Extended abstract submitted for the Digital Economy All Hands Meeting 2013 in Salford, Manchester. Paper details the construction of the Concern for Professional Image through Social Media Interaction (CPI-SMI) scale.

1. PAPER: Developing a Scale to Measure Concern for
Professional Image through Interaction with Social Media
Chris James Carter
Horizon Doctoral Training Centre
University of Nottingham
Nottingham, UK.
psxcc@nottingham.ac.uk
Categories and Subject Descriptors
J.4 [Computer Applications]: Social and Behavioral Sciences –
Psychology, Sociology.
General Terms
Management, Measurement.
Keywords
Professional Image, Reputation, Digital Identity, Social
Psychology, Self-Regulation, Social Media, Facebook, Twitter
1. INTRODUCTION
Social psychologists argue that self-regulation of one’s behavior,
and by extension the management of one’s social image or
identity, is a key aspect of social interaction throughout modern
society [1]. An enduring perspective amongst researchers
interested in the interrelated concepts of social identity, image and
reputation is that individuals are defined by multiple selves; each
of which relate to the different social groups, or audiences with
which they are faced1.
Whilst social media offer unprecedented opportunity for
interacting with others in ways that often transgress constraints of
space and time, numerous researchers have argued that the way in
which many people use social media effectively blurs boundaries
between what may typically be distinct social groups within an
offline setting (e.g. [2] [3]). This can lead to undesirable social
consequences for the user. Indeed, the recent cases of Liam Stacey
[4] and Paris Brown [5] adeptly illustrate how failing to regulate
interactions with social media can have particularly damaging
consequences for one’s professional image.
Subsequently, there appear to be two core ways in which users
can address the challenge of self-regulation in their use of social
media. First, they can monitor and adapt their privacy settings (see
[6] for a review in the context of Facebook). Second, the user can
monitor and adapt both their interactions with technology (e.g.
avoiding rushing into publishing posts) and the content and nature
of their interactions (e.g. thinking about whether what they intend
on saying is appropriate for the audience they have in mind).
Though the increasing utilization of social media as a method for
screening applicants in the job recruitment process [7] suggests
that self-regulation of one’s interactions with social media with
respect to professional image and reputation is increasingly
1 As William James (1890) famously remarked in his ‘The
Principles of Psychology’, “Properly speaking, a man has as
many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him
and carry an image of him in their mind.”
important for late adolescents and young adults, little empirical
research has explored the extent to which young people
demonstrate concern for managing this facet of their future selves.
The following sections outline the development of a self-report
measure that attempts to address this research gap.
2. SCALE DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Item Generation
In accordance with Hinkin’s [8] guidelines for scale development,
an initial pool of 25 questionnaire items was created. These items
described behavioral interactions that were identified as being
professionally appropriate through the thematic analysis [9] of
behaviors outlined by publicly-accessible organizational social
media guidelines for employees2 and a previous study that used
semi-structured interviews to explore the use of social media by
full-time employees within a Higher Education Institution [10].
This set of items is referred to henceforth as the Concern for
Professional Image through Social Media Interaction (CPI-SMI)
scale.
Items were constructed to represent several domains that
aforementioned previous research indicated as being relevant to
the regulation of professional image in the context of social
media, including: Self-promotional presentation (e.g. ‘I use my
profile to promote the things I have achieved through my work’),
monitoring of past interactions (e.g. ‘I look back through my
older posts to decide if any could pose a threat to my current
image’), anticipation of future consequences (e.g. ‘I delay posting
to consider how my actions could influence future career
opportunities’), consideration of others (e.g. ‘I hesitate before
posting to consider how my actions might affect someone else’s
image’) and emotional control (e.g. ‘I find it difficult to avoid
swearing in my posts’).
2.2 Procedure and Participants
All 25 items of the initial CPI-SMI scale were administered as
part of a larger survey exploring the relationship between stages
of studentship, individual differences in personality and self-
regulation of social media interaction. The sample consisted of
269 full-time students, whereby 354 started the survey,
representing a completion rate of 76%. The survey was conducted
online, with participants opportunistically recruited primarily
through College and University teachers and lecturers (26%),
promotion through social media (22%), email invitation (19%),
and posters and flyers (16%).
2 This involved the analysis of twenty-five sets of organizational
social media guidelines for employees, shared publicly on the
Internet by multinational commercial corporations including
Coca Cola, Intel, IBM, Microsoft and Apple.

2. Based upon the 269 completed responses, the sample consisted of
97 males (36%) and 169 (63%) females, with an overall mean age
of 20.97 years (median = 19 years; SD = 5.01 years, range: 16 to
45 years). The sample included students at three levels:
College/Sixth Form (n = 88, 33%), Undergraduate (n = 128, 48%)
and Postgraduate (n = 53, 20%). Of the 250 that provided an
indication of what they intended on doing following their studies,
105 (42%) identified further study, 109 (44%) work, and 36
(14%) were unsure.
