| Literature DB >> 36011435 |
Esraa Al-Shatti1, Marc Ohana2, Philippe Odou3, Michel Zaitouni1.
Abstract
Impression management (IM) concerns can lead to significant psychological consequences, potentially engendering unethical behavior. Therefore, adopting the stressor-strain-outcome framework, this study explores the effects of IM concerns on unethical behavior through wellbeing, and whether IM on social media (i.e., Instagram) triggers fatigue and results in unethical behavior at work. The findings of two empirical studies (n = 480 and n = 299) in different settings (Kuwait and the UK) suggest that women experience higher effects from IM concerns compared with men in Kuwait, while no gender differences are found in the UK. The results also confirm that impression management on social media platforms triggers fatigue, in turn increasing unethical behavior at work. This study contributes to the IM literature by capturing the effect of Instagram activities on workplace behavior.Entities:
Keywords: impression management concerns; social media fatigue; unethical behavior; wellbeing
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011435 PMCID: PMC9408035 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169808
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Research model.
Study 1: mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelations.
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IM concerns | 2.55 | 0.89 | 1 | 0.488 ** | −0.290 ** | 0.025 |
| Social media fatigue | 3.04 | 1.76 | 0.488 ** | 1 | 0.213 ** | −0.07 |
| Gender | 1.6 | 0.49 | −0.290 ** | 0.213 ** | 1 | −0.072 |
| Time spent on Instagram | 2.86 | 1.159 | 0.025 | −0.07 | −0.072 | 1 |
** Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Moderating role of gender (M) on the relationship between IM concerns (X) and social media fatigue (Y).
| Model Summary | 95% CL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Constant | 3.1 | 0.066 | 46.79 | <0.001 | 2.97 | 3.23 | |
| IM concerns (X) | 1.18 | 0.074 | 15.63 | <0.001 | 1.02 | 1.31 | |
| Gender (M) | 1.31 | 0.136 | 9.66 | <0.001 | 1.05 | 1.58 | |
| Int_term (XM) | 0.0512 | 0.154 | 3.31 | 0.001 | 0.2 | 0.81 | |
|
| |||||||
| Gender (M) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Male | 0.865 | 0.122 | 7.073 | <0.001 | 0.062 | 1.105 | |
| Female | 1.377 | 0.094 | 14.608 | <0.001 | 1.19 | 1.562 |
Note: CL—confidence interval; LL—lower limit; UL—upper limit, X—independent variable, Y—dependent variable; M—moderator; Int_term—IM concerns X gender.
Figure 2Interaction between social media fatigue and IM concerns on gender.
Study 2: mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelations.
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IM concerns | 3.19 | 1.09 | 1 | 0.135 * | −0.09 | −0.05 |
| Social media fatigue | 2.14 | 0.9 | 0.135 * | 1 | 0.11 | −0.07 |
| Unethical behavior | 1.13 | 0.4 | −0.09 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.049 |
| Gender | 1.51 | 0.5 | −0.05 | −0.07 | 0.049 | 1 |
* Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Regression results for simple mediation.
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IM concerns regressed on social media fatigue | 0.11 | 2.35 | <0.05 | ||
| IM concerns regressed on unethical behavior | −0.041 | −1.96 | <0.1 | ||
| Social media fatigue regressed on unethical behavior | 0.056 | 2.17 | <0.05 | ||
| Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval based on 10,000 bootstrap samples | |||||
| 95% confidence interval limits | |||||
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Indirect effect | 0.0063 | 0.0046 | 0.0003 | 0.0177 | |
Results of the moderated mediation analysis.
| Predictor |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DV: Social media fatigue | ||||
| Constant | 2.14 | 0.052 | 41.15 *** | |
| IM concerns | 0.1 | 0.047 | 2.28 * | |
| Gender | −0.11 | 0.103 | −1.08 | |
| IM concerns x Gender | 0.012 | 0.094 | 0.129 | |
| DV: Unethical behavior | ||||
| Constant | 1.01 | 0.059 | 16.96 *** | |
| IM concerns | −0.042 | 0.021 | −1.96 | |
| Social media fatigue | 0.055 | 0.026 | 2.18 * | |
| Conditional indirect bootstrap estimates for social media fatigue | ||||
| Gender |
|
|
|
|
| Female | 0.0057 | 0.0056 | −0.0012 | 0.0200 |
| Male | 0.0059 | 0.0052 | −0.0016 | 0.0181 |
*** p < 0.001; * p < 0.05.