Aaaaaa. Final Thesis Body To Print PDF

2
Notre Dame of Midsayap College

Senior High School Department
persuasiveness of the internet, the ―Internet Chat Room‖ is becoming increasingly
popular. However, internet chat rooms (ICR‘s) have become focus for various crimes and
―unethical behavior‖ because of their anonymity and freedom, especially in activities
related to violence and bullying.
Most people are gradually becoming more computer savvy, and are gaining
competence in the use of the wide range of functions available on the internet, such as
instant messaging and email. Social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.
are some examples of internet websites. In the Philippines, one of the most widely used
social media site is Facebook, where people can post or upload, photos, videos, statuses,
and comments to other Facebook users. The use of social media, however, has evolved
from just a mere way to catch up with friends but also to a platform for debates in the
Philippines. Filipinos are no longer just go online to check what their friends are doing or
upload their attest selfies, but also post their insights on different issues. Unfortunately,
there are incidents where healthy and informative debates turn toxic and hostile due to
people who resort to personal attacks when faced with opinions different from theirs.
Most of these alarming cases arise inside schools among students. Sometimes some use
social media sites specifically Facebook in unethical ways through posting awful
statements and statuses, uploading photos, foul videos and photos and also commenting
offensive comments to other users which arises into a new form of bullying.
3

Statement of the Problem
The central issues that drive this study are the unethical behaviors performed
by the Senior High School Dameans when using social media specifically, Facebook. The
background section of this chapter revealed that there are a number of different
conclusions drawn from various studies regarding the factors that drive the respondents to
execute such a manner. The problem facing this study, and the one that will be
investigated is what are the various factors that lead the SHS Dameans to rant unethically
on Facebook. The study is sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the socio-demographic profile of the respondents in terms of age, sex,
strand and grade level, average frequency of using Facebook per day, and
activities they engage themselves into when using Facebook?
2. How do the respondents use Facebook?
3. How often do the respondents engage themselves in the activities in Facebook?
4. What are the possible factors that urge the respondents to behave unethically on
Facebook?
4

Significance of the Study
With the increased use of internet and email in this digital age, online etiquette
known as netiquette, is very important to people‘s success not only in college but in
people‘s careers throughout people‘s lives. This study aims to inform the people of
NDMC on what are significant factors that triggered some of the SHS Dameans to
publicly broadcast inappropriate and offensive statements on social media specifically on
Facebook.
This study is beneficial to the following:
Teachers. This may help the teachers to be aware of the inappropriate behavior of their
students in using social media specifically Facebook. By being aware, the teachers could
carry out some actions on how to deal, avoid, and fix these kinds of situations.
Students. This may help the students to be aware of the consequences of their actions.
Also, they may be apprehensive that posting statements in an unethical manner could
harm not just the people around them but also the school.
5

Parents. This may help the parents to be aware of the unethical behavior of their children
on social media. Additionally, as a parent, they may help and give advice to their
children.
School Administration. This may help the school in a way that it can maintain a good
reputation when it comes to the appropriate behavior of its students. This may also help
the school to be known as the source of proper manner and right conduct in the behavior
of its students.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
The study will focus mainly on the negative behavior of Dameans specifically
Senior High School Dameans when using social media specifically Facebook. This
research will be conducted inside the NDMC campus with SHS students who are active
in using Facebook Social Media for school year 2017-2018 second semester as the
respondents.
6

Definition of Terms
The following terms are operationally defined:
Netiquette- the word netiquette is a combination of ‗net‘ and ‗etiquette‘. It means
respecting other users‘ views and displaying common courtesy then posting your views to
online discussion groups.
Unethical – lacking moral principles; unwilling to adhere to proper rules of conduct

7

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter reviews previous studies, related research, and findings about students
and their usage of social media. The review will discuss about the supporting information
from different related literature and studies that further back up the purpose and
reliability of this paper. Furthermore, this chapter integrates the idea of what are the
factors that lead students unethically use Facebook social media. However, these findings
may vary depending on the different influences and behaviors of the direct respondents.
Social Networking Sites—the Overview of Issues
Social Networking Sites are a 21st century phenomenon. As Acquisti and Gross
(2006:2) note, at the most basic level SNSs are internet sites where individuals interact,
often through profiles that (re)present their public persona and their network of
connections. While Facebook has been really a part of our lives for what seems like a
8

lifetime, it is only six years old. Started as a Harvard-only experiment (Boyd and Ellison
2007), Facebook rapidly expanded to high schools and colleges across the United States
and shortly became the biggest SNS on the Net. California-based, Facebook is a private
company with estimated revenue in 2009 of between
US$500 and $650 million (Timson 2010b). If Facebook was ‗granted terra firma, it
would be world‘s third largest country by population‘ (Fletcher 2010b).
Over the past couple of years Facebook has been heavily scrutinised by various
social actors.
Mainstream and information technology (IT) media in both the Global North and
Global South have reported on concerns in relation to the company‘s privacy policy with
a ferocity resembling a modern-day witch-hunt, or, to say the least, a moral panic.
Facebook is regularly labelled ‗unethical‘ (Yoder 2010), ‗Disgracebook‘ (Murray 2010)
and a ‗bully‘ (Yoder 2010). Finally, since it is unexpectedly hard to delete one‘s account,
Facebook is described as Hotel California—you can check out any time you like, but can
you ever leave (Yoder 2010; Jackson 2010)? The following section highlights some key
issues in relation to this SNS that might—or should—be of interest for criminologists.
9

Privacy: What Do We Share on the Net? 2
Privacy is one of the most enduring social issues associated with IT, including
SNSs (Nissenbaum 2004:101). Bearing in mind that Facebook started as a university
network, its privacy settings were almost nonexistent (Acquisti and Gross 2006). With its
unknown growth, privacy soon became an issue for Facebook users. The lack of
definition of what privacy is or should comprise of was the initial problem (Feature
2010b). Recently, the Wall Street Journal closed the site for abusing a privacy loophole
and sending data to advertising companies (Steel and Vascellaro 2010). According to
Yoder (2010), the information we share on the site does not own by Facebook. In
addition, Facebook‘s ‗terms and conditions‘ text was longer than the US Constitution,
and according to The Sydney Morning Herald, required the analysis of a lawyer, the
vigilance of a pedant and the computer skills of ‗the girl with the dragon tattoo‘ to control
(Stevenson 2010). In Germany, the state‘s Consumer Minister deleted her Facebook
profile in protest (Hurst 2010), while Minister Conroy attacked Facebook over its
‗complete disregard‘ for its member‘s privacy (Sharp 2010). The outcry about privacy
and the safety of private data on the website prompted Facebook to announce new, easier,
one-click privacy settings for its users (Kang 2010). Yet Facebook CEO and founder
Mark Zuckerberg continues to claim that ‗the default is now social‘ (Yoder 2010).
10

As this paper will argue later, the privacy debate should not be limited to what we
(willingly or unwillingly) share on SNSs. With most of our public records and
commercial and other everyday activities available online (Nissenbaum 2004), and with
recent examples of its misuse by state agencies, the question that emerges is whether
SNSs are the biggest villains in cyber-space.
Facebook and Victimization: Criminals use Facebook Too!
The issue of privacy is closely linked to a debate around vulnerability to
victimisation. Facebook and other SNSs have been identified as potentially harmful
spaces, particularly for young people, and in relation to sexual harassment and unwanted
solicitation. Last October, a British student was raped and murdered by a sex offender
who befriended her on Facebook pretending to be a teenager (Handley 2010). Her family
joined British child protection advocates demanding that Facebook install a so-called
10‗panic button‘—a box young people could use gain access to internet safety
information. While the company resisted a ‗panic button‘, a new child protection
application has been introduced, offering advice and reporting options to young users
(Warman 2010).
11

