Chapter 12 Toward a New(er) Sociability: Uses ... · Toward a New(er) Sociability: Uses,...

Chapter12TowardaNew(er)Sociability:Uses,Gratifications,andSocialCapitalonFacebook

ZiziPapacharissiandAndrewMendelson

Emergingconvergentplatformsofsocialityonlinegeneratepublicinterestandinvitea

reconsiderationoftraditionaltheoreticalparadigmsofmediaresearch.Socialnetwork

sites,specifically,affordavarietyofsocialbehaviorsthatsimultaneouslyexpandand

challengeourconventionalunderstandingofsociability,audienceactivity,passivity,and

involvement.OnlineplatformssuchasFacebook,MySpace,LinkedIn,orCyWorldand

othersprovideindividualswiththeopportunitytopresentthemselvesandtoconnectwith

existingandnewsocialnetworks.Thesenetworkedplatformsofsociallyorientedactivity

permitanintroductionoftheselfviapublicdisplaysofconnection(boydandEllison,2007;

Donathandboyd,2004;Papacharissi,2002a&b;2009).Indoingso,theypromote

multimediatedidentity‐drivenperformancesthatarecraftedaroundtheelectronic

mediationofsocialcirclesandstatus.Inaddition,theyprovideflexibleandpersonalizable

modesofsociability,whichallowindividualstosustainstrongandweaktiesthrougha

varietyofonlinetoolsandstrategies(Ellison,Lampe,SteinfieldandVitak,2010).These

customizedexpressionsofonlinesociabilityallowuserstopursuesocialbehaviorsthrough

variablelevelsofinvolvement,activity,andmulti‐tasking(HargittaiandHsieh,2010;

Papacharissi,2010).

Individualsengagetheconnectiveaffordancesofsocialnetworksites(SNSs)soasto

combineofflineandonlinecommunicationstrategiesforinteraction.Thesestrategies

employconvergedmediabutalsoconvergesocial,culturalandpoliticalpracticesand

spheres(e.g.,Waltheretal.,2010).Conductingresearchinaconvergedmediaenvironment

requiresthatresearchersdeveloptheoriesandanalyticaltoolsthatexamineuses,effects,

activity,involvement,andcontentacrossmedia.Thesetoolsmustalsorecognizethatina

convergedenvironment,mediauseallowsaudiencestoserveasbothconsumersand

producersofmedia,frequentlyatthesametime.Theresultingconfluenceofemerging

behaviorsescapestheanalyticallensoftheoreticalapproachesthatassociateuses,user

profileswithparticularmediaandgenresofactivity.Thischapterproposesatheoretical

modelthatcombineselementsoftheUsesandGratificationsandtheSocialNetworks

approachessoastoexplicatepatternsofmediause,activity,andsociabilityemergingpost

convergence.

UsesandGratifications

Usesandgratifications(U&G)isapsychologicalcommunicationperspectivethatexamines

howindividualsusemassmedia,ontheassumptionthatindividualsselectmediaand

contenttofulfillfeltneedsorwants.ContemporaryU&Gresearchisgroundedinthe

followingfiveassumptions:(a)"communicationbehavior,includingmediaselectionand

use,isgoal‐directed,purposive,andmotivated";(b)"peopletaketheinitiativeinselecting

andusingcommunicationvehiclestosatisfyfeltneedsordesires";(c)"ahostofsocialand

psychologicalfactorsmediatepeople'scommunicationbehavior";(d)"mediacompetewith

otherformsofcommunication(i.e.,functionalalternatives)forselection,attention,anduse

togratifyourneedsorwants";and(e)"peoplearetypicallymoreinfluentialthanthemedia

intherelationship,butnotalways"(A.Rubin,1994,p.420).U&Ghasbeenemployedto

understandvariousmediausesandconsequences,coveringforinstancesoapoperas(e.g.,

Alexander,1985;Perse,1986;A.Rubin,1985),newsprograms(e.g.,Palmgreen,Wenner

andRayburn,1980;A.Rubin,1981),usingtheVCR(e.g.,Levy,1987;A.RubinandBantz,

1989),listeningtotalkradio(e.g.,Turow,1974),watchingcableTV(e.g.,Becker,

DunwoodyandRafaell,1983),channelsurfing(e.g.,Ferguson,1992),magazinereading

(Payne,SevernandDozier,1988;Towers,1987a),tabloidreading(SalwenandAnderson,

1984),theInternet(e.g.,PapacharissiandRubin,2000),realityTV(e.g.,Papacharissiand

Mendelson,2007)andreligioustelevision(Pettersson,1986).

Specificallyrelatedtotechnologicalconvergence,U&Ghasbeenusedtounderstand

howindividualsemploytheInternettomeetdifferentgoals,basedontheirsocio‐

psychologicaldisposition(e.g.,Rubin,1994).Scholarshaveexaminedconnectionsbetween

onlinenewsandcivicengagement,publicopinionorpoliticalbehavior(e.g.,Hardyand

Scheufele,2005;KayeandJohnson,2002)orhowindividualsselectorcombineonlineand

offlinenewssources(e.g.Dimmick,ChenandLi,2004;DeWaal,SchoenbachandLauf,

2006).ResearchhasidentifiedmotivesforusingtheInternet,linkingthemtodistinct

socio‐psychologicalcharacteristicsandtypesofInternetuse(PerseandFerguson,2000;

PapacharissiandRubin,2000;Papacharissi,2002aandb,2007).Consensussuggeststhat

onlinemediaserveasfunctionalalternativestointerpersonalandmediated

communication,providingoptionsorcomplementsforaspectsofanindividual’s

environmentthatarenotasfulfilling.Alignedwithtimeandothermediumdisplacement

effectsthatotherstudiesonthesociabilityofnewmediahaveidentified(e.g.,Krautetal.,

1998;2002),thesestudieshelpexplicatetheplaceofnet‐basedtechnologieswithinthe

individualsmediaecology.Tothisend,U&Ghasbeenusefulinconnectingspecific

attributestocertainusesoftheInternet,anddistinguishingbetweenusesthataremore

goal‐orientedorinstrumentalversusothersthatareofahabitualorritualisticnature.The

perspectivehasalonghistoryofbeingcombinedwithotherperspectives,andmore

recently,ithasbeenintegratedwiththeexpectancyvalueapproachtounderstandonline

mediaadoptionbehaviors(Lo,Li,ShihandYang,2005),andwithdiffusionofinnovations

toanalyzeindividualdifferencesingamingadoption(Chang,LeeandKim,2006).

