Impact of Social Networking Sites

Business Research Methodology

A Study On
Impact Of Social Networking Sites On Our Life
Impact Of Social Networking Sites On Our Life

ICFAI BUSINESS SCHOOL

This Report Has Been submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements of PGPM program of IBS Gurgaon

Submitted To,
Prof. Vipin Khurana

Submitted By, Avinash Kumar Singh 12BSP1658 Pankaj Sharma 12BSP0825 Atul Kesharwani 12BSP2341 Lav Sood 12BSP

Acknowledgement
First & foremost I humbly bow my head before the Almighty for the unmerited blessings though various hands. I submit this small venture before God with full satisfaction& pleasure from my heart.

It is with great respect and devotion we place on record my deep sense of gartidue and indebtedness to Prof. Vipin Khurana, Faculty Of Business Research Methodology, ICFAI Business School, Gurgaon for his sustained & variable guidance, constructive & valuable suggestions, unfailing patience, friendly approach, constant support and encouragement withoust which this study would have been a distant dream.
We also place a deep sense of gratitude to all those who participated in our study, you all really being very help full and patience.
We also like to thank all of our classmates and friends who supported and guided us whenever we needed them, thank you friends.

This Report simply shows the entire dedication of our group who have coordinated for successful accomplishment of this study report.

Group Number 3
Avinash Kumar Singh 12BSP1658 Pankaj Sharma 12BSP0825 Atul Kesharwani 12BSP2341 Lav Sood 12BSP

Abstract
In today’s fast moving world, everyone tries to be ahead of their competitors, friends and social circle. Considering the fact, there are so many burning issues around us which we need to think upon and act, it’s an alarm for us to be aware about the society and its issues. Through social networking, people can use networks of online friends and group memberships to keep in touch with current friends, reconnect with old friends or create real-life friendships through similar interests or groups. Besides establishing important social relationships, social networking members can share their interests with other likeminded members by joining groups and forums. Some networking can also help members find a job or establish business contacts. Most social networking websites also offer additional features. In addition to blogs and forums, members can express themselves by designing their profile page to reflect their personality. The most popular extra features include music and video sections. The video section can include everything from member generated videos from hundreds of subjects to TV clips and movie trailers (YouTube).
Social networking sites have facilitated communication. Members of such sites can easily form groups (called the communities) and share their opinions among themselves through discussion threads, forums and polls. Though these sites serves good in many ways, it has its negative effects too such as cyber-crimes which has become a privacy threat to the people worldwide.
Although advantageous in many ways by building new relationship and reconnecting with lost or old contacts, it also brought up some behavioural changes among the youth, not only the behavioural changes but also their social behaviour and approaches. It has also ended up as a nightmare for a few people.
Social Networking sites provide a platform for discussion on such issues as it is this media which majority mass rely on and extend warm support. One such burning issue that has been overlooked in today’s scenario is the impact of social networking sites in the changing mind-set of the youth.
Our research is conducted on youths between age group of 10-30 years with a view to know the level of awareness on the social issues, the penetration of SNC in their Life. Study was conducted on 100 people mostly through email or sending link of questionnaire on various social sites. 1. Introduction:-
Social network sites are web-based services allowing individuals to construct a semi-public or public profile in a bounded system as well as to articulate a list of others so as to share connections, views and thoughts.
However the type, classification and nature of these connections may differ from site to site. Uniqueness of social networking sites not only allows individuals to meet strangers but enables users to discuss and make visible their social networks. This results into connections between individuals which otherwise is not possible through any other media already existing. Maximum of the time social networking sites are used to communicate with people who are already their friends or acquaintances in the social network sharing same mindset or same interests and views. Discussions on debatable topics, news articles are most common topics on these SNNs. There are a number of SNS’s available now-a-days wherein users are increasing leaps and bounds as shown in the table below-
TOP 7 SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN THE WORLD
Rank Sites Estimated unique monthly users 1. Facebook 55,0000000 2. Twitter 95800000 3. Myspace 80500000 4. Linkedin 50000000 5. Ning 42000000 6. Tagged 30000000 7. Classmates 29000000
Social networking sites are not only popular for providing a platform for chatting, sharing scraps, videos, pictures etc. but also for discussing social issues. However, certain issues yet require study and research like impact of SNS on youth’s minds and loss of privacy as earlier people believed in keeping their data private but now they enjoy going public and showing wall posts, status updates, tweets and infact every thrill of their lives. In this way, we are ourselves breaching our privacy and personal space at the compromise of publicizing intimate details so as to attract hundreds of online readers and even strangers.
Online Social networking is a type of virtual communication that allows people to connect with each other. This concept arises from basic need of human beings to stay together in groups forming a community.
Wikipedia defines social network service as online platform that focus on building and reflecting social networks or social relations among people who share interests and activities.
According to ComScore, a leader in measuring the digital world, 84 per cent of India 's total internet visitors are users of SNS. India is the seventh largest market worldwide for social networking after the U.S., China, Germany, Russian Federation, Brazil and the U.K. Facebook captures the top slot among SNS in India with 20.9 million visitors.
People spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook and 70 per cent of users are from outside United States. Interestingly, an average user has 130 friends on Facebook ("Facebook statistics," ). a. But is this the true picture of social networking sites? b. Is everything going fine in the world of social networking? c. What about the futures of its users? d. Are they happy with the virtual life or it is making their life hell? e. HOW MUCH TIME WE WASTE ON SNS? f. what will be it 's impact on the society....etc.?
These Questions remains a unanswered for a very long time, we in this study are trying to cover these questions also we trying to give impact of following:-\ a. Social & Personal Issues b. Personal Privacy c. Biological Impact d. Its effect on Productivity e. SNS addiction Disorder