Recently in Australia, we witnessed the first case where a murder victim met her
alleged killer via Facebook. As The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 27 May 2010,
‗criminals have increasingly used (Facebook‘s) vast data banks to access information to
help them swindle their users‘ (Timson 2010b). As a result, NSW Police Detective
Superintendant John Kerlatec warned teenagers about posting their photographs and other
personal details on SNSs saying that ‗we have seen predators in the past who have looked
on these sites and found information‘ (Timson 2010a). Once again, Facebook‘s privacy
policy was identified as ‗a great betrayal‘ (Breen 2010). However, a recent study by
Ybarra and Michell (2010:350) indicated that ‗broad claims of victimisation and risk, at
least defined as unwanted sexual solicitation or harassment, associated with SNSs do not
seem justified‘.
Secondary Victimisation
While your chances of becoming a victim of crime on Facebook might be slim,
secondary victimisation has been perceived as a real threat. In Australia, Facebook was
criticised over its inability to prevent and respond to vandalism of tribute pages for three
murdered children and teenagers. As the Brisbane Timesreported in June 2010, disturbing
images, including child pornography, were posted shortly after the tribute pages were
12

created, in what has been described as the criminal behaviour of ‗trolling‘—posting
offensive materials on tribute pages to cause distress (Hurst 2010). The detective in
charge of one of the cases urged parents to monitor their children‘s internet use, and
called for the administrators of tribute pages to take responsibility for monitoring the
sites. However, he also indicated that ‗Facebook [should] be able to remove material that
was inappropriate in a more timely way‘ (Hurst 2010). Facebook has since announced it
is developing new security measures to address this issue that will result in the automatic
removal of abusive posts (Hough 2010).
The presence of convicted offenders on Facebook is another hot topic in Australia
and internationally. In Britain, prisoners have recently been accused of using Facebook to
further harass their victims. Families of victims have requested Facebook and other SNSs
to act and ‗take responsibility for what goes on their sites‘ (Handley 2010a). Former
British Justice Secretary Jack Straw requested that the company close down profiles of
over 30 prisoners who were using the site to target their victims. Facebook obliged but
also indicated that ‗this is a case of first impression‘, and that the problem existed only in
Britain (Handley 2010a). However, as the Herald Sun reported in June 2010, an
intellectually impaired convicted sex offender in Victoria has created his own Facebook
page, and three of his online friends have pictures of their children available online.
While the newspaper conceded there was no law prohibiting him from using the site, they
13

‗messaged‘ the man and asked for comment (Whinnett 2010). As it will be argued later,
this debate needs to be contextualised within the broader context of law and order trends
and the era of ‗the new punitiveness‘ (Pratt et al 2005).
Serving justice: Facebook as Investigative Tool and Changing Nature of the Legal
System
As Kim Arlington (2010) noted, if you have a Facebook account, it is difficult to
keep a low profile. Recently, Facebook was used to track down missing persons when a
Florida mother found her two children who had been kidnapped by their father and
missing for 15 years. She contacted her daughter but her profile disappeared shortly
afterwards. The authorities were alerted and after they tracked down the profile the father
was arrested (Feature 2010d).
On Facebook, you can find people, but you can also be easily found. In Adelaide, in a
child support dispute, Facebook was used to serve a court order and legal documents. The
magistrate, Stewart Brown, said the case ‗was unusual but demonstrative of social
movements and the currency of times‘ (Arlington 2010). In the US, a Facebook post by
an alleged killer in which he apologises to his victims will be used as evidence before the
court (Unger 2010). Interpreted as an example of a creativity of the13legal system, this

14

case highlights the potential role Facebook may play in the further development of our
legal system which should be closely monitored by legal practitioners and criminologists.
Facebook and Law and Order: The Villains of Cyberspace vs. the Elected „Good
Guys‟
Facebook‘s relationship with law enforcement and state agencies has been another
point of interest in Australian media. As The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 26
May 2010, ‗Facebook (is) running out of friends as police seek co-operation‘ (Feature
2010c). The Australian Federal Police (AFP) Assistant Commissioner and Head of High
Tech Crime Operations, Neil Gaughan, is quoted as saying that ‗Facebook‘s woeful
relationship with law enforcement bodies is holding back the police investigation and
putting lives at risk‘. Facebook is accused of not being willing to ‗provide police with the
intelligence they need for investigations‘ (Gray 2010). What is needed, police argue, is a
‗dedicated law enforcement liaison in Australia who can, for example, match user
accounts to physical internet addresses‘ (Feature 2010c; Gray 2010). Gaughan‘s message
was clear: ‗This situation could lead to loss of life, there‘s no doubt about that at all. It is
just a matter of time‘ (Feature 2010c). Yet Facebook refused to appoint a liaison that
would work with law enforcement. As one senior investigator commented, the company
was ready to assist only when someone‘s life was in danger, otherwise ‗they give you the
15

bird‘ (Feature 2010c). This, however, did not stop the NSW Police Force from opening
its own Facebook page in March 2010, which as of February 2011, has over 30,000
people who ‗like‘ their page. NSW Police Force Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn
argued that police are ‗embracing‘ the website as a useful tool for police presence and
exchanging information with the community (Robinson 2010).
This aspect of the debate contradicts above identified concerns of Facebook‘s
policy that reveals too much and the company‘s lack of respect for privacy, safety and the
well-being of its users. While it is early to say what is going to be the outcome of a recent
‗war‘ between the internet industry and Federal government in relation to internet
filtering (Feature 2010c), the context is more complex than it appears. Minister Conroy‘s
question to a Senate committee—‗What would you prefer - a corporate giant who is
answerable to no one and motivated solely by profit or an elected government?‘ (Sharp
2010) should serve as a starting point in our analysis. At the same time, in unpacking
these issues we need to analyse the broader social context.
Where to Go From Here: Critical Criminology and SNSs
As Beck (1992) has noted, we live in a risk society. Fear of crime and managing
risk associated with it has long been our obsession; it can be argued that virtual reality is
16

quickly catching up. It has been estimated that Facebook users spend 8 billion minutes on
the site each day (Harkin 2010). With a tiny staff to monitor 500 million active users
(Rohrer 2010), Facebook was perceived to be paying the price for ‗being too popular‘.
The key to crime prevention in cyber-world, according to Facebook officials, should be
the dialogue between Facebook and police (Handley 2010a). Facebook also claimed to be
fully prepared to cooperate with law enforcement when specific harassment comes up
(Handley 2010a). Yet, although the company changed its privacy policy and introduced
simplified settings for privacy options, the company maintains that ‗users use the service
because they love sharing information‘ (Timson 2010b).
In this debate, however, similar the discussion around pre-emptive justice and
indefinite detention for sex offenders, we have seen underpinning issues that arguably
have very little to do with crime management. Instead, they serve the agendas of those
who claim the ‗hierarchy of credibility‘ (Becker 1967) in the debate. In an age of digital
media, when our every activity is recorded, taped, screened and analysed, do we have any
privacy at all? It seems that ‗[t]he more you know about how corporations and
governments collect data, the more you realise that privacy is already dead‘ (Farrer
2010). As Barnes (2006) notes, ‗the 21st century Panopticon‘ is in place, where we are
exposed and controlled by the state agencies, online predators and even our own friends.
By focusing on the lack of protection of our private data by Google and Facebook, we are
17

creating what 17Pickering (2004) calls a ‗fog of deviancy‘ that has the potential to hide
‗great harms‘ (Michalowski 2009). Instead, our gaze should be fixed on supposedly
humane actions of state actors that have already been ‗acting too much in collecting and
using personal information‘ (Nissenbaum 2004:107). As Cohen (1993:101-2) notes:
‗[F]or large parts of the world‘s population, state agents...are the normal violators of your
―legally protected rights‖‘. The pursuit for privacy and security already costs us too much
(Zedner 2007).
The notion that SNSs have to cooperate with law enforcement is another layer of
debate that requires careful criminological inquiry. In addition, while victimisation—both
primary and secondary—does occur in a virtual world, we need to engage in the debate
more critically instead of creating moral panics and banning our children from using the
site. More research and education is needed to better comprehend our sensitivity in a
virtual world, and to assist us in addressing the threat with minimum ‗collateral damage‘.
Recent engagement with these issues in Australia, detailed in this paper, is destined to fail
and is unlikely to produce any tangible outcomes.
The starting point in our inquiry should be the role of the state in the cyber world,
and the threat of censorship represented in the mandatory internet filtering plan. The
Federal Government is still trying to implement this plan, although a recent change of
leadership mighthave a further impact on already delayed legislation (Riley 2010). This
18