However,U&Ghasnotyetidentified,instudiesofthesociabilityofnewmedia,a

particularsocialoutcomethatwouldbetheresultofmotives,socio‐psychopredispositions

andusesworkingtogether.Infact,lackofconceptualclarityontheconceptofgratifications

hasbeenrepeatedlyraisedasatheoreticallimitationoftheperspective(Lometti,Reeves

andBybee,1977;Swanson,1977).Theperspectivehasbeencritiquedasbeingtoo

individualisticandunderemphasizingthevalueofinteraction(McQuail,1979).Thesocial

networkapproach,ontheotherhand,isstructuredaroundtheconceptofnetworked

interaction.Itfocusesontheoutcomeoftheinteraction,thatis,thenetworkandthesocial

capitalgeneratedbythenetwork.Still,whilethesocialnetworksapproachisrichinits

examinationofstructuralfeaturesofnetworks,itisbydefinitionnotconcernedwiththe

socio‐psychologicalprofileoftheindividual.Thispresentsapossibleareaforconceptual

integrationbetweenthetwoapproaches,soastopresentaframeworkthatexamines

individualorientationstowardsocialnetworkuseonline.

OnlineSocialNetworksandSocialNetworkSites

Researchononlinesocialnetworksexaminestheformationandmaintenanceofonline

networksthatsupportexistingandnewsocialties(WassermanandFaust,1994;Wellman

andBerkowitz,1997).Theunitofanalysisistheinteractionorrelationbetweenpeople,

measuredintermsoftiesheldbyindividualsmaintainingarelation,thetypesof

exchanges,frequencyofcontact,strengthofties,intimacy,qualitativeelementsofrelations,

sizeofnetworks,globalorlocalspanofnetworksandnumerousothervariables

(Haythornthwaite,2000,2005;Haythornthwaite,WellmanandMantei,1995;

HaythornthwaiteandWellman,1998).

Earlieronlinesocialnetworkresearchexaminedcommunicationandmediumuse

(e‐mail,phone,faxandvideoconferencing)inaworknetworkofco‐locatedresearchers,to

findthatpairsofindividualspossessingstrongertiestendedtocommunicatemore

frequently,maintainagreaternumberofrelationsandcommunicatemorefrequently

(Haythornthwaite,WellmanandMantei,1995;HaythornthwaiteandWellman,1998).This

findinghasre‐surfacedinavarietyofnetworksandcontext,includingdistancelearning

(e.g.,Haythornthwaite,2000),organizationalcontexts(e.g.,Garton,Haythornthwaiteand

Wellman,1997),andsocialsupportnetworks(e.g.,Hlebec,ManfredaandVehovar,2006)

allowingresearcherstofinetunetheconceptsofsocialnetworkrelation(typeofexchange

orinteraction,characterizedbycontent,directionandstrength),tie(pairswhomaintain

oneormoretypesofrelations,developingstrong,weakorlatentties),networkaswebof

person‐to‐personconnectivity(distinguishingbetweenego‐centeredorwholenetwork

analysis,whichmayexaminerange,centralityorroles),andmediamultiplexity(the

tendencyofmorestronglytiedpairstomakeuseofmoreavailablemedia).Studies

focusingonNetville,awiredsuburbofToronto,revealedthatonlineinteractionfrequently

supplementedorservedasanalternativetoface‐to‐faceinteraction,inwaysthathad

positiveeffectsonsocialcapital(e.g.,HamptonandWellman,2000;Hampton,2002).

Socialnetworksitesrepresentanaturalextensionofthiswork,astheyconnect

networksofindividualsthatmayormaynotshareaplacebasedconnection.Social

networksitesaredefinedas“web‐basedservicesthatallowindividualsto(1)constructa

publicorsemi‐publicprofilewithinaboundedsystem,(2)articulatealistofotherusers

withwhomtheyshareaconnection,and(3)viewandtraversetheirlistofconnectionsand

thosemadebyotherswithinthesystem”(boydandEllison,2007).Theyhostsocial

networksthatarearticulatedonline,andassuch,theypresentoneiterationoraspectof

socialnetworkresearch.OnmostSNSs,usersarenotlookingtomeetnewpeopleorto

network,butrathertosustaincontactwiththeirexistinggroupoffriendsand

acquaintances(boydandEllison,2007).Indoingso,presentingaprofileanddisplaying

connectionswithotherspubliclyformsthebasisforinteractiononSNSs(boydandEllison,

2007;boydandHeer,2006;Donath,2007;Donathandboyd,2004).SNSssupportvarying

typesofinteractionondiverseanddifferingplatforms,andSNSslikeFriendster,MySpace

andFacebookhavehadasignificantinfluenceontheorientationofmostotherSNSs(fora

timelineofSNSs,seeboydandEllison,2007).

SocialNetworkSitesasSocialArchitectures

ResearchonSNSsgeneratesinterdisciplinaryinterestandevidenceofevolvingsocial

behaviorsonline.Selfpresentationonlineandimpressionmanagementpresentsacommon

startingpointformostresearchers.boydandHeer(2006)studieduserprofilesonSNSsas

conversationalpieces,andfoundthatFriendsterusersdisplayfriendstosuggestor“signal”

aspectsoftheiridentitytopotentialaudiences.Inthiscontext,‘publicdisplaysof

connection’presentthecenterofidentityperformance,andaretypicallyviewedas“a

signalofthereliabilityofone’sidentityclaims”(Donathandboyd,2004:73).

SeveralresearchersemploythearchitectureoftheSNSasstartingpoint,todiscuss

andinvestigateavarietyofrelatedtopics.Stutzman(2006)trackedthetypesofpersonal

informationmostlikelytobedisclosedonSNSs,pointingoutthatlexicalorarchitectural

differencesamongtheseSNSs(Friendster,MySpace,andFacebook)contributedto

tendenciesorvariationsinpersonalinformationdisclosure.GrossandAcquisti(2005)

furtherexaminedhowindividualsdiscloseinformationandprotectprivacyonFacebook,

findingthatmostuserssharepersonalinformationopenlyandfewmodifytheirdefault

privacysettingsforincreasedprotection.FormembersofaYouTubecommunity,‘publicly

private’(privatebehaviors,exhibitedwiththemember’strueidentity)and‘privately

public’(sharingpubliclyaccessiblevideowithoutdisclosingmember’strueidentity)

behaviorsweredevelopedwithinthearchitecturalconfinesofthesystemtosignal

differentdepthsofrelationshipsandtocommunicateempathy,respectorinclusionamong

membersofthenetwork(Lange,2007).OnMySpaceandFriendster,displaysofinterests

werecarefullyselectedandarrangedsoastocommunicateaffiliationwithaparticular

tastecultureorfabric(Liu,MaesandDavenport,2006;Liu,2007).Thesetrendsare

reflectiveofbehaviorsthatareneedoriented,andaredevelopedaroundthecustomization

ofsocialattributesoftechnologies,effectedforthecommunicationofsocialinformation.

Theysuggestaconfluenceofusermotives,mediaattributes,andsocialtiesoroutcomes

thathavebeenpreviouslyexaminedinmediaresearchwithintheapproachesofusesand

gratifications,socialnetworks,andthroughadiscussionofmediaattributesoraffordances

ofparticularmediagenresorplatforms.