1. 2. Review of related literature:-
Lot of literature is available now days on the social networking sites and their impact on the youth of any nation, children, adolescence and families as during the last 5 years, usage of such sites has increased among preadolescents and adolescents. According to a latest poll, 22% of teenagers log in more than 10 times a day on to their favorite social media site, and more than half percentage of adolescents log more than once a day (Steyer James, 2009). In the report Social networking sites a critical analysis of its impact on personal and social life, By Dr. Biswajit Das & Jyoti Shankar Sahoo, published in international Journal of business and social science vol. 2 No. 14 states that:- The growth of social networking sites shows a significant change in the social and personal behaviour of Internet users.SNS has become an essential medium of communication and entertainment among the young adults. Everything in this world can be used for a bad purpose as well as for good. Its us who can make the difference and utilize social networking sites wisely for the benefit of developing social bonds across the geographical borders. In the report impact of social networking sites in the changing mindset of youth on social issues-A syudy of delhi Ncr youth, By, Mr. Madhur Raj Jain, Ms. Palak Gupta & Ms. Nitika Anand. They took total sample size of 100 respondents, and done a exploratory study and tools used were tables, pie charts, annova, cross table using SPSS 19.0. The report concludes that:- It was found that these social networking sites are acting as great medium for view mobilization. People are feeling free in sharing their thoughts on any issue and even youth is raising their voice against social acts like violation of Human Rights, corruption etc. It is also being generated from the information so obtained that people are getting more aware about the social issues mainly from Facebook. On the study of a Study on the impact of social networking sites on Indian youth, By, Dr. M. Neelamalar & Ms. P. Chitra, Methdology used was:-employs the method of Qualitative research through quantitative analysis to gather an in-depth understanding of the behavioral changes cause by the social networking sites like Orkut on youth and the reasons that govern such behavior. The sample size is 100 and they are divided into two categories each of 50,the categories are teens (17-19) and youth in the age group of 20-22. Concluded that a majority of the Indian youth are members in one or more social networking sites but also are low users of such sites and used Internet more for mailing and surfing the net (downloads).

3. Research Gap:- * The previous researches where done when social networking in our country was in nascent stage * They have Used Email, Phone And Face to Face Method Of Survey, But we are Instead using SNS. * They Only used age Between 18 to 30 years we are using a wider Age Range * We instead of wider social affects, dealing At Personal level * We used SPSS 20.0 for analysis.

4. Scope & Objective Of Study:- * To study the awareness of usages of different SNS * The affect of SNS on personal Life * To know the spread of Spy wares on SNS * To know the time Spent on SNS * To analyze the penetration level of SNS in Life * To check for what SNS are used These days

5. Hypothesis:-

I. Testing the significance difference b/w Male and Female User * H0 (Null Hypothesis) There is no significance difference between Male And Female User * H1 (Alternative Hypothesis)There is significance difference between Male And Female User

II. Testing the significant spread of malwares and cyber criminals over SNS * H0 (Null Hypothesis) There is no significant spread of malwares and cyber criminals over SNS * H1 (Alternative Hypothesis)There is significant spread of malwares and cyber criminals over SNS

III. Testing the Significance of SNS in Ones Life. * H0 (Null Hypothesis) There is no significance of SNS in Ones Life * H1 (Alternative Hypothesis)There is significance of SNS in ones life

6. Assumptions:-
While conducting the research we assumed that all the participants are filling the survey seriously and we made sure through cookies lock that no duplication happens.