inquiry needs to expand to other practices of infringing civil liberties in Australia today—
from censoring ‗controversial‘ and ‗pornographic‘ art and business (Moses 2010) to pre-
emptive justice and indefinite detention of the ‗worst offenders‘ (McSherry and Keyzer
2010). New cyber-disciplinary and the removal of cyber liberties is arguably just an
extension of policies we have seen in the ‗real world‘. Such analysis might assist us to
engage with these issues in a more comprehensive and productive way.
What is certain is that Facebook is here to stay: ‗Quit Facebook Day‘ on May 31st
attracted only 14,000 quitters (Hunter 2010). As the Deputy Commissioner Burns
recently noted: ‗Facebook is ... here with us now and it‘s probably going to have some
longevity‘ (Robinson 2010). SNSs are blending physical and virtual: you can now send
real gifts to your online friends (Fletcher 2010a). On SNSs, you can find everyone but
you can also be found. And when you die, your profile is ‗memoralised‘ and goes off the
public search (Fletcher 2009). Issues that SNSs and their rapid expansion bring to
criminology overviewed in this paper—privacy, primary and secondary victimisation and
the relationship with law enforcement–require careful and in-depth criminological
inquiry. It is time we started to engage with all the social actors who use and abuse
Facebook, My Space, Twitter, Bebo and other SNSs, whether they are potential or
convicted offenders, victims of crime or the state. In this engagement we need to start
19

unpacking the most concerning issue of all: what is the price we might need to pay to be
protected in cyber-space, even if we do not seek such protection? 19
Social media has revolutionized on how people communicate with one another. It
has made communication quicker and simpler. It made tremendous impact to the people's
lives. However, the evolution of social media and technology has resulted in people
misusing it. Unethical practices were seen.
Social media platforms such as twitter, tumblr, and other related social media sites
have become a common ground for individuals to post negative comments about each
other. A person has the freedom to express his or her own thoughts, feelings and
opinions without realizing the impact of it to others. The victim may not be able to cope
with the content that has been posted on social media especially the negative one that
may cause a severe effect on the victim's physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing.
Netiquette was defined as appropriate right/wrong judgment about Internet
communication. Etiquette is the word it explains characteristics upon use Net. Etiquette
which is the mixture of ―network‖ and ―Characters‖. First of all we think that what is
netiquette? And after that we think what netiquette awareness is?
Research done by Marie A. Wakefield, M.S. and Cynthia J. Rice, M.Ed. which is
the Impact of Cyber-Communication on Today‘s Youth on this study it was stated that
20

the Pew Internet and American LifeProject (Lenhart, Rainie, & Lewis, 2001) found that
the Internet has a pivotal role in the lives of American teenagers. It has been found that
87% of the youth of today go online (Weiss, 2005), representing 21 million youth. Text
messaging, instant messaging, chat rooms, and personal Websites increase the speed of
multiple, simultaneous interaction. The advances in technology that provide opportunities
for youth to reach out to new sources of knowledge and cultural experiences are not
without challenges.
As we embrace the rapidly changing modes of communication in the new
millennium, there is a need for school counselors to assist parents and school personnel in
protecting their students from harm and victimization. This digest will discuss some
initial indicators that are emerging and provide strategies and interventions that
counselors can use to assist youth in the cyber-communication age of today.
Communicating through the Internet has expanded the social circle. Youth are
actively using the Internet as an important form of social interaction (Brignall &
Valey,2005). Some research results have reported an improvement of relationships with
friends (Freeman-Longo, 2000; Lenhartet al., 2001). No longer does the social circle have
to be limited to geographic locations. . There is a ―virtual‖ ratherthen ―physical‖ presence
(Pankoke-Babatz & Jeffrey, 2002).

21

With the growing popularity of digital technologies and computer mediated
communication (CMC), various types of interactive communication technology are being
increasingly integrated into foreign/second language learning environments.
Nevertheless, due to its nature, online communication is prone to misunderstandings and
miscommunications, which necessitates online learners‘ awareness of existing netiquette
(i.e. network etiquette) rules (Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000).
Since communication via email, due to its cost-effectiveness and ease of access,
has become a prevalent channel of communication, dealing with netiquette issues and the
concept of e-politeness has immeasurably grown in significance, particularly among
language learners (Chen, 2006). This is mainly because the netiquette of any particular
online group embodies the culture and values of that group (Herring, 1996), and ―the
convenience brought by the computer-mediated communication does not guarantee
effective intercultural communication‖ (Hsieh, 2009, p. 1). Therefore, to maintain
successful communication, one should have a practical knowledge of norms of behavior
and adhere to specific patterns of social interaction and netiquette rules (Hymes, 1974;
Saville-Troike, 2003). Aside the concern that such international ―rules‖ have been
formulated without consideration of the ―beliefs/culture/comfort‖ of all stakeholders
(Marandi, 2013), if language learners aim at being successful communicators, thehave to
become familiar with the online culture of the target language they are learning. Hence,
22

this research aims at measuring the familiarity, awareness, and attitudes of online EFL
learners and their native counterparts towards the online behaviour rules.
Although netiquette is not a widely studied topic, Preece (2004) notes that there is
a diversity of net users, in terms of their culture, age, enthusiasm, income, and so forth.
She also notes that different technologies require different forms of etiquette; for
example, the etiquette of text messaging is different from the etiquette of email.
Furthermore, the netiquettes between web communities differ (Shea, 2004).
It is also argued that even the basic functions of new technologies may be
culturally determined. For instance, Lee (2000) found that in South Korean companies,
email is quite often seen as an inappropriate way of communicating with one's superiors.
In South Korea,email is not considered as respectful as other forms of communication.
Technological inventions such as mobile phones and PC‘s plays a significant role
to people‘s daily lives specifically to childrens as a means of faster and easier
communication with other people. Along with this breakthrough and the increasing usage
of the internet are the occurrence of some internet related issues such as ―cyber bullying‖
primariy affecting children. A study was conducted and have found out the causal
relationship of cyber bullying, ICT skills, and netiquette. ICT skills were reffered to one‘s
ability of managing informations and communication process through technology.
Netiquette was defined as the appropriate judgment whether it is right or wrong in the
23

different internet activities. Study shows having proficient ICT skills if used
inappropriately may increased cyber buying because of their abiity to manipulate
informations and others while on the other hand it was found out that a good netiquette
can possibly diminished the risk of cyber bullying cases. Cyber bullying in schools
affects all students. It is done by using communication media technologies and is
generated by its users which does not observed the proper use of internet . However a
good netiquette decreases the cases of cyber bullying in all levels and in all context. A
good netiquette- the appropriate judgement to what is right and wrong and a high level of
ICT skills if combined together will be a big help and an important factor in preventing
cyber bullying .
Internet today is more diverse than ever. Different cultural groups have different
view points on some internet related issues concerning its users and the proper use of
internet. The continuous progress and diffusion of of computing technology resuts to the
increase of different internet users. Internet of today is far different from what it is 15
years ago. Today Internet is more likely a collection of loosely link communities that
differ from each other for instance, in language, culture, interest and a lot
more.Somewhere around 1970‘s, early users of the internet laid the basis for a set of rules
and regulation for the different Internet activities which is known as Netiquette.
Netiquette refers to the proper usage of internet as well as right manners and behaviors
24

when using it . There is a significant amount of literature on and discussion about
netiquette but only few of this has been written considering culture. Netiquette plays a
vital role in using different social media sites like Facebook. Though the Internet covers
an enourmous variety of cultures and users the idaeof Internet is needed in order to create
a common ground so that users have pervasive rules that transcend cultural varieties
across the country and regions.
Internet has become the most powerful tool ever to collect various services and
resources. The biggest advantage that internet is offering is probably the information that
we get from the other people. Search engines like Google can help people to acquire a
huge amount of information and new ideas available on the internet (Nielson Net Ratings,
2006). The primary function of the internet is communication. It provides multiple
choices for people to communicate in another part of the world such as email, chatrooms,
and messages (Araujo, Cardoso, and Espanha, 2008). The World Wide Web has been
radically transformed, shifting from an information repository to a more social
environment where users are not only passive receivers or active harvesters of
information, but also creators of content (Bruns, 2008). Web-based technologies now
encompass the socializing features of virtual spaces that have emerged as zones for
information sharing, collaboration, and community formation and extension
(Suter,Alexander, & Kaplan, 2005). In the early 2000‘s, the Web became much more
25

