitudes. The scale aims to determine the basic beliefs of the individual himself, others and the world. The Turkish validity and reliability study of the scale was carried out by Turkcapar et al. (2007). In the adaptation study, the reliability internal consistency coefficient is specified as 0.95. For this study, the Cronbach Alpha value was found to be 0.93. 2.3. Data analysis SPSS 20 has been used in the data analysis. Independent sample t-test and multiple regression analysis were used for the analysis. 3. Results It was determined that 100% of participants of the survey used Facebook and Instagram among social network sites. 36.4% (n = 72) of the participants reported that they used more than 6 years and 32.8% (n = 65) reported that they were members of this site during the period of 4-6 years. When the usage frequency distribution is examined, it is learned that 50% of the users (n = 99) are always active in that social networking site. Frequency and percentage distributions of participants' social network usage are given in Table 1. Table 1. Social networking usage distribution of participants N Social networks Facebook 198 Twitter 2 Instagram 195 Social network membership 0–2 years 19 2–4 years 42 4–6 years 65 6 years and more 72 Frequency of social network usage Continuous 99 More than once per day 62 Once a day 22 More than once per week 5 Once a week 3 Once a month 7 % 100 1.01 98.5 9.6 21.2 32.8 36.4 50 31.3 11.1 2.5 1.5 3.5 When the participants' social networking intentions were examined (Table 2), 87.9% (n = 174) of them used social networks to communicate with their friends. The participants were allowed to mark more than one option as yes from the listed usage purposes. In this direction, 71.7% (n = 142) of participants used social networks to follow the agenda. The other purpose is to be aware of events: 66.2% (n = 131). Information was provided about what participants shared through social networks. In 315 Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. this direction 68.2% (n = 135) of their photographs; 65.7% (n = 130) songs and 66.7% (n = 132) of them shared beautiful or meaningful words. Participants were asked what personal profile information they shared at their social networking site. According to the results obtained, 90.4% (n = 179) of the participants share their real names; 76.8% (n = 152) date of birth; 74.2% (n = 147) place of working or studying; 75.8% (n = 150) where they are from and 78.8% (n = 156) share their profile information about where they live now. Table 2. Social networking usage purpose, sharing and profile information distribution of participants N % Purposes of use To find old friends 174 87.9 To find new friends 0 0 Communicate with friends 150 75.8 To be aware of events 131 66.2 To comment the sharing’s of others 167 84.3 Follow the agenda 142 71.7 To follow others 0 0 Active sharing Photos of him/herself 135 68.2 Songs 130 65.7 Beautiful or meaningful words 132 66.7 Feelings 0 0 Opinion on specific topics 0 0 Profile information Real name 179 90.4 Date of birth 152 76.8 Place of working or studying 147 74.2 Where they are from 150 75.8 Living location 156 78.8 Political view 0 0 It has been examined whether the social networking intentions, sharing and profile information of the participants of the survey affect their personality beliefs. Passive aggressive and paranoid belief scores were found to be lower (p < 0.05, p < 0.05) than those who use social networks to communicate with their friends. There is also a meaningful difference between those who comment and those who do not. It was found that the paranoid (t = 3.381, p < 0.01), histrionic (t = 3.308, p < 0.01), schizoid (t = 3.512, p < 0.01) beliefs of antisocial (t = 2.910, p < 0.01) and obsessive compulsive (t = 2.788, p < 0.01) were significantly higher than those who did not comment. It was observed that the scores of the histrionic personality beliefs differed significantly among participants who used social networks rather than those who followed others (t = 2.179, p < 0.05). Participants' histrionic personality belief scores were found to be significantly higher than those who did not follow the others (14.1333 + 5.52742) (10.8743 + 5.57078). Participants' share of song sharing was found to be statistically significant (t = 2.270, p < 0.05), antisocial (t = 2.329, p < 0.05), passive-aggressive (t = 2.592, p < 0.05) were significantly different. Participants who shared songs showed significantly higher scores than non-shared participants. Participants who shared their feelings were found to be narcissistic (13.7536 + 5.49975, t = 2.184, p < 0.05), antisocial (16.4493 + 6.96321, t = 2.402, p < 5.39736, t = 2.725, p < 0.01) were found to be significantly higher than those who did not share their feelings. Antisocial personality belief scores were significantly different between the participants who shared their views on a particular topic and those who did not (t = 2.683, p < 0.01). Participants (16.5775 + 7.39726) who shared their views on a particular subject were found to have significantly higher antisocial personality trust scores than participants who did not share 316 Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. (14.1260 + 5.36004). Among the