How Well Do People Report Time Spent on Facebook?: An Evaluation of Established Survey Questions with Recommendations
Abstract
Many studies examining social media use rely on self-report survey questions about how much time participants spend on social media platforms. Because they are challenging to answer accurately and susceptible to various biases, these self-reported measures are known to contain error -- although the specific contours of this error are not well understood. This paper compares data from ten self-reported Facebook use survey measures deployed in 15 countries (N = 49,934) against data from Facebook's server logs to describe factors associated with error in commonly used survey items from the literature. Self-reports were moderately correlated with actual Facebook use (r = 0.42 for the best-performing question), though participants significantly overestimated how much time they spent on Facebook and underestimated the number of times they visited. People who spent a lot of time on the platform were more likely to misreport their time, as were teens and younger adults, which is notable because of the high reliance on college-aged samples in many fields. We conclude with recommendations on the most accurate ways to collect time-spent data via surveys.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Ernala et al.'s study, participants were most accurate (34%) when reporting number of times per day they visited Facebook, but very inaccurate when estimating time spent per day on Facebook.
“participants were most accurate (albeit only at a rate of 34%) when reporting on number of times per day they visited Facebook, but very inaccurate when gauging how many “time”, “minutes” or “hours” they had spent on average per day on Facebook”
From The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” (2020) · cites this paper as [27]
Self-report measures can be particularly ill-fitting for gaining accurate data on people's technology-related use.
“evidence suggests that these can be particularly ill-fitting for the purposes of gaining accurate data on people’s technology-related use [27,37,38]”
From The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” (2020) · cites this paper as [27]
For Facebook, compared to log data, people tend to overreport time spent but underreport number of visits per day.
“for social networking sites such as Facebook, compared to actual use garnered from log data, people tend to overreport how much time they spend on Facebook but underreport how many times they visit per day [27]”
From The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” (2020) · cites this paper as [27]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 76 · Cited by 179
- Authors
- Ernala, S. K., Burke, M., Leavitt, A., & Ellison, N. B.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Meta (United States) (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-04-21
- Pages
- 1-14
- OpenAlex
- W3031055882
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 19
- FWCI
- 46.61
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- Facebook use, measurement error, survey accuracy, questionnaire development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review