personal as social networking websites were introduced and embraced by the
masses. According to Lenhart and Madden (2007), in the Pew Internet American Life
Project study on social networking and teens, a social networking site (SNS) is viewed as
an online location where a user can create a profile and build a personal network that
connects him or her to other users. Social networking sites
(SNS) are defined as web-based services that allow individuals to construct a
public or semi-public profile within a limited system, articulate a list of other users with
whom they share a connection, and view and traverse where they make a passage to
another to move through their list of connections and those made by others within the
system. The website knows the user‘s personal details like friends, likes, and connections.
People with similar interests, profiles or other commonalities will share their ideas and
get connected. The nature and terms of these connections may vary from site to site.
What makes social networking websites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet
strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible their social
networks. While SNSs have implemented a wide variety of technical features, their
backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of Friends who are
also users of the system. Profiles are unique pages where one can "type oneself into
being‖ (Sundén, 2003, p. 3). Many institutions (including most universities),
organizations and interest groups make social media communities with social media
26

links. To get frequently updated polls, photos and, links to news, and discussion
issues, they provide links to a Facebook fan page. Also, get to view posts and answer
questions, write blogs, feeds and connect with others.
Today, Entertainment like Facebook is another choice for people when they surf
the internet. Facebook is the largest social network in the world. It started as a website
limited to Harvard students only, but quickly expanded to additional colleges in the
Boston area, other Ivy League schools, then eventually just about every University in
North America, up till now where 1 out of every 7 people on earth is on Facebook. It was
founded by Mark Zuckerberg and some of fellow college roommates at Harvard
University, including Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz, Andrew McCollum and Chris
Hughes (Daniel Zeevi, 2013). Psychology and sociology studies suggest that the way
people communicate and exchange information on-line like Facebook has been
revolutionized by internet technology (Pew Research Foundation (PRF), 2002; Turner,
Grube, and Meyers, 2001; Walther and Boyd, 2002; Wright 2000. Chatrooms like
messenger are popular because users can meet new and interesting people. Internet chat
rooms, one type of on-line community, are popular with children, who are frequently
allowed to communicate with all of the site‘s participants simply by typing messages.
Internet chat rooms are considered stable channels of communication, where participants
―appear to develop a readily identifiable character and interaction comes to center on

27

topics that are related to the channel theme‖ (Paolillo, 1999, p.3). An important
characteristics of on-line chat rooms is that they are inherently visual (Greenfield &
Subrahmanyam, 2003). Participants generally remain anonymous by using nicknames.
Participants ―compose responses to a topic simultaneously without knowing what (or
even that) others are writing‖ (Herring, 1999, p.1). Conversation in Internet chat rooms
occurs in real-time: all participants in an interaction must be electronically present at the
same time, and messages are immediately transmitted through the intermediate servers to
all participants, wherever they may be…‖ (Paolillo, 1999, p.3). Participants in this chat
rooms communicate with each other by typing messages, voice communications,
emotional cues (emoticons) and video streams (Armentor, 2005).
Social networking websites and health
Nowadays, a health issue, not only comes from the so called environment of the
person, but also within the web 2.0 environment. Since, social networking websites have
attracted millions of users, many of whom integrated their sites as a daily practice. Online
social networks (OSNs) have permeated all generations of Internet users, becoming a
prominent communications tool, particularly in the student community. Today‘s college
students (which consist of Generation Y or also named Millennial) are exposed to all
28

types of technologies in many aspects of their lives (Browning, Gerlich, &
Westermann, 2011). On a daily basis they use desktop computers, laptops, E-readers,
tablets, and cell phones to actively engage in social networking, text messaging,
blogging, content sharing, online learning, and much more (Cassidy, Griffin, Manolovitz,
Shen, & Turney, 2011). In the previous years the main discussion issue was the addiction
to television, today‘s issues deal with internet addiction and the increased amount of time
young people and adults spend on searching the internet. Because adolescents and young
adults have the highest rates of internet use and frequency (Lenhart et al., 2005;
Shiffman, 2009; Tokunaga, 2010). A researcher named Dr. Sam Thomas, 2011 wrote an
article called addiction in Internet chatting: An empirical study using the modified
Technology Acceptance Model. His paper revealed that excessive time on social network
sites may lead to internet addiction. Students around the world spend a lot of time on
social network sites which this leads to major consequences. Excessive time spent in this
manner could lead to the problematic behavior known
as Internet addiction. Internet addiction is viewed as a psychological dependence
on or a behavioural addiction to the Internet resulting in excessive usage (Kandell, 1998;
Griffiths, 2000).
In addition, many researchers have argued that the attractiveness of the Internet
could lead to excessive use. On the other hand, Young (1998) argued that the Internet
29

itself is not addictive, but highly interactive applications like online chatting can
be addictive. Even though Facebook is used to connect with people and improve the
social life of students, it was also noticed that excessive of Facebook usage bring bad
consequences. Several studies show that intensive internet use may cause increasing
social isolation (Nie, 2001; Nie and Erbring. 2000), depression and loneliness (Kraut,
Patterson, Landmark, Kiesler, Mukophadyay, & Scherlis, 1998), and decrease
relationship quality with family and friends (Sanders, Field, Diego, & Kaplan, 2000). As
a matter of fact, the term Facebook Addiction Disorder (FAD) was coined to refer to the
negative consequences of excessive use of Facebook (Fenichel, 2009). The researchers
revealed students exhibit some addictive symptoms, namely, Salience (both cognitive and
behavioral) being on-line becomes the most important activity in the adopter‘s life, Mood
modification (subjective experiences of arousal or escape), Tolerance (increasing
amounts of internet use are needed to achieve the mood modifications needed by the
adopter), Loss of Control (interpersonal or other conflicts that concern excessive use of
the internet), Withdrawal symptoms (unpleasant subjective experiences that occur when
internet use ceases or decreases), and Relapse and Reinstatement. These symptoms
matched some of the addictive components of the Brown‘s Addiction Behaviour
Framework. (Griffiths, 2000). The findings are similar to other studies that have revealed
addictive behaviour in using mobile phones (Balakrishnan & Raj, 2012; Walsh et al.,
2010) and the Internet (Charlton, 2002).

30

Social networking websites and security/privacy issues
The social networking phenomenon is consuming the lives of millions of users
around the world. It is becoming a necessity day by day. Data privacy is a fundamental
problem in today's information era. Two authors named Asif and Khan in 2012, wrote an
article named user‘s perceptions on Facebook privacy policies. Facebook knows an
immense amount about its users. A fully filled-out Facebook profile contains about 40
pieces of recognizably personal information, including name; birthday; political and
religious views; online and offline contact information; sex, sexual preference and
relationship status; favorite books, movies, educational and employment history and
finally picture. Facebook then offers multiple tools for users to search out and add
potential contacts. By the time one person fills information, Facebook has a reasonably
comprehensive snapshot both of who you are and of who you know. Those stored
information is very crucial for individuals; people might misuse this information. The
problems that exist in the real world such as theft, fraud, vandalism also exists in online
Web 2 environments an identity thief. With this information people might use it for
negative cause and damage one person‘s life but if people read and understand the
privacy and security options they might be less exposed. Asif and Khan in 2012 found
that people remain unaware of information sharing policies, although the policies are
clearly stated. And if they have read them, they are not confirmed about the effect. This
31

study also shows that people do not know how their personal data can be shared. And
they end up sharing their private information with unauthorized people because of their
ignorant attitude. In addition, they noticed that complexity of privacy settings and lack of
control provided to the user is equally responsible for unintentional information sharing.
In addition, O‘Brien and Torres 2012 wrote an article named Social Networking and
Online Privacy: Facebook Users‘ Perceptions. As a result, the researchers found that
Facebook users are alert and cautious when using the social networking sites. However,
Facebook users are not completely informed or aware of all activities concerning privacy
on the social networking sites. Reid (1998) found that ―participants feel that they cannot
trust anyone, that everything on-line can be a lie, and that no one tells anyone who they
really are.
The double-edged nature of modern technology, continuously balancing between
risks and opportunities, manifests itself clearly in an emerging societal problem known as
cyber bullying (Walrave & Heirman, 2011). The word cyber bullying did not even exist a
decade ago, yet the problem has become a pervasive one today. Cyber bullies do not have
to be strong or fast; they just need access to a cell phone or computer and a desire to
terrorize. More than 97% of youths in the United States are connected to the Internet in
some way (Tokunaga, 2010). The number of children and teens who use the Internet at
home is rapidly growing, with now over