7. Limitations:-
The research has been done through online questionnaire and thus the level of seriousness in the user are not upto the mark, and also since we are not present their physically so the interpretation of questions wasn’t even.
Because of limitation of monitory resources as well as busy time schedule of classes we weren’t able to host and spread the survey to as much as people we wanted to.
The hosting sites we used because of being free gave us limitation of collecting 50 responses at once we have to collect and delete the responses after creating a backup

8. Methodology:-
Exploratory research method is being used, the research will give an insight of the users of SNS.
Exploratory research is a form of research conducted for a problem that has not been clearly defined. Exploratory research helps determine the best research design, data collection method and selection of subjects. It should draw definitive conclusions only with extreme caution. Given its fundamental nature, exploratory research often concludes that a perceived problem does not actually exist.
Exploratory research methods:
The quickest and the cheapest way to formulate a hypothesis in exploratory research is by using any of the four methods: I. Literature search II. Experience survey III. Focus group IV. Analysis of selected cases
In this research we had done Experience survey, with a assumption that the users of social networking site have a good knowledge of what’s going on these sites.
For doing that we prepared set of questions which reveals how, what and why they are connected to social networking sites. 9. Population of interest:-
We have selected the educated youth who are either, school, or are collage going.
They are the one who spent most of their spare time on SNS and some of them are attached so close to it that they don’t even imagine life with SNS.
Moreover the youth of the age group 10-30, view world idealistically and are more involved in the world outside their work place and home.
This population is choose because of the simple fact that they are more tech friendly and Internet and more importantly SNS are an important part of their life and they see it as a medium of increasing network and even see opportunities hidden behind it. 10. Sampling Procedure and source of Data:-
We conducted surveys through online questionnaire. The questions have been made on ‘Adobe form Central’, an online survey hosting site by ADOBE Inc.
The hosted questions were them in the form of a web link is being posted on various SNS, specially the most common one i.e. Facebook.
The questionnaire has been made through a discussion among group members and using our own experience of social networking sites.
The response then were backed up both online and offline in Ms Excel.
The data has been then coded accordingly after collecting 100 responses.

11. Questionnaire For Data Collection:-
The questionnaire was made by brain- storming in the group and accessing our own SNS experience.
The questionnaire contents text field, text field –multiline, single choice field, multiple choice field, Drop down menu, single check box and Likert rating scale.
Direct and indirect questions which were placed are as follows:-

12. Data Coding:-

Gender | Codes | MALE | 1 | FEMALE | 2 |

Age | Codes | 10 TO 15 | 1 | 16 TO 20 | 2 | 21 TO 25 | 3 | 26 TO 30 | 4 | 30+ | 5 |

Qualification | Codes | Graduate | 1 | Post graduate | 2 | INTERMEDIATE/10+2 | 3 | DOCTORATE | 4 | MATRIC | 5 |

Occupation | Codes | Student | 1 | Employed | 2 | Self-Employed | 3 | Fresher | 4 |

Time spent On Sns | Codes | 1 HOUR | 1 | 2 HOUR | 2 | 3 HOUR | 3 | MORE THAN 3 HOURS | 4 |

Friends on Facebook | Codes | Less Than 100 | 1 | 100 To 200 | 2 | 201 to 300 | 3 | 301 to 500 | 4 | 501 to 1000 | 5 | 1000+ | 6 |

Connections On LinkedIn | Codes | Less Than 50 | 1 | 50 to 100 | 2 | 101 to 200 | 3 | 201 to 300 | 4 | 301 to 500 | 5 | 500+ | 6 |

HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK SCOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE FOR MAINTAINING FOLLOWING:- | STRONGLY NOT IMPORTANT | 1 | NOT IMPORTANT | 2 | MAY BE | 3 | IMPORTANT | 4 | STRONGLY IMPORTANT | 5 |

IF ALL THE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE GONE, HOW DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD SPENT TIME, WHICH OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAD SPENT ON SNS? | HOBBIES | 1 | WITH FAMILY | 2 | WITH FRIENDS | 3 | STUDY | 4 | PHYSICAL FITNESS | 5 | Teaching | 6 | Reading novels and watching Hollywood movies | 7 | DO YOU ACCEPT INVITATION OF UNKNOWN PERSON ON SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES? | Yes I Always Do | 1 | Yes But Only On LinkedIn | 2 | Never | 3 | Maybe, It Depends | 4 | Yes, Only If It Is From Opposite Gender | 5 |