Inthesenetworksthatareparticularlyego‐centered,individualsatthecenterof

theirownnetworkstakechargeandadaptnetworknormstofitpersonal,culturaland

socialcontext(boyd,2006a).Moreover,SNSusersfrequentlyinterpretcuesdepositedin

memberprofiles,suchasmessageonFacebook‘walls’orpicturesofmemberfriendsto

makeinferencesaboutthemember’scharacter(Walther,VanDerHeide,Kim,Westerman

andTong,2008).Inacontextthatismarkedlynon‐western,suchasCyworld,architectural

SNSfeaturesareadaptedtomatchtheculturalnormsoftheusersandthehigh‐context

relationaldialecticsofKoreans(KimandYun,2007).Theseempiricaldatafurther

documentreappropriationsoftechnologythatcatertothefulfillmentofparticularneeds

associatedwiththesustenanceofsocialtieswithavarietyofcirclesornetworks.

Finally,severalstudiesdeveloparoundFacebook,themostpopularofsocial

networksatpresent.Inparticular,studiesofFacebookfindthatusersemploythenetwork

tolearnmoreaboutindividualstheymeetoffline,thusfurtherdocumentingtheconnection

betweenonlineandofflinebehaviorsandtendencies(Lampe,EllisonandSteinfield,2006).

Furtherstudiesrevealastrongassociationbetweenbridgingsocialcapital,whichexpands

socialopportunitiesandenhancesinformationsharingamongprimarilyweakties,and

individualsreportinglowsatisfactionandlowself‐esteem(Ellison,SteinfieldandLampe,

2007).Thesefindingsunderlineconnectionsbetweenuserorientationsandsubsequent

generationofsocialcapital,whichmapoutacredibleintersectionforU&Gandthesocial

networksapproach.

Rationale

TheproposedstudyisbasedonatheoreticalframeworkthatcombinesU&Gwith

thesocialnetworkapproachtostudyhowmotivesandsocial‐psychologicaltraitsaffect

Facebookuse,socialnetworkstructuralfactors(sizeofnetwork,density,typesofties)and

socialcapitalgenerated.ThestudycombinesconceptsidentifiedandmeasuredbyU&Gand

socialnetworkresearchers,withaparticularfocusonsocialandpsychological

predispositions,motives,socialties,andsocialcapital.Thefollowingparagraphsdetailthe

variablesstudiedwithinthistheoreticalframework,andhowtogethertheyformthe

conceptualstructurefortheintegrationofthetwoperspectives.Thestudyfocusesonthe

followingresearchquestions:

RQ1: WhataresalientmotivesforFacebookuse?

RQ2: Howdomotivesandsocialandpsychologicalantecedentsinteractwithsocial

capitalgeneratedonFacebook?

Method

Sample

Atotalof344studentsenrolledinintroductorycommunicationclasseswithinanurban

universityweresurveyedabouttheiruseofFacebook.Participationinthestudywas

voluntary,andparticipantsreceivedextracreditinthecourses.Theinitialsamplewasthen

snowballed,throughparticipantsaskingtheirFacebookfriendstocompletethesurvey.An

onlinesurvey,administeredthroughZoomerang.com,wascreatedinordertoexamine

individual’suses,motivationsandeffectsofFacebook.Thesamplebreakdownwas64.3%

female(n=221)and35.7%male(n=123);85%ofsamplewerecurrentundergraduates

incollege.Ofthose36.8%werefreshman;25.1%weresophomores;26.4werejuniors;

and,11.7%wereseniors.Themajorityofparticipantswerebetweentheageof18and25

(88.4%).73.7%ofthesamplewasWhite,14.5%AfricanAmerican,7.4%AsianAmerican,

3.6%Hispanic,and4.1%ofmultiethnicorigin.

FacebookUse

PatternsofFacebookuse.ParticipantsweresurveyedabouttheirgeneralInternet

andFacebookUse.Overall,participantsspentanaverageof74minutesonline(SD=77.53)

perweek.Morespecifically,83.7%oftheparticipantsreportedcheckingtheirFacebook

pagedaily.Infact,participantsreportedcheckingtheirFacebookpagesanaveragealmost

6timesperday(m=5.78;SD=5.831)andspendinganaverageofalmost36minutesper

dayonFacebook(m=35.83;SD=127.427).Wewantedtogetasenseofwhatparticipants

didwhentheyloggedontoFacebook.Aseriesofquestionsexaminedanumberofactivities

(ona1to5scale;1=everytimeIlogon;5=never).Participantsmostoftensentmessages

(M=2.54;SD=.901;median2.00)andwroteonfriends’walls(M=2.17;SD=.907;median

=2.00).Lessfrequentlyparticipantspostednewphotographs(M=3.04;SD=.963;median

=3.00),searchedforadditionalfriends(M=3.16;SD=.992;median=3.00),andtagged

alreadypostedphotos(M=3.16;SD=1.022;median=3.00).Theyseldomupdatedtheir

ownprofile(M=3.60;SD=.885;median=4.00),playedgames(M=4.37;SD=.984;

median=5.00),tookquizzes(M=4.26;SD=.919;median=5.00),incorporatednew

addons(M=3.97;SD=.823;median=4.00)andusedaddonstheyalreadyhad(M=3.97;

SD=1.075;median=4.00).

91.3%oftheparticipantsreportedhaving51ormorefriends.Sixtypercentofthe

participantsreportedhaving51ormorephotospostedontheirpage.55.8%reported

havingbetweenoneandfiveaddonsontheirpage,andanother30.7%reportedhaving

between6and15addons.Finally,20%oftheparticipantsbelongedtobetweenoneand

fiveFacebookgroups,another37.9%belongedtobetweensixand15groups,and25.6%

morebelongedtobetween16and30.Only37.8%oftheparticipantsreportedstartinga

Facebookgroup.

Motives

Wecombinedinterpersonal(inclusion/companionship),media(entertainment,habit,

information,socialinteraction,escape,passtime,andrelaxation),newermedia(coolness

factor/noveltyoftechnology,self‐expression),andprofessionaladvancementmotivesto

construct11apriorimotivecategoriesofpossibleFacebookmotives:passtime,relaxation,

entertainment,informationsharing,professionaladvancement,companionship,social

interaction,coolandnewtechnology,selfexpression,habit,escape).Threeitemswereused

torepresenteachoftheseaprioricategories,andweadaptedthestatementsfrom

previousresearchtoFacebook(Papacharissi&Rubin,2000;Pornsakulvanich,Haridakis&

Rubin,2008).Respondentswereaskedtoindicatehowmuchthesereasonswereliketheir

ownreasonsforusingFacebookona5‐pointLikertscale(5=exactly,1=notatall).We

usedprincipalcomponentsanalysiswithVarimaxrotationtoextractandinterpretpossible

Facebookmotivefactors.Werequiredaneigenvalueof1.0orgreatertoretainafactor,

whichalsohadtocontainatleastthreeitemsmeetinga60/40loadingcriteria.Responses

totheretaineditemsweresummedandaveragedtoformthescalesrepresentingeach

factor.Theanalysisaccountedfor69%ofthevariance,andtheresultsaresummarizedin

responsetoRQ1below.

SocialandPsychologicalAntecedents

Contextualage.Contextualageisaconstructthatwasdevelopedtoaccountforthe

inaccuraciesresultingfromonlyusingchronologicalageincommunicationresearchand

wasdevelopedas"atransactional,life‐positionindexofaging"(A.Rubin&Rubin,1986).