participants who did not share the political opinion in the social network’s profile and who did not share, there was a significant difference between the belief scores of antisocial (t = 3.300, p < 0.01), schizoid (t = 3.841, p < 0.001) and narcissistic (t = 2.321, p < ). It was found to be different. Participants who reported political opinion had significantly higher scores of schizoid, antisocial and narcissistic personality beliefs than those who did not. Narcissistic personality belief Table 3. The predictor’s of personality beliefs B SE Communicating with friends Commenting on sharing Following others Sharing songs Sharing emotions Sharing opinions Sharing political opinions R = 0.340, R2 = 0.110, p < 0.01. Schizoid personality belief Communicating with friends Commenting on sharing Following others Sharing songs Sharing emotions Sharing opinions Sharing political opinions R = 0.409, R2 = 0.168, p < 0.001. Β t p 1.213 −3.181 1.046 −1.078 0.117 1.183 −1.059 0.730 0.699 0.740 0.649 0.653 0.701 0.898 0.111 −0.272 0.090 −0.192 0.011 −0.133 −0.134 1.312 −1.993 1.413 −1.200 0.180 1.553 −1.292 0.091 0.004 0.159 0.049 0.858 0.071 0.053 B SE β t p 1.620 −2.210 −1.180 0.303 0.208 0.347 −2.757 0.573 0.698 0.614 0.650 0.570 0.598 0.789 0.160 −0.184 −0.111 0.029 0.021 0.025 −0.342 2.686 −3.023 −1.923 0.466 0.364 0.401 −3.599 0.005 0.002 0.056 0.641 0.716 0.675 0.000 Multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict personality beliefs of purpose, sharing and profile information. R = 0.340, R2 = 0.110, p < 0.01, where variables of communicating with friends, commenting on sharing, following others, sharing songs, emotions and opinions and reporting political opinion significantly predicted beliefs were seen. The mentioned variables account for 11% of the variance. When the t-test is examined, it is seen that commenting on only the shares of the subject variables is a significant predictor of the narcissistic personality belief (t = −1.993, p < 0.01). The same variables were also found to be a significant predictor of antisocial personality beliefs, R = 0.358, R2 = 0.128, p < 0.001. All variables account for 13% of the total variance. When the predictive effect of the variables was examined, it was found that only the political opinion reporting was a significant predictor of antisocial personality belief (t = 1.263, p < 0.01). It was seen that the variables predicted the schizoid personality belief significantly, R = 0.409, R2 = 0.168, p < 0.001. Variables account for 17% of the total variance. When the t values of the variables were examined, it was observed that the opinion of political opinion (t = −3.599, p < 0.001), comments on sharing (t = −3.023, p < 0.01) and communication with friends (t = 2.686, p < 0.01) are predictors of the schizoid personality belief. 4. Discussion Social networks act as a stage for individuals to display their personalities as they wish to be or projects an image that they want to be (Boyd, 2007; Garbasevschi, 2015; Seidman, 2013; Wu, Chang & Yuan, 2015). In recent literature about social networks, there is a escalated amount of researchers that are done in different university student samples in different countries (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010; Blackwell, Leaman, Tramposch, Osborne & Liss 2017; Brailovskaia & Margraf, 2016; Lee, Ahn & Kim, 2014, Longstreet & Brooks, 2017; Karal & Kokoc, 2010) and in different age groups (Adams, Stubbs & Woods, 2005; Chua & Chua, 2017; Doubova (Dubova), Perez-Cuevas, Espinosa-Alarcon & 317 Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. Flores-Hernandez, 2010; Grieve & Watkinson, 2016; Wade, Howell & Wells, 1994). Researchers tries to link personality characteristics to social network usage (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010; Brailovskaia & Margraf, 2016; Blackwell, Leaman, Tramposch, Osborne & Liss 2017; Lee, Ahn & Kim, 2014). Also, there are tremendous amount of research about mental disorders and the usage of social networks (Lee, Park & Tam, 2015; Moreau, Laconi, Delfour & Chabrol, 2015; Rosen, Whaling, Carrier & Cheever, 2013; Steers, Wickham & Acitelli, 2014; Youn et al., 2013). Especially, studies relate social networks usage in terms of Likes, Comments and Shares with personality characteristics and narcissism (Dumas, Maxwell-Smith, Davis & Giulietti, 2017; Garcia & Sikstom, 2014; Kim & Yang, 2017; Marshall, Lefringhausen & Ferenczi, 2015; Moreau, Laconi, Delfour & Chabrol, 2015; Ryan & Xenos, 2011; Wu & Lo, 2014). New Feeds and Wall usage of FB linked to Big Five Personality features (Caci, Cardaci, Tabacchi & Scrima, 2014; Marshall, Lefringhausen & Ferenczi, 2015; Moreau, Laconi, Delfour & Chabrol, 2015; Ryan & Xenos, 2011; Wang, Ho, Chan & Tse, 2015). In this research without regarding the personality beliefs of the participants they claim that they use social networks to communicate with friends, keep themselves up to date about the public agenda and follow the upcoming events (Bat, 2017; Grigore (Isbasoıu), 2015). Besides these aims the participants claims that they share their own photos, songs and phrases or sayings. The information that they make public in their social networks page includes their real full names, birth dates, place they work