DO YOU PLACED YOUR ORIGINAL PICTURE AS YOUR PROFILE PICTURE? | Yes | 1 | No | 2 |

WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE ILL- EFFECTS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES? | Lot Of Time Wastage | 1 | Hamper Studies | 2 | Reduce Physical Mobility and Fitness | 3 | Cut Away From Family | 4 | No | 5 | Others | 6 |

HAVE YOU OBSERVED OR BEING A VICTIM OF FOLLOWING ON ANY SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES:- | OFTENLY | 1 | SOMETIMES | 2 | RARELY | 3 | NEVER | 4 |

DO YOU THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE MADE STRICTER FOR SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES? | Yes | 1 | No | 2 | 13. Statistical Analysis:-

13.i Statistical Techniques:-
We have used Factor and Bivariate analysis. Also we have used frequency technique of descriptive statistics to explain the different variables.
Factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability among observed, correlated variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables called factors. In other words, it is possible, for example, that variations in three or four observed variables mainly reflect the variations in fewer unobserved variables. Factor analysis searches for such joint variations in response to unobserved latent variables. The observed variables are modelled as linear combinations of the potential factors, plus "error" terms. The information gained about the interdependencies between observed variables can be used later to reduce the set of variables in a dataset. Computationally this technique is equivalent to low rank approximation of the matrix of observed variables. Factor analysis originated in psychometrics, and is used in behavioural sciences, social sciences, marketing, product management, operations research, and other applied sciences that deal with large quantities of data.
Bivariate analysis is one of the simplest forms of the quantitative (statistical) analysis.[1] It involves the analysis of two variables (often denoted as X, Y), for the purpose of determining the empirical relationship between them.[1] In order to see if the variables are related to one another, it is common to measure how those two variables simultaneously change together.

Frequency analysis:-

AGE | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | 16 TO 20 | 16 | 16.2 | 16.3 | 16.3 | | 21 TO 25 | 78 | 78.8 | 79.6 | 95.9 | | 26 TO 30 | 4 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

GENDER | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | MALE | 65 | 65.7 | 66.3 | 66.3 | | FEMALE | 33 | 33.3 | 33.7 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

QUALIFICATION | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | GRADUATE | 45 | 45.5 | 45.9 | 45.9 | | POST GRADUATE | 42 | 42.4 | 42.9 | 88.8 | | INTERMEDIATE/10+2 | 8 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 96.9 | | DOCTORATE | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 98.0 | | MATRIC | 2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

OCCUPATION | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | STUDENT | 77 | 77.8 | 78.6 | 78.6 | | EMPLOYED | 15 | 15.2 | 15.3 | 93.9 | | SELF-EMPLOYED | 5 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 99.0 | | FRESHER | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | 1 HOUR | 52 | 52.5 | 53.1 | 53.1 | | 2 HOUR | 20 | 20.2 | 20.4 | 73.5 | | 3 HOUR | 10 | 10.1 | 10.2 | 83.7 | | MORE THAN 3 HOUR | 16 | 16.2 | 16.3 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Less Than 100 | 12 | 12.1 | 12.2 | 12.2 | | 100 To 200 | 14 | 14.1 | 14.3 | 26.5 | | 201 to 300 | 26 | 26.3 | 26.5 | 53.1 | | 301 to 500 | 33 | 33.3 | 33.7 | 86.7 | | 501 to 1000 | 11 | 11.1 | 11.2 | 98.0 | | 1000+ | 2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

ARE YOU ON LINKEDIN, IF YES, THEN HOW MANY CONNECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | Less Than 50 | 58 | 58.6 | 59.2 | 59.2 | | 50 to 100 | 27 | 27.3 | 27.6 | 86.7 | | 101 to 200 | 7 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 93.9 | | 201 to 300 | 3 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 96.9 | | 301 to 500 | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 98.0 | | 500+ | 2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT | 2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | | IMPORTANT BUT NOT MUCH | 29 | 29.3 | 29.6 | 31.6 | | SO-SO | 30 | 30.3 | 30.6 | 62.2 | | VERY IMPORTANT | 32 | 32.3 | 32.7 | 94.9 | | I CAN 'T LIVE WITHOUT THEM | 5 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