32

66% of fourth to ninth graders able to go online from the comfort of their
bedrooms. Children can engage in numerous Internet-based activities such as game
playing, seeking information, and talking with friends. The constellation of benefits,
however, has been recently eclipsed by numerous accounts of the Internet's undesirable
social implications, which appear in both scholarly literature and popular media.
However, many more students reported incidents that fall under its definition. Posting
mean or hurtful comments and spreading rumors online was the most common complaint.
Not surprisingly, cyber bullying is most prevalent among middle schoolers. Moreover,
the incidence of cyber bullying increases slightly with age. Finally, teens spending much
time on the Internet, reporting higher ICT expertise and owning a computer with
privileged online access share an increased likelihood of online bullying behaviour
(Walrave & Heirman, 2011). Electronic bullying, online bullying, and/or cyber bullying
are new methods of bullying involving forms of bullying defined as harassment using
technology such as social websites (MySpace, Facebook, etc.), email, chat rooms, mobile
phone texting and cameras, picture messages (including sexting), IM (instant messages),
and/or blogs (Miller & Hufstedler, 2009; Beale & Hall, 2007). Students may be
researching homework assignments, visiting college sites for information, or may be
checking out the website of their favorite movie or sport but still it has a serious harm
that caused by the large presence of social media in the lives of young people.
33

Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored to the unethical usage of NDMC- SHS Dameans on
Facebook social media. It is a generalized construction of the interacting behavioral
elements of the students who are posting unethical statements on Facebook. In posting
unethical statements, the behavior of the students say that posting in social media are
their personal related matters and that the only purpose of the object is to release stress
from such dissatisfaction, events, or matters. The adopters are individuals who are
qualified to the criteria, the one who are posting unethical statements as the behavior.
This theory relates to the study in a way that also represents the general influence
or harmful benefits to the school, persons and other things or matters that are affected. It
means that every individual can receive a threat or can be harmed as long as this certain
issues cannot be addressed. Students nowadays, are more grievous in posting statements.
It is because they seek for self-satisfaction and they want things to turn out the way they
want and to make it perfect. The feeling of being unsatisfied in the youth‘s society matter
to students these days and this becomes the reason why students are triggered to rant or
post unethical statements on social media specifically Facebook.

34

Conceptual Framework
The study focused on the unethical behavior of NDMC Senior High School
Students in using social media particularly Facebook. In this study, the independent
variable is the respondents‘ profile which includes age, sex, strand, grade level, and
average frequency in using Facebook a day along with the different influences that cause
them to behave in an unethical manner on Facebook . The respondents‘ profiles are
connected to their attitude and unethical behavior in using Facebook social media. On the
other hand, the dependent variable is the respondents‘ Behavior on Facebook social
media itself.
The Independent variable is connected to the dependent variable since the
independent variable can affect the dependent variable. Therefore, the independent
variable and dependent variable are related to each other.

35

Conceptual Framework
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Profile of Respondents
Attitude and Unethical
 Age usage
 Gender
 Facebook
 Strand
 Social Media
 Grade level
36

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This study composes the research design, the locale and respondents of the study,
the research instruments, validity and reliability, data gathering procedures and the
statistical treatment of data in the study.
Research Design
This study used descriptive design. It is descriptive because it solely focuses on
the unethical usage of Notre Dame of Midsayap Senior high School students on
Facebook social media.
Locale and Respondents
This research was conducted in Notre Dame of Midsayap College Senior High
School Department. The respondents were the students of the said school who are active
on Facebook of the school year 2017-2018.

37

Research Instruments
The research instrument used for this study is the questionnaire which is used to
gather the data needed for this paper. The questionnaire composes of 2 parts. The first
part is further divided into two sections, the first section composes of the demographics,
section two contains the Facebook activities the respondents participate in. The second
part is also divided into three sections. The first section of part two composes of
questions regarding how respondents use Facebook, part two refers to how often they
participate in the activities when using Facebook and part three composes of the possible
emotional, environmental, and personal factors that urged them to behave unethically on
Facebook.
Sampling Design
The researchers used the purposive sampling design. This indicates that the
respondents were chosen with basis on what the researchers have judged the respondents
as people with an ample background experience on using Facebook social media.
Therefore, the population doesn‘t have the equal chance to be chosen because of the rules
and general standards or principles that were made by the researchers.

38

Validity and Reliability
For the validity of the instruments, the adviser and the chosen readers validated
the instruments of the researchers. The researchers determined the reliability through
pilot testing with the use of Cronback Alpha which resulted in a 0.8 optimum reliability.
The researchers looked for 10-30 students that are active in Facebook activities for pilot
testing.
Data Gathering
The researchers of this study gathered the selected respondents coming
from the students studying at Notre Dame of Midsayap College that are active on
Facebook. The survey of this study used the following procedures:
First, the researchers made a letter that was approve by the subject teacher and the
dean. The approved letter will be given to the subject teacher whom we have conducted
our survey for the pilot testing. After the approval of the teacher, the researchers will
distribute the questionnaires to the respondents.

39

Statistical Tools and Treatment of the Data
For the Demographic Profile (objective 1) of the respondents, it wasanalyzed by
appropriate statistical tools such as Frequency Counts and Percentages. Since objectives 3
and 4 utilize Likert Scale, the best statistical tools are Weighted Mean and Standard
Deviation.
40

CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA
This chapter discusses the data analysis and finding from 51 questionnaires
completed by Senior High School Dameans who are active users of Facebook. The
purpose of the study was to identify the various factors that led these students to behave
unethically on Facebook.
Questionnaires were given to selected Senior High School Students of The Notre
Dame of Midsayap College who are known to be active users of Facebook. After
agreeing to the to the consent from indicating their willingness to participate in the study,
these students completed the questionnaire. A total of fifty-one (51) students completed
the questionnaires on February 8, 2018 . The data from the questionnaires were
statistically analyzed by a statistician. The SPSS version 23 program was used for the
data analysis. The findings are discussed according to the sections of the questionnaire.
41

PERSONAL DATA
This section of the questionnaire covers the respondents‘ age, sex, strand and
grade level, average frequency of using Facebook per day, and what specific Facebook
activities they engage themselves in. Though not central to the study, the personal data
helps conceptualize the findings and the formulation of appropriate recommendations to
enable more understanding in pertaining to the factors that lead the respondents to behave
unethically on Facebook.
Respondents‟ ages
Table 4.1 : Respondents Age

______________________________________________________________________________
Variable Frequency Percentage
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Age
16 years old 2 3.90

17 14 27.50
18 31 60.80
19 4 7.80
Mean Age = 17.5

SD =
Minimum = 16
Maximum = 19
Total 51 100.00
________________________________________________________________________________________________
42

Majority of the respondents who belonged to the purposive sampling are 17-18
years of age which are the ideal ages of being a senior high school student. There are only
a few occasional respondents who are 16 and 19 years old
Respondents‟ Sex
Table 4.2: Respondents Sex
Sex Frequency Percentage

________________________________________________________________________
Male 15 29.4
Female 36 70.6
Total 51 100.00
________________________________________________________________________
More than 50% of the respondents are female. This shows that females are more
likely to engage themselves and spend their time in using Facebook compared to men.
The results show that in pertaining to using Facebook, women are more likely to
participate in this social media site compared to men.