Dependingoncontextualage,peoplemayalsousemediatedchannelsasfunctional

alternatives(overinterpersonalones)forthefulfillmentofinterpersonalneeds(A.Rubin&

Rubin,1982,1986;R.Rubin&Rubin,1982).A.RubinandRubin's(1982)ContextualAge

Scalewasusedtoassesslifeposition,consistingofthefollowingdimensions:physical

health,interpersonalinteraction,mobility,lifesatisfaction,socialactivity,andeconomic

security.Thephysicalhealthandeconomicsecuritydimensionswerenotincludeddueto

lowexpectationofsignificantvariationwithinthepopulationunderstudy.Eachremaining

dimension—lifesatisfaction,mobility,socialactivity,andinterpersonalinteraction—

containedfiveitems(A.Rubin&Rubin,1982;R.Rubin&Rubin,1982).Respondentsstated

theirlevelsofagreementwiththesestatementsona5‐pointLikert‐typescale(5=strongly

agree,1=stronglydisagree).Responsestotheitemsofeachsubscaleweresummedand

averaged.Themeanscoresfortheseparatedimensionswere:lifesatisfaction(M=3.32,SD

=.75,α=.68);mobility(M=3.68,SD=0.87,α=.62);socialactivity(M=3.67,SD=0.70,α

=.67);andinterpersonalinteraction(M=3.75,SD=0.66,α=.45).

Unwillingnesstocommunicate.Burgoon(1976)conceptualizedunwillingnessto

communicateas“achronictendencytoavoidand/ordevalueoralcommunication”(p.60).

Theconstructhasbeenlinkedtoanomiaandalienation,introversion,self‐esteem,

communicationapprehension,andreticence(Burgoon1976).Ithasbeenappliedtomass

mediaresearchtohelpexplaindifferencesinmediaandnewtechnologyuseandhasbeen

linkedtoapreferenceforonlineormediatedchannelsofcommunicationforindividuals

whodidnotfindface‐to‐facechannelsasconvenient,readilyavailable,orcomfortable.It

hastwodimension:(a)approachavoidance(UCAA),whichindicatesanxiety,introversion,

anddiminishedparticipationingeneralcommunication,and(b)reward(UCR),which

includesdistrust,perceivedisolation,andanevaluationoftheoverallutilityof

communication.WeadaptedBurgoon’s(1976)20‐itemscaleto10itemsforuseinthis

study.ThescalewascodedsothathighscoresforUCAAimplyatendencytowelcomeand

seekoutinterpersonalencounters,andhighscoresforUCRreflectanindividualwhofeels

valuedbytheirenvironmentandperceivesinterpersonalcommunicationtoberewarding.

Weuseda5‐pointLikert‐typescale(5=stronglyagree,1=stronglydisagree)tobe

consistentwiththerestofthemeasuresinthestudy,andsummedandaveragesresponses

totheitems.ThemeanfortheUC‐AAdimensionwas(M=3.69;SD=.65,α=.79)andfor

theUCR(M=4.07;SD=.52,α=.70).

CommunicationOutcomes

SocialCapital.Socialnetworktiesarefrequentlyassessedbymakinguseoftheconcept

ofsocialcapital.Previousliteratureonsocialcapitalconceptualizesthreedifferentformsof

socialcapital.Bondingsocialcapitalfocusesonresourcespeoplehaveforstrengthening

theconnectionbetweenpeopleintheirclosely‐connectedgroups.Bridgingsocialcapital

focusesonreachingoutsidetraditionalin‐groupstolinkwiththoseunlikeyou.And

maintainedsocialcapitalfocusesonstayingconnectedtogroupsfrompreviousmoments

inone’slife(Ellison,Steinfield&Lampe,2007).Fifteenitems(fiveforeachtypeofsocial

capital),modifiedfromWilliams(2006)andEllison,Steinfield&Lampe(2007)were

included(maintained(M=3.94;SD=.62;α=.75),bridging,(M=3.43;SD=.63;α=.72),

andbonding(M=3.38;SD=.67;α=.72).

Affinitywithmediahasbeenlinkedtomanymotives,suchasarousal,habit,pass

time,escape,entertainment,companionship,andinformationseeking,inthetelevisionand

onlinecontext.(e.g.,A.Rubin,1981;Papacharissi&Rubin,2000).TheTelevisionAffinity

Scale(A.Rubin,1981)wasadaptedtoassesslikingfororaffinitywithFacebook.Thiswasa

5‐itemLikertscale(5=stronglyagree,1=stronglydisagree),reflectinghowattached

peoplearetotheplatform,howmuchtheymightmissitifgone,orhowmuchtheydepend

onitfortheirdailyroutines.Responsestotheitemsweresummedandaveraged.The

meanforthescalewas2.50(SD=0.33,α=.88).

OpenEndedQuestions

ParticipantsweregiventheopportunitytoexpandupontheirviewsofFacebook

throughthreeopen‐endedquestions.Theseresponseswereanalyzedqualitatively,pulling

outthemajorthemesthatarose.Weasked:“Inyourownwords,whatisitaboutFacebook

thatmakesitappealing?WhatdoyoulikethemostaboutFacebook?Whatdoyoulikethe

leastaboutFacebook?Responsesareemployedinthediscussionsection,toilluminateand

substantiatequantitativefindings.

Results

RQ1:MotivesforFacebookUse.

Thefactoranalysisofthemotivestatementsyieldednineinterpretablefactors:

expressiveinformationsharing,habitualpasstime,relaxingentertainment,coolandnew

trend,companionship,professionaladvancement,escape,socialinteraction,andnew

friendships.Thefirstfactor,expressiveinformationseeking(α=.85),accountedfor11.39%

ofthevarianceafterrotation.Itcombinedfiveitemsfromtheinformationsharingandself

expressionaprioricategories,pointingtoaneedtosharebothgeneralandpersonal

informationwithothers,andalludingtoalackofdistinctionbetweenthetwothatis

characteristiconFacebook.Thesecondfactor,habitualpasstime(α=.85),consistedoffive

itemsfromtheaprioricategorieshabitandpasstime,andexplained10.54%ofthe

variance.TheitemsallpointedpasstimeusesofFacebookofaritualisticnature,possibly

attestingtotheaddictivenatureofthegenre.Thethirdfactor,relaxingentertainment(α=

.82),combinedfiveitemsfromtherelaxandentertainmentmotivecategories,and

accountedfor9.4%ofthevariance.Thefactorindicatedapassiveandentertainment

orientedmodeofengagingwithFacebook.Thefourthfactor,coolandnewtrend(α=.80),

accountedfor7.03%ofthevariancecontainedallthreeitemsofthesameapriorimotive

category,representingacleanloadingofthisfactor.Thismotivecategorysuggestedthat

individualswereonFacebookbecauseitis“thethingtodo,”“itiscool,”andbecause

“everybodyelseisdoingit,”thuspointingtothesocialdesirabilitycostofstayingoff

Facebook.Thefifthfactor,companionship(α=.83),retainedallthreeitemsfromits

respectiveaprioricategory,andexplained6.76%ofthevariance,pointingtotheabilityof

themediumtosimulatecompanionshipintheabsenceofotherchannels.Thesixthfactor,

professionaladvancement(α=.80),alsodidnotdeviatefromit’saprioriconceptualization,