DO YOU PLACED YOUR ORIGINAL PICTURE AS YOUR PROFILE PICTURE? | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | YES | 84 | 84.8 | 85.7 | 85.7 | | NO | 14 | 14.1 | 14.3 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

SPAMS | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | OFTENLY | 16 | 16.2 | 16.3 | 16.3 | | SOMETIMES | 31 | 31.3 | 31.6 | 48.0 | | RARELY | 30 | 30.3 | 30.6 | 78.6 | | NEVER | 21 | 21.2 | 21.4 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

HACKERS | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | OFTENLY | 5 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 5.1 | | SOMETIMES | 29 | 29.3 | 29.6 | 34.7 | | RARELY | 25 | 25.3 | 25.5 | 60.2 | | NEVER | 39 | 39.4 | 39.8 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

FAKEPROFILE | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | OFTENLY | 18 | 18.2 | 18.4 | 18.4 | | SOMETIMES | 33 | 33.3 | 33.7 | 52.0 | | RARELY | 24 | 24.2 | 24.5 | 76.5 | | NEVER | 23 | 23.2 | 23.5 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

HARSSSMENT | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | OFTENLY | 3 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.1 | | SOMETIMES | 15 | 15.2 | 15.3 | 18.4 | | RARELY | 19 | 19.2 | 19.4 | 37.8 | | NEVER | 61 | 61.6 | 62.2 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

PORNOGRAPHY | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | OFTENLY | 3 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.1 | | SOMETIMES | 19 | 19.2 | 19.4 | 22.4 | | RARELY | 21 | 21.2 | 21.4 | 43.9 | | NEVER | 55 | 55.6 | 56.1 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

RACISM | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Valid | OFTENLY | 4 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.1 | | SOMETIMES | 16 | 16.2 | 16.3 | 20.4 | | RARELY | 15 | 15.2 | 15.3 | 35.7 | | NEVER | 63 | 63.6 | 64.3 | 100.0 | | Total | 98 | 99.0 | 100.0 | | Missing | System | 1 | 1.0 | | | Total | 99 | 100.0 | | |

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Total Variance Explained | Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | 1 | 3.099 | 51.658 | 51.658 | 3.099 | 51.658 | 51.658 | 2.200 | 36.663 | 36.663 | 2 | 1.025 | 17.083 | 68.741 | 1.025 | 17.083 | 68.741 | 1.925 | 32.078 | 68.741 | 3 | .602 | 10.035 | 78.776 | | | | | | | 4 | .504 | 8.393 | 87.169 | | | | | | | 5 | .485 | 8.091 | 95.260 | | | | | | | 6 | .284 | 4.740 | 100.000 | | | | | | | Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |

KMO and Bartlett 's Test | Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. | .780 | Bartlett 's Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 189.982 | | df | 15 | | Sig. | .000 |

Descriptive Statistics | | Mean | Std. Deviation | N | REGR factor score 1 for analysis 1 | 0E-7 | 1.00000000 | 98 | REGR factor score 2 for analysis 1 | 0E-7 | 1.00000000 | 98 | REGR factor score 1 for analysis 2 | 0E-7 | 1.00000000 | 98 | REGR factor score 2 for analysis 2 | 0E-7 | 1.00000000 | 98 |

Multiple regressions:-

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects | Source | Dependent Variable | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Corrected Model | HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | .018a | 1 | .018 | .014 | .906 | | HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | 6.302b | 1 | 6.302 | 4.164 | .044 | | ARE YOU ON LINKEDIN, IF YES, THEN HOW MANY CONNECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? | .946c | 1 | .946 | .863 | .355 | | HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | .043d | 1 | .043 | .047 | .829 | Intercept | HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | 313.814 | 1 | 313.814 | 241.084 | .000 | | HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | 867.119 | 1 | 867.119 | 572.908 | .000 | | ARE YOU ON LINKEDIN, IF YES, THEN HOW MANY CONNECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? | 229.518 | 1 | 229.518 | 209.331 | .000 | | HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | 840.859 | 1 | 840.859 | 915.942 | .000 | GENDER | HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | .018 | 1 | .018 | .014 | .906 | | HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | 6.302 | 1 | 6.302 | 4.164 | .044 | | ARE YOU ON LINKEDIN, IF YES, THEN HOW MANY CONNECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? | .946 | 1 | .946 | .863 | .355 | | HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | .043 | 1 | .043 | .047 | .829 | Error | HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | 124.961 | 96 | 1.302 | | | | HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | 145.300 | 96 | 1.514 | | | | ARE YOU ON LINKEDIN, IF YES, THEN HOW MANY CONNECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? | 105.258 | 96 | 1.096 | | | | HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | 88.131 | 96 | .918 | | | Total | HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | 478.000 | 98 | | | | | HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | 1177.000 | 98 | | | | | ARE YOU ON LINKEDIN, IF YES, THEN HOW MANY CONNECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? | 374.000 | 98 | | | | | HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | 1025.000 | 98 | | | | Corrected Total | HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | 124.980 | 97 | | | | | HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | 151.602 | 97 | | | | | ARE YOU ON LINKEDIN, IF YES, THEN HOW MANY CONNECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? | 106.204 | 97 | | | | | HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | 88.173 | 97 | | | | a. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.010) | b. R Squared = .042 (Adjusted R Squared = .032) | c. R Squared = .009 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001) | d. R Squared = .000 (Adjusted R Squared = -.010) |