43

Respondents Strand and Grade Level
Table 4.3: Strand and Grade Level of the Respondents
Strand and Grade Level Frequency Percentage

of the Respondents
______________________________________________________________________________________
STEM 12 20 39.20
ABM 12 14 27.50
GAS 11 2 3.90
HUMSS 12 10 19.60
STEM 11 5 9.80
Total 51 100.00
______________________________________________________________________________________
Majority of the respondents in the researchers‘ purposive sampling were 12 th
Grade STEM students. These students were tend to known to be more active in using
Facebook social media site compared to students from other strands.
Respondents‟ Average Frequency in Using Facebook Social Media Site
Table 4.4 : Frequency in Using Facebook in a Day
Average Frequency in Frequency Percentage

using Facebook in 1 day
1-3 2 41.50
4-6 22 21.20
7-9 21 16.90
10-12 2 14.40
13 hours and above 4 7.80
Total 51 100.00
________________________________________________________________________________________________
44

Among the respondents, the most frequent average frequency that corresponds to
how many hours a day these students use Facebook range between 4-6 hours and 7-9
hours.
Respondents‟ participation in Facebook Activities
Table 4.5: Common Activities When Using Facebook
______________________________________________________________________________
Variable Yes % No % n Total(%)
______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Li ki ng 48 94.10 3 5.90 51 100.00
2. Rea cting 46 90.20 5 9.80 51
3. Sha ring 44 86.30 7 13.70 51 100.00
4. Commenting 39 76.50 12 23.50 51 100.00
5. Pos ting 42 82.20 9 17.60 51 100.00
7. Rea ding 43 84.30 8 15.70 51 100.00
8. Ba s hing 49 96.10 2 3.90 51 10.00
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Majority of the respondents perform the common Facebook activities though
there are those who do not occasionally. Furthermore, more than 95% of the respondents
do not engage themselves in bashing. Bashing refers to the public attacking of a person
towards another person without hiding both the attacker and the victim‘s identity. The
study focuses on the factors that
urge the respondents to rant or post unethical statements on Facebook but these
statements do not necessarily mean bashing or public attacking. Moreover, though many
45

of the respondents do not bash it does not mean that they do not behave in a wholesome
good manner when using Facebook. This may mean that they could still post unethical
statements on social media without directly identifying who the main victim of their post
is. Thus, resulting in only posting unethically and not directly bashing.
HOW THE RESPONDENTS USE FACEBOOK
This section of the questionnaire determines how the respondents use Facebook in
different aspects such as if it is a means of communication, a means of entertainment, a
source of information, etc.
Table 4.5: Respondents View and Use of Facebook

________________________________________________________________________________________________
Variable Mean SD Description
______________________________________________________________________________________
I am able to use Facebook as...
1. a tool for communication 4.59 0.78 Agree
2. a source of information 3.98 1.01 Agree
3. a source of entertainment 4.43 0.98 Agree
4. a means for self-expression 3.84 1.14 Agree
5. a booster in self-confidence 3.35 1.28 Moderately Agree
6. a "let out" for negative emotions 3.04 1.82 Moderately Agree
7. a means for attacking others 1.94 1.21 Disagree
8. a way to make "parinig" to people 2.37 1.31 Disagree
I have issues with
9. a way to see myself as a superior 2.25 1.13 Disagree
individual among others
Overall Mean 3.31 Moderately Agree

Overall Standard Deviation 1.18
______________________________________________________________________________________
46

________________________________________________________________________
Scale Range Description
5 4.50-5.00 Strongly Agree

4 3.50-4.49 Agree
3 2.50-3.49 Moderately Agree
2 1.50-2.49 Disagree
1 1.00-1.49 Strongly Disagree
Based on the results of the survey, the respondents agree that Facebook is a tool
for communication, a source of information, a source of entertainment, and a means for
self-expression. They moderately agree that they see and use Facebook as a booster in
self-confidence, and a let out for negative emotions. Furthermore, results show that they
disagree that Facebook is a way to attack others and a way to see one‘s self as a superior
individual among others. Results show that the respondents see Facebook as a healthy
tool in self-expression, though this self-expression can either be positive or negative,
which may also lead to unethical social media practices in which the factors of these
unethical behavior is what this study aims to know.
HOW OFTEN DO THE RESPONDENTS ENGAGE THEMSELVES IN THE

ACTIVITIES IN FACEBOOK
This section determines how frequent the respondents participate in Facebook
activities. Though this is not the central idea of the study, this supports the main point of
47

the study because the frequency of engagement of the respondents to the activities in
Facebook may help assess on which factors lead them to behave unethically.
Table 4.6: Level of Frequency in the Respondents‘ Activeness in Participating in

Facebook Activities

How often do I...
1. "Like" Facebook posts 4.08 1.01 Almost Always
2. "Comment" on Facebook posts 3.65 0.95 Almost Always
3. "Mention " on Facebook posts 3.65 1.05 Almost Always
4. "Share" Facebook posts 3.75 0.99 Almost Always
5. Post negative statises in Facebook 2.14 0.99 Rarely
6. Attack (parinig) others when posting 1.98 0.93 Rarely
7. Request for backup in regards to
my attack (naghahanap ng kakampi) 1.61 1.16 Rarely
8. Request for approval in my point
of view of attack (naghahanap ng mga
kakampi kung saan sinasabi nilang tama
ka at mali ang pinariringgan/kaaway mo) 1.47 0.94 Never
9. See other Facebook users ranting. 3.14 1.04 Sometimes
on Facebook
10. Witness "Facebook wars" between 3.12 1.39 Sometimes
two or more parties (commonly during
Intramurals)
Overall Mean 2.86 Sometimes

________________________________________________________________________
5 4.50-5.00 Alw ays
4 3.50-4.49 Almost Always
3 2.50-3.49 Sometimes
2 1.50-2.49 Rarely
1 1.00-1.49 Never
48

In coherence with the results of the survey, the respondents do sometimes witness
Facebook wars between two or more parties yet they themselves do not take part in these
wars as much as possible. They rarely post negative statuses on Facebook but they do
perform common Facebook activities such as liking, mentioning, commenting, etc. when
they use the social media site more frequently. Furthermore, though the respondents are
active in the said site, most of them are not that vulgar when it comes to their Facebook
posts and statuses. The survey shows that the respondents only rarely or sometimes
engage themselves in negative acts regarding the said social media site. Though some of
them do perform vulgar acts on the website, still, a majority of these students prefer to
behave more properly than those who do not. They choose to behave but they still
witness those who prefer otherwise. Almost all of the respondents never requested for
back up in their point of view of attack for like stated before, they choose to behave
more properly (which means they avoid attacking others) rather than unethically.
WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE FACTORS THAT URGE THE RESPONDENTS TO
BEHAVE UNETHICALLY ON FACEBOOK
In this section of the paper, the respondents are asked on what are the possible
factors that urge or influence them to behave unethically on Facebook. There are a
49

variety of emotional, environmental, and personal factors that may or may not drive the
respondents to behave in the said manner when using Facebook.
Table 4.7: Factors that urge the respondents to behave unethically on Facebook
______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
A. BECAUSE OF EMOTIONAL
FACTORS SUCH AS…
1. Family misunderstandings and problems 2.02 0.99 Disagree
2. Feeling of unfairness when inclined to 2.37 1.04 Disagree
certain situations
3. Feuds with friends 2.33 1.16 Disagree
4. Feuds with boyfriend/girlfriend 2.12 1.31 Disagree
5. Depression/heartbreak 2.75 1.35 Moderately Agree
6. Anxiety and insecurity 2.24 1.12 Disagree
B. BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS SUCH AS…
1. Struggle in coping with school requirements 2.78 1.17 Moderately Agree
2. Annoyance in seeing other users 2.59 1.19 Moderately Agree
of Facebook ranting unethically
3. Annoyance towards other people 2.49 1.17 Disagree
4. Competitions 2.20 1.22 Disagree
5. Unlikely events such as fights ,etc. 2.35 1.16 Disagree
C. BECAUSE OF PERSONAL
FACTORS SUCH AS …
1. Need for attention 2.25 1.20 Disagree
2. Need for approval of others 2.06 0.99 Disagree
3. Wanting to be famous; 1.77 1.01 Disagree
to be "in the spotlight"
4. Pleasure of attacking others 1.69 1.07 Disagree
5. Pleasure of feeling and seeing 1.71 0.88 Disagree
one's self as a dominant
individual compared to one's
"opponent"
6. Pleasure of superiority and 1.98 1.12 Disagree
victory.
Overall Mean 2.22 Disagree