andaccountedfor6.74%ofthevariance.Theseventhfactor,escape(α=.75),alsoemerged

initsaprioriformationpostrotation,andaccountedfor6.56%ofthevariance.Thisfactor

suggestedprocrastinatoryusesofFacebook,toavoidtasksorindividuals.Theeighth

factor,socialinteraction(α=.83),explained6.16%ofthevariance,butonlycontainedtwo

itemsfromitsaprioricategory,andthuswasnotemployedissubsequentanalysis.The

ninthandfinalfactorwasasingleitemfactor(“Meetnewpeople”),explaining4.3%ofthe

variance.WhiletheitemattestedtotheimportanceofFacebookinmakingnew

connections,unfortunatelythemake‐upofthefactordidnotmeetthecriteriaforinclusion

instatisticalanalysis.Futurestudiesmaytrytoexpandandperfecttheselasttwofactors,

astheyappeartoalludetoimportantsocialneedsfulfilledbyFacebook.

Habitualpasstime(M=3.82,SD=.75)andrelaxingentertainment(M=3.02,SD=

.68)hadthehighestmeanscores,renderingthemthemotivesmorelikelytobesalientto

most.Expressiveinformationsharing(M=2.75,SD=.80),escapism(M=2.54,SD=.87),and

coolandnewtrend(M=2.50,SD=.92)werealsofairlysalientfactors,alongwith

companionship(M=2.35,SD=.95),toalesserextent.Professionaladvancement(M=1.92,

SD=.84)wastheleastsalient,indicatingthatitwasmorelikelytobesignificantfora

specificandsmallerpartofthestudypopulation.Mostmotivescorrelatedmoderately,with

thehighestcorrelationsnotedbetweencompanionshipandescapism(r=.45),

companionshipandrelaxingentertainment(r=.40),escapismandhabitualpasstime(r=

.43),andescapismandrelaxingentertainment(r=.44),p<.001.Thesetendencies

sketchedoutratherritualisticandsociallyorientedusesoftheFacebookgenre.

RQ2:Motives,Antecedents,andSocialCapital

Themostsignificantandhighestcorrelationswerenotedamonginterpersonal

interactionandtheapproach‐avoidance(UCAA)(r=.43,p<.001)andthereward(UCR)(r

=.53,p<.001)dimensionsoftheunwillingnesstocommunicatescale.UCAAalso

correlatedhighlywithlifesatisfaction(r=.49,p<.001)andsocialactivity(r=.40,p<

.001),asdidUCRwithlifesatisfaction(r=.46,p<.001)andsocialactivity(r=.45,p<

.001).Maintained,bondingandbridgingsocialcapitalcorrelatedpositivelyand

significantlywithallmotives,withthehighestandmostsignificantrelationsnoted

betweenbridgingsocialcapitalandexpressiveinformationsharing(r=.43,p<.001),as

wellasrelaxingentertainment(r=.38,p<.001).

Fourseparatehierarchicalmultipleregressionanalyseswereconductedtofurther

investigatethenatureanddirectionoftheserelationships.FacebookAffinity,bonding,

bridgingandmaintainedsocialcapitaleachservedasthedependentvariableforthefour

regressions.Variablesassociatedwiththeamountoftimespentonline,numberoftimes

individualscheckFacebookdaily,estimatedtimespentonFacebookperweek,andnumber

ofyearsofexperiencewiththeInternetwereenteredonthefirststepoftheregression

analysis.Contextualagedimensions(mobility,interpersonalinteraction,lifesatisfaction

andsocialactivity),UC‐ApproachAvoidanceandUC‐Rewardwereenteredonthesecond

step,asantecedentvariables.TheMotivesforFacebookUsescaleswereenteredonthe

thirdstepoftheanalysis.Foraffinity,twopredictorsemergedatthefinalstepofthe

analysis:TotaltimespentonFacebookperweek(F=4.90,p=.03)andthemotiveof

escapism(F=4.13,p=0.5),inanoverallsignificantequation(R=.73,R2=.54,F[7,29]=

2.02,p=.01).ThisindicatedthatthemorepeopleusedFacebook,thegreatertheaffinity

theydevelopedforit,especiallyforusesassociatedwithescapistneeds.

Thesamehierarchicalregressionprocedurewasrepeatedforthethreetypesofsocial

capital.Theequationforbondingsocialcapitalyieldedtwosignificantpredictors,bothof

whichincreasedinsignificanceinthefinalstepoftheanalysis:Totaltimespentonlineper

dayoffwork(F=5.76,p=.02),andthecontextualagedimensionofsocialactivity(F=

11.13,p=.002),inanoverallsignificantequation(R=.81,R2=.66,F[7,28]=3.22,p=

.003).Theseresultsindicatedstrongersocialtieswerebestservedbymoretimespentline,

forthoseindividualswhoenjoyedagreateramountofsocialactivity.Thesefindings

supporttheideathattimespentonlineallowsthosesocialtomaintainorincreasetheir

levelofsocialconnectivity.

Theregressionequationcalculatedforbridgingsocialcapitalproducedanoverall

significantequation(R=.86,R2=.74,F[7,28]=4.72,p=.000),withfoursignificant

predictors,allofwhichemergedonthefinalstep:Mobility(F5.68,p=.02),andthemotives

ofrelaxingentertainment(F=5.63,p=.02),coolandnewtrend(F=5.64,p=.02),and

professionaladvancement(F=6.12,p=.02).Theresultsoftheequationindicatedthatthose

withincreasedmobility,usingFacebookforentertainment,relaxation,becauseitisanew

trend,andforprofessionaladvancementtendedtoincreaseandsustainweakertieswith

distancedfriendsorindividualsinextendedornon‐traditionalin‐groupsofcontact.The

findingssupporttheideathatmobileindividualstendtouseFacebooktosupportand

extendtheirmobilitytospheresofcontactthatmaynotbereadilyavailableoraccessible.

Finally,theregressionequationformaintainedsocialcapitalwasoverallnot

significantandfailedtoproducesignificantpredictors.Itispossiblethisisrelatedtothe

variablesexaminedorthedemographiccharacteristicsofthepopulationsurveyed.

Discussion

ThisstudyfocusedonthesocialutilityofFacebook,byemployingatheoretical

modelthatcombinedtheUsesandGratificationsperspectivewithSocialNetworktheory,

especiallycenteredontheconceptofSocialCapital.Theconceptualframeworkproposed

thatantecedentvariables,togetherwithusermotives,morphtheFacebookexperienceand

influencethetypeofsocialcapitalgeneratedbyFacebookuse.Inordertoprovide

supportingevidenceforthismodel,relationshipsamongtheincludedconceptswere

examined.