All survey respondents were asked to rate the frequency with
which they typically engaged in each of the 25 interactional
behaviors that formed the CPI-SMI. Specifically, they were asked
to indicate a rating on a 5-point Likert scale, anchored at 1
(‘Never behave this way’) and 5 (‘Always behave this way’), with
the remaining qualitative labels of ‘Rarely’, ‘Sometimes’ and
‘Often’ representing scale points 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
Almost all participants reported being a registered user of
Facebook (n = 262, 97.4%) and most were also registered on
Twitter (n = 208, 77.3%), with 201 participants (75%) being
registered on both. To counter the practical issues associated with
asking participants to provide responses for both platforms, they
were prompted to base their responses on either their typical use
of Facebook or Twitter, based upon which they tended to use
most frequently. As all items were designed to be non-platform
specific, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the
combined responses to provide a scale of concern for professional
image that applied across both Facebook and Twitter.
2.3 Interpretation of Factors
As a preliminary check, an evaluation of the correlation matrix
produced by the principal components analysis (PCA) indicated
that 4 items shared 2 or less inter-item correlations greater than
.30; most of which were statistically non-significant. These items
were removed from the scale and PCA repeated on the 21
remaining items, using direct oblimin oblique rotation. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure verified the sampling
adequacy of the analysis, with a KMO = .85, labelled as ‘great’ by
Field [11]. Furthermore, all KMO values for individual items
were greater than .72: well above the acceptable limit of .5
identified by Kaiser, as cited in [11]. Bartlett’s test of sphericity x2
(210) = 2078.88, p < .001, indicated that correlations between
items were sufficiently large for PCA to be appropriate.
To check the accuracy of Kaiser’s criterion, the average
communality of the 21 items was calculated as .61, which is lower
than the .70 cut-off outlined by Kaiser, cited in [11].
Subsequently, parallel analysis was conducted using O’Connor’s
[12] method. This Monte Carlo simulation technique indicated
that four components should be retained within a confidence level
of 95%. Principal component analysis was conducted using a four
component solution, producing eigenvalues that in combination
explained 55.78% of variance. The factor loadings of the pattern
matrix following oblique rotation are presented in Tables 1 to 4
and are summarized in the following sub-sections.
2.3.1 F1: Consideration of Professional
Consequences
This factor (see Table 1) contains four items primarily concerned
with considering the professional consequences of one’s actions.
In this respect, it appears to have two key elements: first, a future-
oriented focus that one’s actions may influence judgments made
by others, and second, that the judgments will be made by
professional agents, such as potential employers. Items within this
factor demonstrated particularly high reliability (α = .87).
2.3.2 F2: Self-Regulatory Control
This factor (see Table 2) consists of five items relating to the
extent to which people control their impulsion to interact with
social media. For this reason, the factor is labelled ‘Self-
Regulatory Control’ as the behaviors described appear to
represent the propensity to think actions through prior to
interacting with the media. It should be noted that items loading
onto this factor were reversed, so higher mean scores indicate
greater control. Items within this factor demonstrated high
reliability (α = .77).
2.3.3 F3: Prevention of Threats to Image
This factor (see Table 3) is comprised of 7 items representing
preventative actions that are taken to avoid threats to both one’s
own image and that of others. These appear to reflect preventative
actions that are taken both prior to posting (i.e. delaying and
avoidance tactics) and after posting (i.e. reflective, self-
monitoring tactics). Items within this factor demonstrated high
reliability (α = .78).
2.3.4 F4: Professional Self-Promotion
This factor (see Table 4) is comprised of five items relating to
interactions with social media whereby the user specifically
intends to promote their professional image. In this sense, it seems
to represent a counterpart to F2: Self-Regulatory Control in that
greater self-regulation would be likely to result in less frequent
promotional behavior. Indeed, the association between the two
factors was the only inter-factor relationship to be negative (r = -
.15, p < .01, one-tailed). Items within this factor demonstrated
good reliability (α = .74).
3. SUMMARY
The current paper outlines the development of a scale measuring
concern for professional image when interacting with social
media. In particular, four factors appear to be important, covering
the following: the extent to which people consider the
professional consequences of their interactions (F1), the self-
control they demonstrate (F2), their proclivity for preventing
potential threats to their own image and that of others (F3) and
finally, their use of social media to promote a professional image.
Research by the author is currently underway to examine
predicted relationships between scores on each of the four CPI-
SMI subscales and individual differences in self-monitoring,
impulsivity and five-factor personality. Given the respectable
reliability coefficients reported here, this could provide an
important indication of criterion validity for the sub-scales.