________________________________________________________________________________________________
50

________________________________________________________________________
5 4.50-5.00 Strongly Agree

4 3.50-4.49 Agree
3 2.50-3.49 Moderately Agree
2 1.50-2.49 Disagree
1 1.00-1.49 Strongly Disagree
According to the results of the survey, most of the respondents did not agree on
the factors given to them in the survey questionnaire. However, they did moderately
agree in some factors such as heartbreak and depression, struggle with coping with school
requirements and annoyance in seeing other people ranting unethically on Facebook.
Furthermore, a possibility for them not agreeing on the given factors may be because
though they are very active in using Facebook, they do not necessarily behave unethical
on social media even if they had the opportunity to do so. Another possible reason is
because majority of the respondents only witness other people bashing but they
themselves do not. This may be because majority of the senior high school students of
Notre Dame of Midsayap College handle their emotions very well and do not publicly
broadcast their heartaches and problems unlike others who do.

51

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions, Interpretations and Discussions
The following chapter concludes this report. A summary of the research is
presented, and findings of the study are discussed and interpreted. The significance of
this research is to inform the people of NDMC on what are the significant factors that
triggered some of the Senior High School Dameans to publicly broadcast inappropriate
and offensive statements on social media specifically on Facebook. Recommendations
for further research are included in this chapter.
The scope of the following conclusions is limited to the factors that triggered
some of the Senior High Dameans to behave unethically in social media specifically in
Facebook. Thus, applied to other situations these conclusions may yield different
assumptions. Still these conclusions are relevant to the study.

52

Summary Of The Findings
The result of the survey shows that there are various factors that lead the SHS
Dameans to behave unethically in social media, specifically Facebook. These factors
include heart break, depression, struggle in coping with school requirements and
annoyance in seeing other people ranting unethically on Facebook, where the respondents
moderately agreed to these factors mentioned.
Significance of The Study
Due to the increased use of internet in this modern age, netiquette is very important to
people‘s daily lives. This study aims to inform the people of NDMC on what are the
significant factors that triggered some of the Senior High School Dameans to spread
inappropriate and offensive statements on social media specifically on Facebook.
Conclusions
This study determines that Facebook in an age of digital media, when our every
activity is recorded, taped, screened and analyzed, the more you know about how people
collect data, the more you realize that privacy is already dead (Farrer 2010). The
53

literature review was concentrated on the negative effects of using Facebook unethically
where every people are being harassed, threaten, and bullied. Posting unethical thoughts
on social media purposely requires a careful reflection of roles and responsibilities.
Facebook is already part of our lives. Facebook plays many vital roles in order to
connect people in the world without boundary because almost every people these days
are alreadyfamiliar with it. But along with the positive traits Facebook has, it also has a
negative impact that could totally ruin a person‘s life and everything that could possibly
be affected by it. Facebook can also be a place of crimes where many people are
victimized and in some serious cases, exposing someone‘s privacy without permission.
Facebook murdered people. Not literally that Facebook kills people but people
who are using this social media are the one who kills. Using Facebook as a means to
harm people is a careless manner as it leads to very serious and dangerous effects where
image of the institution as well as lives of the people who are damaged can no longer be
fixed. The study results that though there are some Senior High School Dameans who
tend to rant unethically on Facebook because of the various factors above mentioned,
majority of these active Facebook users prefer to be low-key and not publicly broadcast
their heartaches. However, there are still some who do rant and according to the results,
the above mentioned factors are what most likely triggered them to do so.
54

Recommendations
Long term assessments are particularly constrained by the availability and
reliability of the recorded data. The frequency and often the methodology in which
surveys are made, do not always suit the purposes of this kind of research. Nevertheless,
a careful and detailed process of
observation of the data become very time consuming. Based on the findings and
conclusions the researcher highly formulated the following recommendations:
I. For Possible Course of Action
A. Students of Notre Dame of Midsayap College
1. The students should ethically behave in using social media sites
specifically Facebook and be responsible in all of their action when
engaging in the said activities.
B. NDMC Administrators
1. The NDMC Administrators should create policies and agree which
policies will be effective towards the unethical behavior of Senior
High School(SHS) students in social media specifically in
facebook.
55
2. Strict implementation of the agreed policies towards the unethical
behavior of Senior High School students in social media
specifically facebook.
II. For Further Study:
1. For future research, the researcher recommends to conduct a research
regarding on the factors that triggered some of the Senior High Dameans
to behave unethically in social media specifically in Facebook.
2. For further research, the researcher recommends to conduct a research
regarding on how should the respondents behave ethically in social media
specifically Facebook.
56

“A STUDY ON NDMC SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DAMEANS UNETHICAL

USAGE OF FACEBOOK SOCIAL MEDIA”
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Socio- Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Directions: Fill out this questionnaire about your Facebook Social Media usage and
experiences to the best of your knowledge.
Section 1: Demographics
Age: _____ Sex: ____ Male ____ Female Strand & Grade Level:
Ave. Frequency in using Facebook in 1 day:
1-3 hours:_____ 7-9 hours:_____ 13 hours and above:_____
4-6 hours:_____ 10-12 hours: _____
Section 2 : Facebook Social Media Involvement
1. Are you currently taking part in Facebook activities?
____ YES ____ NO
2. What activities do you currently engage in when using Facebook? You may select
more than one activity.
_____ Liking _____ Sharing _____ Posting _____Reading(posts)
_____ Reacting _____ Commenting _____ Watching(videos) _____

Bashing
______________________ Others (Please Specify)

57

II. Usage and Factors when using Facebook
Directions: The following items are how you use Facebook and your observations; rate
each item based on your extent of favor regarding them. Use the scale below for your
ratings.
SCALE
Rating Scale Description
1 Strongly Disagree (The level of factor is very low)
2 Disagree (The level of factor is low)
3 Moderately Agree (The level of factor is moderate)
4 Agree (The level of factor is high)
5 Strongly Agree (The level of factor is very high)
PART A. HOW I USE FACEBOOK
I am able to use Facebook as… 1 2 3 4 5

A tool for communication.
A source of information.
A source of entertainment.
A means for self-expression.
A booster in self-confidence (likes).
A ―let out‖ for negative emotions
A means for attacking others.
A way to make ―parinig‖ to people I have issues with.
58
A way to see myself as a superior individual among others.
SCALE
Rating Scale Description
1 Never (The level of factor is very low)
2 Rarely (The level of factor is low)
3 Sometimes (The level of factor is moderate)
4 Almost always (The level of factor is high)
5 Always (The level of factor is very high)
PART B. ACTIVITIES I DO WHEN USING FACEBOOK
How often do I… 1 2 3 4 5
―Like‖ Facebook posts
―Comment‖ on Facebook posts
―Mention‖ on Facebook posts
―Share‖ Facebook posts
Post negative statuses in Facebook
Attack (parinig) others when posting
Request for backup in regards to my attack (naghahanap ng
kakampi)
Request for approval in my point of view of attack
(naghahanap ng mga kakampi kung saan sinasabi nilang tama
ka at mali ang pinaparinggan/kaaway mo)
See other Facebook users ranting on Facebook
Witness ―Facebook wars‖ between two or more parties
(commonly during intramurals)
59
PART C. FACTORS THAT URGE ME TO BEHAVE NEGATIVELY ON FACEBOOK
a. BECAUSE OF EMOTIONAL FACTORS SUCH 1 2 3 4 5