Prevalentmotivesthatemergedfromtheanalysisincludedthemotivesofhabitual

passtimeandrelaxingentertainment,bothofwhichcombinedmotivecategoriesfor

traditionalmedia.Notonlydidthisreflecttheconvergednatureoftheservicesprovidedby

Facebook,butitalsosuggestedsalientusesformostuserstendedtobeofaritualisticand

relativelypassivenature.Themoreinstrumentalusesofexpressiveinformationseeking

andprofessionaladvancementwerenotassalientwiththissample.Atthesametime,

escapismandcompanionship,twotraditionalmediausemotivesusuallyassociatedwith

televisionuse,weremoderatelysalientforthispopulation,thusconfirmingtheabilityof

Facebooktoconvergetraditionalandnewmedianeeds.Intheopenendedresponses,

participantsreferredtotheabilityofFacebooktohelprelieveboredomordistractthem

fromorrelievethemofdailystresses.Asonerespondentsaid:“[Facebook]isentertaining

enoughtospendtimeontogetawayfromhomework.”Anothersaid,“Itisfun,andnot

stressfullikeschoolworkcanbe.”Thiscanvergeonaddiction,accordingtooneuser:“Its

easytogetsuckedinto,”whileanotherrespondentadded,“IthinkthereasonFacebookis

soappealingbecauseitoffersawidevarietyofwaystodistractpeoplefromthestress.

Theregressionanalysesdocumentedsomesubstantiallinksbetweensocialcapital,

Facebookmotives,andsocialandpsychologicalpredisposition.Overall,thesetendedto

supportanimageofauserwhoemploysthisparticulartechnologygenretoamplify

opportunitiesathisorherdisposal.UnlikeearlierstudiesoftheNetingeneral,which

pointedtotheparadoxofasocialtechnologythatisolatesindividualsinprivatesphereof

communication,andincontrasttothepopularstereotypeoftheanti‐socialcomputergeek,

theseresultsindicatethosemobileandleadingasociallyactivityareabletoreapthesocial

benefitsofFacebook,andemployittoincreasebondingandbridgingsocialcapital.Thus,

thisonlinesocialnetworksustainsthesocialconnectivityofmembersthatarealready

fairlyactiveandmobile.Interestinglyenough,theseusersrarelyhavethegenerationof

socialcapitalinmind,astheytendtoapproachFacebookfromthenot‐so‐goal‐directed,

relativelypassive,andritualisticmotivesforrelaxingentertainmentandhabitualpastime.

Fortheseusers,thisbecomesadailyroutinethatconvenientlymaintainsandextends

individuals’spheresofcontact.Throughtheopen‐endedresponses,participantsrevealed

someapprehensionoftheaddictivenatureofFacebook,typicallypresentedasathird‐

personeffect,affectingothersbutnotthemdirectly.Forexample,onepersonsaid,“The

obsessivewaysomepeopleareaboutcheckingFacebook,updatingtheirpage,etc.It’s

annoying.”

Additionalresponsestoopenendedquestionsfurthersolidifiedourinterpretations.

ParticipantsrepeatedlystressedthecommunicativeaspectsofFacebook,specifyingthat

theyreliedFacebookforstayingconnectedtothosetheyalreadyknowandformeeting

newpeople.ParticipantsvaluedFacebookforhelpingthemkeepupwithpeopleata

distance,informothersaboutthemselvesandfindpeoplewithsimilarinterests.For

example,onerespondentstated:[Facebookisappealingbecauseof]“theabilitytobeapart

ofsomeone’severydaylifenomatterhowfarawaytheyare.”Anotherrespondentstated:“I

canconnecttomyfriendsacrossthecountryandworldeasilyandseewhatthey’reupto

whichusedtobesomewhatofahassle.Icanstaymoreeasilyconnectedtofriendsfrom

highschoolaswell.”OnepersonsummarizedFacebook’sabilitytomeetpeopleintermsof

buildingonthosetheyalreadyknow.“Theabilitytomeetsomeonerandomlyandmake

thatpersonapartofthepeopleyouknowinyourlifetime.”Participantsenjoyedbeingable

tokeepupwiththeirfriends’achievements,news,relationshipstatusandlife

developments.SeveralindicatedthatnotbeingpartofFacebookwouldequalbeingleftout

ofthesedevelopmentsandsphereofcontact,thusalludingtothesocialcostofnotjoining.

QualitativeandquantitativeresponsesondominantusesofFacebookpointedtoa

userstatethatpalindromesbetweenthesociallyactiveandidle,ormorecolloquiallyput,

describesasocialcouchpotato.Usershappilyconnectwithotherssocially,aslongasthey

maydosofromthecomfortanelectronicallymediatedcouch,inastatethatpermitsthe

stationarypursuitofsocialactivity.Thisantithesisreflectstherealitiesofour

contemporaryeverydayroutines,whichblurspheresofworkandplay,friendsandco‐

workers,publicandprivatelife.Futureresearchcouldplacesocialnetworksinthegreater

contextofpubliclife,andspecificallyexaminehowtheysupportandreinforcedominant

work‐lifepatternsandroutines.Beyondthepointoffulfillingshort‐termneedsfor

relaxation,entertainmentandsocialcontactsimultaneously,thesenetworksaretellingof

contemporarytrendsthatincludeglobalization,trasnationalmobilityandwork,social

spheresthatarelocal,globalandglocal,andingeneral,withwhatZygmuntBauman(2005)

referstoasamoreliquidpaceoflife.Challengingourconventionalunderstandingof

sociabilityasanactivity‐drivenimperative,theseresultssuggestacontemporary

interpretationofsociabilitythatincludesstaticsocialbehaviorsenabledthroughonline

technology.Inarelaxedstatethatconvergespassivityandsociality,socialnetworksite

userstraversespheresofsocialinteractiontolearnaboutandinteractwithothersthey

connectto.

Moreover,equippedwithatoythatenablessocialconnections,individualsareable

tofulfilltraditionalmediatedandinterpersonalneedssimultaneously,whileatthesame

timeexpandingtheirsocialconnectionsandso‐calledsocialnetworthinsatellitesocial

spheres.RelaxingentertainmentalsoprovidedawayinwhichFacebookbecameusefulfor

thegenerationofbondingsocialcapital,thusreaffirmingusers’tiesandconnectionsto

theirclosesphereoffamilyandfriends.

Inconclusion,forcommunicationresearchers,thesefindingsbothaffirmand

challengeourunderstandingofaudienceactivityandpassivity.Therelevanceoftraditional

mediatedandinterpersonalmotivesforFacebookusersconfirmsthepermanenceofthese

needsandtheirfulfillmentviamediatedcommunication.Atthesametime,theseneeds

emergeinaconvergedstate,capturingintermittentlyactiveandidlestatesofengagement

thatchallengethebinarymannerinwhichwe,ascommunicationscholarsunderstand

activityandpassiveuses.Futureresearchononlinemediacouldmoveawayfromlinear

understandingsofusermotivationsandsocialoutcomes,tonetworkedtheoretical

conceptualizationthatpermitustofollowtheorganicgenerationofdevelopingformsof

sociability.Thesocialnetworksapproachincorporatestheorganicappropriationofsocial

ties,socialcapitalgeneration,andthefrequentlynon‐linearrationaleofsocialbehavior.