Correlations | | AGE | HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | HOW MANY TIME YOU SPENT WITH YOUR HOBBY(S) PER DAY? | HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | AGE | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .162 | .016 | .185 | .225* | | Sig. (2-tailed) | | .112 | .879 | .068 | .026 | | N | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | HOW MUCH TIME DAILY ON AN AVERAGE BASIS YOU SPENT ON SNS? | Pearson Correlation | .162 | 1 | .023 | .191 | .352** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .112 | | .821 | .059 | .000 | | N | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | HOW MANY TIME YOU SPENT WITH YOUR HOBBY(S) PER DAY? | Pearson Correlation | .016 | .023 | 1 | .052 | -.112 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .879 | .821 | | .613 | .274 | | N | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | HOW MANY FRIENDS YOU HAVE ON FACEBOOK? | Pearson Correlation | .185 | .191 | .052 | 1 | .310** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .068 | .059 | .613 | | .002 | | N | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | HOW IMPORTANT SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ARE IN YOUR LIFE? | Pearson Correlation | .225* | .352** | -.112 | .310** | 1 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .026 | .000 | .274 | .002 | | | N | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | 98 | *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). | **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |

14. Summary And Major Findings:-

1. Since Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy is greater than 0.6 and 68.745 % of the variance in our items was explained by the 5 extracted components, which thereby explains that there is significant spread of malwares over internet and thus our alternate hypothesis i.e. there is significant spread of malwares and cyber criminals over internet is accepted.

2. As explained by the bivariate correlation , the correlation are significant at 0.05 level and 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis i.e. there is no significant difference between male and female user is rejected.

3. As explained by multiple regressions the null hypothesis i.e there is no significance of SNS on one’s life is rejected.

15. References:- 1. 55.032% of the variance in our items was explained by the 5 extracted components by, Dr. Biswajit Das and Jyoti Shankar Sahoo, International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 14 www.ijbssnet.com. 2. IMPACT OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN THE CHANGING MINDSET OF YOUTH ON SOCIAL ISSUES - A STUDY OF DELHI-NCR YOUTH by, Mr. Madhur Raj Jain, Ms. Palak Gupta & Ms. Nitika Anand. 3. A Study on the impact of social networking sites on indian youth,By, Dr. M. Neelamalar & Ms. P. Chitra. 4. SLIDES OF Prof. Vipin Khurana 5. www.wikipedia.org 6. http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/spss/SPSS-MV.htm 7. http://www.unt.edu/rss/class/Jon/SPSS_SC/Module9/M9_PCA/SPSS_M9_PCA1.htm

References: - 1. 55.032% of the variance in our items was explained by the 5 extracted components by, Dr. Biswajit Das and Jyoti Shankar Sahoo, International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 14 www.ijbssnet.com. 2. IMPACT OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN THE CHANGING MINDSET OF YOUTH ON SOCIAL ISSUES - A STUDY OF DELHI-NCR YOUTH by, Mr. Madhur Raj Jain, Ms. Palak Gupta & Ms. Nitika Anand. 3. A Study on the impact of social networking sites on indian youth,By, Dr. M. Neelamalar & Ms. P. Chitra. 4. SLIDES OF Prof. Vipin Khurana 5. www.wikipedia.org 6. http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/spss/SPSS-MV.htm 7. http://www.unt.edu/rss/class/Jon/SPSS_SC/Module9/M9_PCA/SPSS_M9_PCA1.htm