Age Differences in Online Communication: How College Students and Adults Compare in Their Perceptions of Offensive Facebook Posts

Loreen Wolfer 1 *
More Detail
1 University of Scranton, U.S.A
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp. 24-42.
OPEN ACCESS   1919 Views   1024 Downloads   Published online: 10 Oct 2017
Download Full Text (PDF)


With the most recent US Presidential election, civility in online communication has resurfaced as a social issue. Asurvey of 409 college students and 190 faculty / staff at a liberal arts college in northeastern Pennsylvania used open-ended questions to identifythe types of communicative posts people of different ages have seen and considered offensive on Facebook. Content analysis identified twenty unique themes of online inappropriateness, many of whichare similar across age groups butdo not appear in previous research. Common top themes include racist comments, sex / nudity, political references, and offending visuals. Age differences emerge in the rankings of these four themes and in the identified fifth theme, which is “other social issues” among college students and foul language for adults. Findings also indicate that students were statistically more likely than adults to consider posts involving traditional social issues (racism, sexism, LGBT issues, and alcohol / drugs) or aggression to be offensive; and, adults were more likely to consider foul language or the discussion of politics or religion to be offensive. Symbolic interaction theory is used to link perceptions of offensive posts to judgments of others, and suggestions for further research are discussed.


Wolfer, L. (2017). Age Differences in Online Communication: How College Students and Adults Compare in Their Perceptions of Offensive Facebook Posts. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 7(4), 24-42.


  • Bazarovca, N. (2012). Public Intimacy: Disclosure Interpretation and Social Judgments on Facebook. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 815-832. 2466.2012.01664.x
  • Brandtzæg, P. B., Lüders, M., &Skjetne, J. H. (2010).Too many Facebook “friends”? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. International. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 26(11-12), 1006-1030.
  • Brechwald, W., & Prinstein, M. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166- 179.
  • Calhoun, C. (2000). The Virtue of Civility. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29(3), 251-275.
  • Chirico, R. (2014). Damn!: a cultural history of swearing in modern America. North Carolina: Pitchstone Publishing.
  • Ehrenrich, S. E., Underwood, M.K., & Ackerman, R.A. (2014). Adolescents’ Text Message Communication and Growth. Antisocial Behavior Across the First Year of High School. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 251-264. 9783-3
  • FileThom.(2013). Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964–2012. Current Population Survey Reports, P20- 572.U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Retrieved on July 30, 2016 from
  • Fix, M. P. (2016). A universal standard for obscenity? The importance of context and other considerations. Justice System Journal, 37(1), 72-88.
  • Goodmon, L. B., Smith, P. L., Ivancevich, D., & Lundberg, S. (2014). Actions speak louder than personality: Effects of Facebook content on personality perceptions.North American Journal of Psychology, 16(1), 105-119. Retrieved from
  • Hetsroni, A. (2007). Sexual content on mainstream TV advertising: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 57(3-4), 201-210.
  • Hilsen, A. I., & Helvik, T. (2014). The construction of self in social medias, such as Facebook.AI & Society, 29(1), 3-10.
  • Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35(2), 190-207.
  • Leung, L. (2013). Generational differences in content generation in social media: The roles of gratficiations sought and narcissism. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 997- 1006.
  • Lo, C. (2000). The Impact of First Drinking and Differential Association on Collegiate Drinking. Sociological Focus, 33(3), 265-280.
  • Marciszewski, A. (2006). Peer Persuasion: Universities Turn to Students to Help Battle Alcohol Abuse. Tulsa World. Retrieved on June 1, 2014 from 400056383?accountid=28588
  • Mayo, C. (2013). Unsettled Relations: Schools, Gay Marriage, And Educating for Sexuality. Educational Theory, 63(5), 543-558. Retrieved from
  • McAndrew, F. T., & Jeong, H. S. (2012).WhoDoes What on Facebook? Age, Sex, and Relationship Status as Predictors of Facebook Use. Computers In Human Behavior, 28(6), 2359-2365.
  • McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. BiochemiaMedica, 22(3), 276- 282.
  • Miller, P. R., Bobkowski, P. S., Maliniak, D., & Rapoport, R. B. (2015). Talking politics on Facebook: Network centrality and political discussion practices in social media. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 377-391.
  • Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 243-249.
  • Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1142-1149.
  • Peluchette, J. V., & Karl, K. A. (2007). The prevalence of Facebook faux pas and students’ “devil may care” attitudes. In Midwest Academy of Management Meeting, Kansas City, Missouri, October 4th–6th.
  • PEW Research Center, (2016). Mobile messaging and social media 2015, March 17- April 12, 2015, retrieved in July 18, 2016).
  • Potts, R., & Belden, A. (2009). Parental guidance: A content analysis of MPAA motion picture rating justifications 1993-2005. Current Psychology, 28(4), 266-283.
  • Roche, T. M., Jenkins, D. D., Aguerrevere, L. E., Kietlinski, R. L., & Prichard, E. A. (2015). College Students' Perceptions of Inappropriate and Appropriate Facebook Disclosures. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 20(2), 86-96.
  • Shinew, K., & Parry, D. (2005). Examining College Students' Participation in the Leisure Pursuits of Drinking and Illegal Drug Use. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3), 364-387.
  • Shoenberger, H., & Tandoc, E. (2014). Updated Statuses: Understanding Facebook Use Through Explicit and Implicit Measures of Attitudes and Motivations. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 4(1), 217-244.
  • Steeves, V., & Regan, P. (2014).Young people online and the social value of privacy. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 12(4), 298. Retrieved from
  • Thorne, A. (2015). Social Media, Civility, and Free Expression.Academic Questions. 28(3), 334- 338.
  • Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding inter-observer agreement: The Kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-363.
  • Yang, C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for Using Facebook, Patterns of Facebook Activities, and Late Adolescents' Social Adjustment to College. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 403-416.
  • Wolfer, L. (2016). No Social Issues, Sex or Politics on Facebook: Young Adults’ Views of Inappropriate Facebook Posts. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 3(10), 2860-2867.