AS…
Family misunderstandings and problems
Feeling of unfairness when inclined to certain situations
Feuds with friends
Feud with boyfriend/girlfriend
Depression/Heartbreak
Anxiety and insecurity
b. BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
SUCH AS.
Struggle in coping with school requirements
Annoyance in seeing other users of Facebook ranting
unethically
Annoyance towards other people
Competitions
Unlikely events such as fights, etc.
c. BECAUSE OF PERSONAL FACTORS SUCH AS…
Need for attention
Seeking for approval of others
Wanting to feel famous; to be ―in the spotlight‖
Pleasure of attacking others
Pleasure of feeling and seeing one‘s self as a dominant
individual compared to one‘s ―opponent‖
Pleasure of superiority and victory
60

REFERENCES
Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001, June 20).Teenage life online: The rise of the
instant- message generation and the internet‘s impact on friendships and family
relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Weiss, D. L. (2005, August 11). Youth & the Internet. Focus on the Family.
Brignall, T.W., III, & Valey, T. V. (2005). The impact of Internet communication on
social interaction. Sociological Spectrum, 25, 335-348.
Freeman-Longo, R. E. (2000). Children, teens, and sex on the Internet. Sexual Addiction
and Compulsivity, 7, 75-90
Pankoke-Babatz, U., & Jeffrey, P. (2002). Documented norms and conventions on the
internet. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14(2), 219-235.
Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based
language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds), Network-based language
teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C. E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing
to authority figures. Language Learning and Technology, 10(2), 35-55. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num2/pdf/chen.pdf
61

Herring, S. C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-
cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.39
Hsieh, S. C. (2009). (Im)politeness in email communication: How English speakers and
Chinese speakers negotiate meanings and develop intercultural (mis)understandings.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Retrieved from http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/337/1/hsieh09PhD.pdf
Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Saville- Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Malden,
Mass: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470758373
Marandi, S. S. (2013). Computer-assisted language learning. In R. Akbari & C. Coombe
(Eds), Middle East handbook of applied linguistics(pp. 185-208). Dubai, United Arab
Emirates:TESOL Arabia.
Preece, J., 2004. Etiquette Online: From Nice to Necessary. Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.56-61.
Shea, V., 2004. Netiquette. Albion Books, San Francisco, USA.

62

Lee, O., 2000. The Role of Cultural Protocol in Media Choice in a Confucian Virtual
Workplace. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 43, No. 2, June
2000, pp. 196-200.
Finkel, S.(1995). Causal Analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Internet Association Japan(2005). [Rule and association in the Internet
of manner for kids formula text Internet]. [Brochure] , Tokyo: Association of Internet
Cities, Towns and Villages Handbook Editing Committee (2008). (2008 [National Cities,
Towns and Villages
Handbook (2008 Ver.)], Tokyo: Cities, Towns and Villages Handbook Editing
Committee
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F.(2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences
in cyberspace. Journal of School Health ,78, 496-505.
Li, Q.(2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences, School
Psychology International, 27, 157-170.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (2009). Guide making
meeting (the fourth) distribution document Chapter 5
Information Morals about the Computerization of the Education Retrieved August 27,
2011, from
63

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/056/shiryo/1249660.htm(In
Japanese)
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2010). As for the
problem behaviors of the children, investigation about
problems in the student Guidance‖ Retrieved August 27, 2011, from
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/21/11/1287227.htm(In
Japanese)
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth‘s
perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth
Services Review, 31, 1222-1228.
Ono, J.& Saito, F.(2008).Educational psychological review about understanding and
Coping with Cyber Bullying, Senri Kinran University
Bulltin, 5, 35-47.(in Japanese)
Scheuermann, L. & Taylor, G. (1997). Netiquette, Internet Research, 7, 269–273.
Shea, V. (1994). Core Rules of Netiquette, EDUCOM Review, 29, 58–62.
Suzuki, K., Yamaoka, A., Katsura, R., Sakamoto, A., & Kashibuchi, M., (2010, Sep.)
Internet use and bullying among children (3): A two-wave
panel survey on the effects of mobile internet use on bullying experiences. Poster session
presented at the annual meeting of Japanese
Psychological Association, Osaka, Japan (in Japanese)

64

Utsumi, S. (2010). Cyberbullying among middle-school students: Association with
children's perception of parental control. Japanese Journal of
Educational Psychology, 58, 12-22
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment;
associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and
personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 319-336
Bernard, H.R., 1995. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches (2nd ed.). Altamira
Press, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
Cole, M., 1998. Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Harvard University
Press, Massachusetts, USA.
Hofstede, G., 1997. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill,
New York, USA.
Huntington, S., 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 22-
49.
Lampe, C. and Johnston, E., 2005, Follow the (Slash) Dot: Effects of Feedback on New
Members in an Online
Community. Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on
Supporting group work.
Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, pp. 11-20.

65

Lee, O., 2000. The Role of Cultural Protocol in Media Choice in a Confucian Virtual
Workplace. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, Vol. 43, No. 2, June 2000, pp. 196-200.
Marcus, A. and Gould, E.W., 2000. Crosscurrents: Cultural Dimensions and Global Web
User-Interface Design.
Interactions, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 32-46.
Matsumoto, D. and Juang, L., 2004. Culture and Psychology. Thomson, USA.
Preece, J., 2004. Etiquette Online: From Nice to Necessary. Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.56-61.
Ross, N., 2004. Culture and Cognition: Implications for Theory and Method. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Shea, V., 2004. Netiquette. Albion Books, San Francisco, USA.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C., 1997. Riding the Waves of Culture:
Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business (2nd ed.). Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, UK.
www.bbc.co.uk>guides>anout- netiquette
www.dictionary.com>browse>unethical
66

67


Aaaaaa. Final Thesis Body To Print PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Aaaaaa. Final Thesis Body To Print PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

persuasiveness of the internet, the ―Internet Chat Room‖ is becoming increasingly

―unethical behavior‖ because of their anonymity and freedom, especially in activities

related to violence and bullying.

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

Statement of the Problem

on Facebook. The study is sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the socio-demographic profile of the respondents in terms of age, sex,

activities they engage themselves into when using Facebook?

2. How do the respondents use Facebook?

3. How often do the respondents engage themselves in the activities in Facebook?

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

Significance of the Study

publicly broadcast inappropriate and offensive statements on social media specifically on

This study is beneficial to the following:

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

Scope and Limitation of the Study

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

The following terms are operationally defined:

Netiquette- the word netiquette is a combination of ‗net‘ and ‗etiquette‘. It means

online discussion groups.

Unethical – lacking moral principles; unwilling to adhere to proper rules of conduct

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Social Networking Sites—the Overview of Issues

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

company with estimated revenue in 2009 of between

would be world‘s third largest country by population‘ (Fletcher 2010b).

Facebook is regularly labelled ‗unethical‘ (Yoder 2010), ‗Disgracebook‘ (Murray 2010)

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

Privacy: What Do We Share on the Net? 2

SNSs (Nissenbaum 2004:101). Bearing in mind that Facebook started as a university

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

SNSs are the biggest villains in cyber-space.

Facebook and Victimization: Criminals use Facebook Too!

The issue of privacy is closely linked to a debate around vulnerability to

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

While your chances of becoming a victim of crime on Facebook might be slim,

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

created, in what has been described as the criminal behaviour of ‗trolling‘—posting

removal of abusive posts (Hough 2010).

The presence of convicted offenders on Facebook is another hot topic in Australia

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

and the era of ‗the new punitiveness‘ (Pratt et al 2005).

As Kim Arlington (2010) noted, if you have a Facebook account, it is difficult to

was arrested (Feature 2010d).

court (Unger 2010). Interpreted as an example of a creativity of the13legal system, this

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

point of interest in Australian media. As The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 26

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

exchanging information with the community (Robinson 2010).

This aspect of the debate contradicts above identified concerns of Facebook‘s

question to a Senate committee—‗What would you prefer - a corporate giant who is

answerable to no one and motivated solely by profit or an elected government?‘ (Sharp

these issues we need to analyse the broader social context.

Where to Go From Here: Critical Criminology and SNSs

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

The key to crime prevention in cyber-world, according to Facebook officials, should be

because they love sharing information‘ (Timson 2010b).

Notre Dame of Midsayap College

using personal information‘ (Nissenbaum 2004:107). As Cohen (1993:101-2) notes:

debate that requires careful criminological inquiry. In addition, while victimisation—both