Theusesandgratificationsapproach,ontheotherhad,adoptsamoreconventionally

linearityinitsapproach,but,atthesametime,isparticularlyisusefulforasystematic

understandingoftheconnectionsbetweenuserprofiles,motivations,orientations,

practices,andresultingoutcomes.

Acombinedperspectiveexaminingtheuses,networks,andaffordancesof

convergentmediawouldconnectantecedentvariablesandmotivestoparticularusesof

networks,whicharesensitivetotheaffordancesofonlinemedia.Suchanapproachwould

beguidedbythefollowing,remediatedassumptionsthata)"sociallymotivatedbehaviors,

includingmediaselectionanduse,arebothpurposiveandritualistic";(b)"ahostofsocial

andpsychologicalfactorsmediatepeople'scommunicationbehavior";(c)"peopleadoptor

adapttheaffordancesofconvergentmediatosatisfyfeltneedsandtoformandmaintain

socialnetworks";(d)"mediacompeteandconvergewithotherformsofcommunication

forselection,attention,andusetogratifyourindividualandcollectiveneeds";and(e)

"mediatedbehaviorspossesssocialoutcomes,whichresultinavaryingqualitiesand

quantitiesofsocialcapitalgenerated.”Thisisasocio‐psychologicalcommunication

perspectivethatexamineshowindividualsuseconvergedmedia,tofulfillfeltneedsor

wantsthatarepersonalandcollective,andgeneratesocialoutcomesthatpermita

networkedsociality.

References

Alexander,A.(1985)‘Adolescents’soapoperaviewingandrelationalperceptions’,Journal

ofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,29:295‐308.

Bauman,Z.(2005)LiquidLife,Cambridge:PolityPress.

Becker,L.,Dunwoody,S.7Rafaell,S.(1983)‘Cable'simpactonuseofothernewsmedia’,

JournalofBroadcasting,27:127‐142.

boyd,d.andEllison,N.B.(2007)‘Socialnetworksites:Definition,history,andscholarship’,

JournalofComputer­MediatedCommunication,13(1):article11.AvailableHTTP:

<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>

boyd,d.andHeer,J.(2006)‘Profilesasconversation:Networkedidentityperformanceon

Friendster’,ProceedingsofThirty‐NinthHawai'iInternationalConferenceonSystem

Sciences.LosAlamitos,CA:IEEEPress.

Chang,B.,Lee,S.andKim,B.(2006)‘Exploringfactorsaffectingtheadoptionand

continuanceofonlinegamesamongcollegestudentsinSouthKorea:Integrating

usesandgratificationanddiffusionofinnovationapproaches’,NewMediaand

Society,8(2):295–319.

DeWaal,E.,Schoenbach,K.andLauf,E.(2006)‘Onlinenewspapers:Asubstituteor

complementforprintnewspapersandotherinformationchannels?’,

Communications:TheEuropeanJournalofCommunicationResearch,30(1):55.

Dimmick,J.,Chen,Y.andLi,Z.(2004)‘CompetitionbetweentheInternetandtraditional

newsmedia:Thegratification‐opportunitiesnichedimension’,JournalofMedia

Economics,17(1):19‐33.

Donath,J.andboyd,d.(2004)‘Publicdisplaysofconnection’,BTTechnologyJournal,22(4):

71.

Ellison,N.B.,Lampe,C.,Steinfield,C.andVitak,J.(inpress)‘WithaLittleHelpfromMy

Friends:HowSocialNetworkStiesaffectSocialCapitalProcesses’,inZ.Papacharissi,

(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites.

NewYork:Routledge.

Ellison,N.B.,Steinfield,C.andLampe,C.(2007)‘ThebenefitsofFacebook"friends:"Social

capitalandcollegestudents'useofonlinesocialnetworksites’,JournalofComputer­

MediatedCommunication,12(4),article1.AvailableHTTP:

<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html>

Ferguson,D.A.(1992)‘Channelrepertoireinthepresenceofremotecontroldevices,VCRs

andcabletelevision’JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,36:83–91.

Garton,L.,Haythornthwaite,C.andWellman,B.(1997)‘Studyingonlinesocialnetworks’,

JournalofComputer­MediatedCommunication,3(1).AvailableHTTP:

<jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html>

Hampton,K.(2002)‘Place‐basedandITmediated‘community’’,PlanningTheoryand

Practice,3(2):228‐231.

Hampton,K.andWellman,B.(2003)‘NeighboringinNetville:HowtheInternetsupports

communityandsocialcapitalinawiredsuburb’,CityandCommunity,2(4):277‐

311.

Hardy,B.andScheufele,D.(2005)‘ExaminingdifferentialgainsfromInternetuse:

Comparingthemoderatingroleoftalkandonlineinteractions’,Journalof

Communication,55(1):71‐84.

Hargittai,E.andHsieh,Y.L.(inpress)‘FromDabblerstoOmnivores:ATypologyofSocial

NetworkSiteUsage’,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:Identity,

CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites,NewYork:Routledge.

Hargittai,E.(2007)‘Whosespace?Differencesamongusersandnon‐usersofsocial

networksites’,JournalofComputer­MediatedCommunication,13(1):article14.

AVAILABLEHTTP:<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html>

Haythornthwaite,C.(2000)‘Onlinepersonalnetworks:Size,compositionandmediause

amongdistancelearners’,NewMediaandSociety,2(2):195–226.

Haythornthwaite,C.(2005)‘Socialnetworksandinternetconnectivityeffects’,Information

CommunicationandSociety,8(2):125‐147.

Haythornthwaite,C.andWellman,B.(1998)‘Work,friendshipandmediausefor

informationexchangeinanetworkedorganization’,JournaloftheAmericanSociety

forInformationScience,49(12):1101‐1114.

Haythornthwaite,C.,Wellman,B.andMantei,M.(1995)‘Workrelationshipsandmediause:

Asocialnetworkanalysis’,GroupDecisionandNegotiation,4(3):193‐211.

Hlebec,V.,Manfreda,K.L.7Vehovar,V.(2006)‘Thesocialsupportnetworksofinternet

users’,NewMediaandSociety,8(1):9‐32.

Kaye,B.,Johnson,T.(2002)‘Onlineandintheknow:UsesandgratificationsoftheWebfor

politicalinformation’,JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,46(1):54‐71.

Kraut,R.,Patterson,M.,Lundmark,V.,Kiesler,S.,Mukophadhyay,T.andScherlis,W.(1998)

‘Internetparadox:Asocialtechnologythatreducessocialinvolvementand

psychologicalwell‐being?’,AmericanPsychologist,53:1017‐1031.

Kraut,R.,Kiesler,S.,Boneva,K.,Cummings,J.,Helgeson,J.andCrawford,A.(2002)‘Internet

paradoxrevisited’,JournalofSocialIssues,58(1):49‐74.