Further work is undoubtedly required, but it is the author’s
intention that the CPI-SMI will already provide a useful scale for
other researchers interested in how people self-regulate their
interactions with social media.
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is supported by the Horizon Doctoral Training Centre
at the University of Nottingham (RCUK Grant No.
EP/G037574/1). The author thanks his PhD supervisors, Professor
Claire O’Malley and Dr Lee Martin for their ongoing support.

3. Table 1. Items and Loadings for Factor 1
F1: Consideration of Professional
Consequences (α = .87)
Mean
(SD)
Loading
I delay posting to consider how my actions
could influence future career opportunities
2.71
(1.28)
-.864
I take time before posting to consider how a
potential employer might judge my actions
2.94
(1.32)
-.827
I avoid posting anything that might cause a
potential employer to think that I'm lazy
2.88
(1.42)
-.831
I spend time evaluating whether past
activity on my profile could restrict what
I'm able to do next in my career
2.27
(1.18)
-.626
Table 2. Items and Loadings for Factor 2
F2: Self-Regulatory Control (α = .77)
Mean
(SD)
Loading
I find it difficult to avoid swearing in my
posts*
4.10
(1.10)
.770
I post first and then deal with any
consequences later*
3.86
(1.10)
.717
I use my profile as a way of venting any
frustrations I have with my work*
4.11
(1.04)
.660
I post about things that would seem
unprofessional if discussed in a face-to-face
context*
3.67
(1.10)
.643
I find myself posting about whatever I'm
angry or upset about at the time*
* reversed items
3.87
(1.14)
.619
Table 3. Items and Loadings for Factor 3
F3: Prevention of Threats to Image (α =
.78)
Mean
(SD)
Loading
I hesitate before posting to consider how
my actions might affect someone else's
image
3.20
(1.18)
.570
I avoid posting in a way that might cause
others to think of me as a negative person
3.57
(1.20)
.591
I look back through older posts on my
profile to decide if any could pose a threat
to my current image
2.62
(1.26)
.612
I hold back from using my profile to
comment on things that I feel very strongly
about
3.03
(1.20)
.577
Once I’ve posted something, I deliberate
over whether I could modify it in some way
to make myself look better
2.62
(1.16)
.609
Before posting, I pause to consider how
people joining my network at a later date
might judge my actions
2.73
(1.31)
.535
Before posting, I try to anticipate its impact
on the reputation of groups or organizations
I’m associated with
2.81
(1.22)
.386
Table 4. Items and Loadings for Factor 4
F4: Professional self-promotion (α = .74)
Mean
(SD)
Loading
I post about the things I'm working on so
that others might judge me to be a hard-
worker
2.16
(1.00)
.799
I use my profile to promote the things I
have achieved through my work
2.57
(1.16)
.760
I post things to my profile in order to look
like a hard worker
1.94
(.92)
.654
I promote the image I have created for
myself as if it were a brand
2.26
(1.16)
.566
I post things so that others will think of me
as a competent person
2.89
(1.13)
.498
5. REFERENCES
[1] Bromley, D. B. 1993. Reputation, Image, and Impression
Management. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
[2] Binder, J., Howes, A. and Sutcliffe, A. 2009. The Problem of
Conflicting Social Spheres: Effects of Network Structure on
Experienced Tension in Social Network Sites. In
Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA).
[3] Hogan, B. 2010. The presentation of self in the age of social
media: distinguishing performances and exhibitions online.
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 30, 6, 377-386.
[4] Telegraph, 2012. Liam Stacey: Twitter Fabrice Muamba
attacker banned from university. Retrieved June 30, 2013,
from The Telegraph [online]: http://goo.gl/6R4Dy
[5] BBC, 2013. Paris Brown: Kent youth PCC resigns after
Twitter row. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from BBC News
[online]: http://goo.gl/uIPLv
[6] Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., and Graham, L. T. 2012. A
Review of Facebook Research in the Social Sciences.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 3, 203-220.
[7] Cross-Tab Research. 2010. Online Reputation in a
Connected World. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from Microsoft
[online]: go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9709510
[8] Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A Brief Tutorial on the Development of
Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires. Organizational
Research Methods, 1, 1, 104-121.
[9] Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in
Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2, 77-
101.
[10] Carter, C. J., Martin, L., and O'Malley, C. 2012. Social
Media, the Organisation and Me: An Exploration of Identity
Work by Employees in the Digital Age. Presentation at:
British Academy of Management Annual Conference,
Organisational Psychology Track (Cardiff University, UK).
[11] Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage
Publications Ltd, UK.
[12] O’Connor, B. P. 2010. SPSS and SAS programs for
determining the number of components using parallel
analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research
Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396-40.