30
Chapter 12 Toward a New(er) Sociability: Uses, Gratifications, and Social Capital on Facebook Zizi Papacharissi and Andrew Mendelson Emerging convergent platforms of sociality online generate public interest and invite a reconsideration of traditional theoretical paradigms of media research. Social network sites, specifically, afford a variety of social behaviors that simultaneously expand and challenge our conventional understanding of sociability, audience activity, passivity, and involvement. Online platforms such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, or CyWorld and others provide individuals with the opportunity to present themselves and to connect with existing and new social networks. These networked platforms of socially oriented activity permit an introduction of the self via public displays of connection (boyd and Ellison, 2007; Donath and boyd, 2004; Papacharissi, 2002a&b; 2009). In doing so, they promote multimediated identity‐driven performances that are crafted around the electronic mediation of social circles and status. In addition, they provide flexible and personalizable modes of sociability, which allow individuals to sustain strong and weak ties through a variety of online tools and strategies (Ellison, Lampe, Steinfield and Vitak, 2010). These customized expressions of online sociability allow users to pursue social behaviors through variable levels of involvement, activity, and multi‐tasking (Hargittai and Hsieh, 2010; Papacharissi, 2010). Individuals engage the connective affordances of social network sites (SNSs) so as to combine offline and online communication strategies for interaction. These strategies employ converged media but also converge social, cultural and political practices and spheres (e.g., Walther et al., 2010). Conducting research in a converged media environment

Chapter 12 Toward a New(er) Sociability: Uses ... · Toward a New(er) Sociability: Uses, Gratifications, and Social Capital on ... attributes to certain uses of the Internet, and

  • Upload
    vudiep

  • View
    216

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

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.