Lampe,C.,Ellison,N.7Steinfield,C.,(2006)‘AFace(book)inthecrowd:Socialsearchingvs.

socialbrowsing’,pp.167‐170,inProceedingsofthe200620thAnniversary

ConferenceinComputerSupportedCooperativeWork,NewYork:ACMPress.

Lange,P.G.(2007)‘Publiclyprivateandprivatelypublic:SocialnetworkingonYouTube’,

JournalofComputer­MediatedCommunication,13(1),article18.AvailableHTTP:

<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html>

Levy,M.R.(1987)‘VCRuseandtheconceptofaudienceactivity’,CommunicationQuarterly,

35:267‐275.

Liu,H.(2007)‘Socialnetworkprofilesastasteperformances’,JournalofComputer­

MediatedCommunication,13(1):article13.AvailableHTTP:

<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/liu.html>

Liu,H.,Maes,P.andDavenport,G.(2006)‘Unravelingthetastefabricofsocialnetworks’,

InternationalJournalonSemanticWebandInformationSystems,2(1):42‐71.

Lo,V.,Li,Y.,Shih,Y.7Yang,S.(2005)‘Internetadoption,uses,andgratificationsobtained’,

MassCommunicationResearch,83(1):127‐165.

Lometti,G.E.,Reeves,B.7Bybee,C.R.(1977)‘Investigatingtheassumptionsofusesand

gratificationsresearch’,CommunicationResearch,7:319–334.

McQuail,D.(1979)‘Theusesandgratificationapproach:Past,troubles,andfuture’,

Massacommunicatie,2:73–89.

Palmgreen,P.C.,Wenner,L.A.andRayburn,J.D.(1980)‘Relationsbetweengratifications

soughtandobtained:Astudyoftelevisionnews’,CommunicationResearch,7:161–

192.

Mendelson,A.andPapacharissi,Z.(inpress)‘Lookatus:CollectiveNarcissisminCollege

StudentFacebookPhotoGalleries’,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:

Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites.NewYork:Routledge.

Papacharissi,Z.(2009)‘TheVirtualGeographiesofSocialNetworks:AComparative

AnalysisofFacebook,LinkedInandASmallWorld’,NewMediaandSociety,11(1‐2):

199‐220.

Papacharissi,Z.(2007)‘TheBloggerRevolution?AudiencesasMediaProducers’in

Tremayne,M.(ed.)Blogging,Citizenship,andtheFutureofMedia,NewYork:

Routledge.

Papacharissi,Z.andMendelson,A.(2007)TheRealityAppeal:Usesandgratificationsof

realityshows.JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,51(2):355‐371.

Papacharissi,Z.(2002a)‘Theselfonline:Theutilityofpersonalhomepages’,Journalof

BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,46(3):346‐368.

Papacharissi,Z.(2002b)‘Thepresentationofselfinvirtuallife:Characteristicsofpersonal

homepages’,JournalismandMassCommunicationQuarterly79(3):643‐660.

Papacharissi,Z.andRubin,A.(2000)‘PredictorsofInternetuse’,JournalofBroadcasting

andElectronicMedia,44(2):175‐196.

Payne,G.,Severn,J.7Dozier,D.(1988)‘Usesandgratificationsmotivesasindicatorsof

magazine,readership’,JournalismQuarterly,65:909–915.

Pettersson,T.(1986)‘Theaudiences’usesandgratificationsofTVworshipservices’,

JournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion,25:391–409.

Perse,E.(1986)‘Soapoperaviewingpattersofcollegestudentsandcultivation’,Journalof

BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,30:175‐193.

Perse,E.andFerguson,D.(2000)‘ThebenefitsandcostsofWebsurfing’,Communication

Quarterly,48(4):343‐359.

Pornsakulvanich,V.,Haridakis,P.andRubin,A.M.(2008)‘Theinfluenceofdispositionsand

Internetmotivationononlinecommunicationsatisfactionandrelationship

closeness’,ComputersinHumanBehavior,24:2292–2310.

Rubin,A.M.(1981)‘Amultivariateanalysisof“60Minutes”viewingmotivations’,

JournalismQuarterly,58,529‐534.

Rubin,A.M.(1985)‘Usesofdaytimetelevisionsoapoperabycollegestudents’,Journalof

BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,29:241‐258.

Rubin,A.M.(1994)‘Mediausesandeffects:Auses‐and‐gratificationsperspective’,inJ.

ZillmannandD.Bryant(eds)MediaEffects:AdvancesinTheoryandResearch,

London:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Rubin,A.andBantz,C.(1989)‘Usesandgratificationsofvideocassetterecorders’,pp.181‐

195,inJ.SalvaggioandJ.Bryant(eds)Mediauseintheinformationage:Emerging

patternsofadoptionandconsumeruse,Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Rubin,A.M.andRubin,R.B.(1982)‘Contextualageandtelevisionuse’,Human

CommunicationResearch,8:228—244.

Rubin,A.M.andRubin,R.B.(1986)‘Contextualageasalife‐positionindex’,International

JournalofAgingandHumanDevelopment,23:27—45.

Rubin,R.B.andRubin,A.M.(1982)‘Contextualageandtelevisionuse:Re‐examiningalife‐

positionindicator’,CommunicationYearbook,6:583—604.

Salwen,M.B.andAnderson,R.A.(1984)Theusesandgratificationsofsupermarkettabloid

readingbydifferentdemographicgroups,EastLansing,MI:NationalCenterfor

ResearchonTeacherLearning.

Stutzman,F.(2006)‘Anevaluationofidentity‐sharingbehaviorinsocialnetwork

communities’,paperpresentedattheiDMAaandIMSCodeConference,Oxford,Ohio.

Swanson,D.L.(1977)‘Theusesandmisusesofusesandgratification’,Human

CommunicationResearch,3:214–221.

Turow,J.(1974)‘Talk‐showradioasinterpersonalcommunication’,Journalof

Broadcasting,18:171‐179.

Walther,J.B.,Carr,C.,Choi,S.S.W.,DeAndrea,D.,Kim,J.,Tong,S.T.7VanDerHeide,B.(in

press)‘InteractionofInterpersonal,Peer,andMediaInfluenceSourcesOnline:A

ResearchAgendaforTechnologyConvergence’,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.),The

NetworkedSelf:Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites,NewYork:

Routledge.

Walther,J.B.,VanDerHeide,B.,Kim,S.Y.,Westerman,D.andTong,S.T.(2008)‘Therole

offriends'appearanceandbehavioronevaluationsofindividualsonFacebook:Are

weknownbythecompanywekeep?’,HumanCommunicationResearch34(1):28‐49.

Wasserman,S.andFaust,K.(1994)SocialNetworkAnalysis,Cambridge,MA:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Wellman,B.,Haase,A.Q.,Witte,J.andHampton,K.(2001)‘DoestheInternetincrease,

decrease,orsupplementsocialcapital?Socialnetworks,participation,and

communitycommitment’,AmericanBehavioralScientist,45(3):436.

Williams,D.(2006)‘OnandOffthe’Net:ScalesforSocialCapitalinanOnlineEra’,Journal

ofComputer­MediatedCommunication,11:593–628.