or study and where they from and where they live (Bat, 2017; Garbasevschi, 2015; Veghes, Orzan, Acatrinei & Dugulan, 2013). The statistical analysis was done and some relationships and differences were calculated according to the participant’s personality beliefs and their kinds of sharing on social networks. Personality Beliefs Questionnaire was developed by Beck and Beck (1991) to measure cognitive dimension of personality which includes dysfunctional beliefs about one self that are related with personality disorders. In this study although none of the participants did not evaluated in the basis of DSM-5 criteria’s of personality disorders because of the properties and assumptions of PBQ the participants PBQ scores evaluated according to DSM-5 Personality Disorders A, B and C clusters. In Cluster A, the personality disorder of DSM-5 are Paranoid, Schizoid and Schizotypal, Cluster B includes Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic and Narcissistic and finally Cluster C includes Avoidant, Dependent and Obsessive-Compulsive personality disorders. Cluster A personality disorders general characteristics are oddness and eccentricity, Cluster B personality disorders usually show the general characteristics like being dramatic and emotional and Cluster C Personality Disorders general characteristics are anxiousness and fearfulness (DSM-5, 2013). In this study, participants who claims that they use social networks for communicate with friends have lower levels of passive-aggressive and paranoid personality beliefs about themselves. A passiveaggressive individual usually shows resistance to authority figures but at the same time they want respect and pampering from them. They are resentful about the rules of the society; they believe that if they obey the rules of the society they will lose their freedom and self-sufficiency. On the other paranoid individuals usually do not trust others and they tries to keep their personal or private life as a secret to prevent others change to give harm to them (Koroglu, 2004). Social networks users with the aim of communication with other share their agendas and also personal information on their Wall and keep others posted about their fun activities, places or to be places. From this perspective, it is expected and normal for individual who have lower levels of passive-aggressive and paranoid beliefs about themselves use social networks for communication with others. Participants who claim that they usually make comments about their friends sharing have more paranoid, schizoid, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial and obsessive-compulsive personality beliefs. Paranoid and schizoid personality features includes oddness and eccentrism, histrionic, narcissistic and antisocial personalities’ common features are being dramatic and emotional and finally obsessivecompulsive personality’s most common features and being anxious and fearful (DSM 5, 2013; Koroglu, 2004). From this point of view, it can be more understandable that these individuals tries to keep them up to date with others, being on stage, controls others posts and also make them visible to 318 Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. others. Lee, Park and Tam (2015) found to those obsessive-compulsive beliefs make individuals to use social networks more and follow others. Another finding of the study was participants who use social networks to follow others have more histrionic personality beliefs. Histrionic individuals’ self-esteem depends on the approval of others and does not arise from a true feeling of self-worth. They have an overwhelming desire to be noticed, and often behave dramatically or inappropriately to get attention (DSM 5, 2013; Koroglu, 2004). Histrionic beliefs are again related with making comments to others with the same reason to keep them on stage and being noticeable by others. Also, Rosen et al. (2013) and Ryan and Xenos (2011) found that certain personality disorders are significantly related with following and commenting to others. In this study, participants who have narcissistic, passive-aggressive, paranoid and antisocial personality beliefs usually and more frequently share songs on social networks. Besides these findings participants who have narcissistic, paranoid and antisocial personality beliefs share their feelings on social networks. Also, participants who have antisocial personality beliefs shares their opinions on social networks and finally participants who share their political opinion and comments on others have more schizoid, narcissistic and antisocial personality beliefs. Sharing something on social networks can be counted as self-representation, self-promotion and making themselves public to others about their feeling, opinions, political opinions, likes, dislikes and other personality features that only be knowable by individuals who close to them. When we talk about personality disorders these features or characteristics fully earned and experienced from childhood era of the life. Human beings likes to be in a familiar environment and maybe social networks and other social networking places give them chance to be in a secure place that they want to be but in cyber life (Carpenter, 2012; Nadkarnia & Hofmann, 2012; Ryan & Xenos, 2011; Sheldon, 2013). References Acohido, B. (2010). Facebook, Twitter sees more spam attacks. Retrieved from http: //usat.ly/1gKhYiY. Adams, N., Stubbs, D & Woods V. (2005), Psychological barriers to Internet Usage among older adults in the UK. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 30(1), 3–17. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) (DSM5®). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1289–1295. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018 Bat, M. (2017). Izmir’deki Kiz Universite Ogrencilerinin Facebook Kullanmama Nedenleri, Gumushane Universitesi. Iletisim Fakultesi Elektronik Dergisi, 5(1), 262–291. doi:10.19145/gumuscomm.292252 Beck, A. T. & Beck, J. S. (1991). The personality belief questionnaire (Unpublished assessment instrument). The Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research, BalaCynwyd, PA. Blackwell, D., Leaman, C., Tramposch, R., Osborne, C. & Liss, M. (2017). Extraversion, neuroticism, attachment style and fear of missing out as predictors of social media use and addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 69–72. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.039 Blank, G. (2013). Who creates content? Stratification and content creation on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 16(4), 590–612. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.777758 Boyd, D. (2007). “Why youth (Heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage social life.” In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur foundation series on digital learning—youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boyd, D. & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. doi:10.1080/ 1369118X.2012.678878 Bozkurt, I. (2013). Psikolojik Yardım Uygulamalarinda Yeni Trend: Online Terapiler [New trend in psychological help applications: online therapies]. International Journal of Human Science, 110(2), 130–146. ISSN: 1301-5134 319 Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. Brailovskaia, J. & Margraf, J. (2016). Comparing Facebook users and Facebook non-users: relationship between personality traits and mental health variables—an exploratory study. PLoS One, 11(12), 1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166999 Caci, B., Cardaci, M., Tabacchi, M. E. & Scrima, F. (2014). Personality variables as predictors of Facebook Usage. Psychological Reports: Relationships & Communications, 114(2), 528–539. doi:10.2466/21.09. PR0.114k23w6 Calin, V., Mihai, O., Carmen, A. & Diana, D. (2013). Private information revealed by Romanian Facebook users— an exploratory assessment. The Annals of the University of Oradea, 1(1), 1827–1834. Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Narcissism on Facebook: self-promotional and anti-social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 482–486. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.011 Ceyhan, A. A. (2013). An investigation of young adults’ Facebook use. Asian Conference on the Social Sciences— ACSS 2013, Hong Kong. Chua Y.P & Chua, Y.P. (2017). Do computer-mediated communication skill, knowledge and motivation mediate the relationships between personality traits and attitude toward Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 51–59. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.034 Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W. & De Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: the intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 247–253. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003 Doubova (Dubova), S. V, Perez-Cuevas, R., Espinosa-Alarcon, P. & Flores-Hernandez, S. (2010). Social network types and functional dependency in older adults in Mexico. BMC Public Health, 10, 104. doi:10.1016/ j.chb.2017.01.037 Dumas, T. M, Maxwell-Smith, M., Davis, J. P. & Giulietti, P.A. (2017). Lying or longing for likes? Narcissism, peer belonging, loneliness and normative versus deceptive like-seeking on Instagram in emerging adulthood. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.037 Garbasevschi, D. (2015). Online identity in the case of the share phenomenon. A glimpse into the on lives of Romanian millennia’s. Journal of Media Research, 2(22), 14–26. Garcia, D. & Sikstrom, S. (2014). The dark side of Facebook: semantic representations of status updates predict the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 92–96. doi:10.1016/j.paid. 2013.10.001 Goker, G., Demir, M. & Dogan, D. (2010). Ag toplumunda sosyallesme ve paylasim: Facebook uzerine ampirik bir arastırma. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 5(2), 4C0035. Grieve, R. & Watkinson, J. (2016). The psychological benefits of being authentic on Facebook. Cyber psychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 19(7), 420–425. doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0010 Grigore (Isbasoıu), A. P. (2015). Consumption exposure on Facebook: what do we share in the online environment? Journal of Media Research, 8(2), 68–83. Hew, K. F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 662–676. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020 Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: an exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129–156. doi:10.1080/01639620701457816. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/ Karal, H. & Kokoc, M. (2010). Universite Ogrencilerinin Sosyal Ag Siteleri Kullanim Amaclarin Belirlemeye Yonelik Bir Olcek Gelistirme Calismasi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 1(3), 251–263. Kim, C. & Yang, S. U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: how each behavior differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43(2017), 441–449. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.006 Kim, W., Jeong, O. R. & Lee, S. W. (2010). On social Web sites. Information systems, 35(2), 215–236. doi:10.1016/j.is.2009.08.003 Kirschner, Paul A. & Karpinski, Aryn C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024 Koroglu, E. (2004). PsikoNozoloji, Tanimlayici Klinik Psikiyatri. Ankara,Turkey: Hekimler Yayin Birligi. Lee, E., Ahn, J. & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Personality traits and self-presentation of Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 162–167. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.020 320 Direktor, C., Nuri, C., Okray, Z. & Huseyinzade Simsek, A. (2019). The relationship between social sharing sites users’ personality beliefs and purposes of using social sharing sites of university student’s. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(2), 313-321. Lee, S. L., Park, M. S. A. & Tam, C. L. (2015). The relationship between Facebook attachment and obsessivecompulsive disorder severity. Cyber psychology: Journal of Psychological Research on Cyberspace, 9(2). doi:10.5817/CP2015-2-6 Longstreet, P. & Brooks, S. (2017). Life Satisfaction: a key to managing internet & social media addiction. Technology in Society, 50, 73–77. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.05.003 Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K. & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35–40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.039 Moreau, A., Laconi, S., Delfour, M. & Chabrol, H. (2015). Psychopathological profiles of adolescent and young adult problematic Facebook users. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 64–69. doi:10.1016/j.chb. 2014.11.045 Nadkarnia, A. & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 243–249. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007 Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Rab, S., Carrier L. M. & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Is Facebook creating ‘iDisorders’? The link between clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders and technology use, attitudes and anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1243–1254. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.012 Ryan, T. & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1658–1664. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004 Seidman, G. (2013). Self- presentation and belonging on Facebook: how personality influences social media use and motivation. Personality and Indıvıdual Differences, 54, 402–407. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009 Sheldon, P. (2013). Voices that cannot be heard: can shyness explain how we communicate on Facebook versus face-to-face? Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1402–1407. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.016 Steers, M. N., Wickham, R. E. & Acitelli, L. K. (2014). Seeing everyone else’s highlight reels: how Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(8), 701–731. doi:10.1521/jscp.2014.33.8.701 Taymur, I. & Turkcapar, M. H. (2012). Kisilik: tanimi, siniflamasi ve degerlendirmesi. Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar, 4(2), 154–177. doi:10.5455/cap.20120410 Turkcapar, M. H., Orsel, S., Ugurlu, M., Sargin, E., Turhan, M., Akkoyunlu, S., … Karakas, G. (2007). Kisilik inanc olcegi Turkce formunun gecerlik ve guvenirligi. Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi, 10(4), 177–191. Wade, C. K., Howell, F. M. & Wells J. G. (1994). Turning to family, friends, or others: a model of social network usage during stressful events. Sociological Spectrum, 14(4), 385–407. doi:10.1080/02732173. 1994.9982078 Wang, C. W., Ho, R. T. H., Chan, C. L. W. & Tse, S. (2015). Exploring personality characteristics of Chinese adolescents with internet-related addictive behaviors: trait differences for gaming addiction and social networking addiction. Addictive Behaviors, 42, 32–35. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.10.039 Wu H. H & Lo W. F. (2014). Why do you want to do "like", "comment" or “share" on Facebook: the study of Antecedent on Facebook user's behavioral intentions. Marketing Review (Xing Xiao Ping Lun), 11(2), 107–132. Wu, Y. C. J., Chang W. H. & Yuan, C. H. (2015). Do Facebook profile pictures reflect user’s personality? Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 880–889. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.014 Youn, S. J., Trinh, N. H., Shyu, I., Chang, T., Fava, M., Kvedar, J. & Yeung, A. (2013). Using online social media, Facebook, in screening for major depressive disorder among college students. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 13(1), 74–80. doi:10.1016/S1697-2600(13)70010-3 321