THE FACEBOOK EFFECT: CONSIDERING THE INFLUENCE OF FACEBOOK ON THE

USER’S SENSE OF COMMUNITY

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

Under the Supervision of Dr. Heather Crandall

Under the Mentorship of Dr. John Caputo

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

By

Stephanie Hansen

May 2012

We the undersigned, certifii that we read this thesis and approve it as adequate inscope and quality for the degree Master of Arts.

Thesis or Project D

Faculty Reader

Gonzaga University

MA Program in Communication and Leadership Studies

3

Abstract

A recent report on the impact of social media on children, adolescents and families

cautioned that parents should now be concerned about Facebook Depression. This alleged new

condition has been gaining popularity in social commentary regarding the effects of social

networking websites, such as Facebook.com. Thus, it is critical that the potential effects of this

social networking site be studied to counteract under-researched claims. This thesis focused on

how the observable community construct created by Facebook may or may not have an effect on

the user’s sense of community. Specifically, this paper used Walther’s Social Information

Processing theory to explain how computer mediated communication, such as using

Facebook.com, is just as effective at creating and maintains relationships as face-to-face

communication.

This thesis used quota sampling via electronic survey to collect quantifiable data on

participants’ self-reported Facebook use and sense of community. The data showed a positive

correlation between participant’s Facebook.com use and their sense of community. These

findings are useful in that they add further legitimacy to current, yet relatively recent, research on

effects of Facebook.com use.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 5

Importance of Study 5

Statement of Purpose 7

Definition of Terms Used 7

Organization of Remaining Chapters 9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11

Philosophical Considerations 11

Theoretical Considerations 12

Review of the Literature 15

Research Rationale 22

Research Question 23

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 24

Scope of the Study 24

Methodology of the Study 24

CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY 29

Introduction 29

Data Analysis 29

Results of the Study 31

Discussion 35

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 39

Limitations of the Study 39

Recommendations for Further Study 40

Conclusions 40

REFERENCES 42

APPENDICES 48

Appendix A: Survey 48

Appendix B: Detailed Results 56

Appendix C: Mentor Agreement Form 66

5

Chapter One: Introduction

Importance of the Study

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently released a report about the impact

of social media on children, adolescents and families. While not conducting any of their own

research, they summarized a total of 32 sources to formulate their conclusions. Among several

conclusions, one stood out in particular: parents should now be concerned about Facebook

Depression (O’Keefe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). This claim, and new term, caught the attention

of literally thousands of media outlets immediately following the release of the report in March

2011.

While the APA report did contain timely commentary on social media use, it failed to

explain what Facebook Depression actually is, or what might cause it. Further, if Facebook

Depression is real, the APA report did not mention if any other age group other than

children/adolescents might be susceptible to it. A 2011 Pew study on adults and social media

found that 79% of adults in their study use the Internet and nearly half of them use at least one

social networking site, double the amount from a similar study in 2008 (Hampton, Goulet,

Rainie, & Purcell, 2011). Further, this study found that Facebook.com is the most popular of the

social networking sites, with 92% of social networking sites’ user on Facebook.com (Hampton et

al., 2011). Thus, if Facebook Depression is real and does exist, are adults just as likely to suffer

from this alleged condition as well? More importantly, are we paying enough attention to an

entity that is potentially providing a platform for depression, among other negative side-effects,

for its users? At a time when there are currently over 483 million daily active Facebook.com

users (Facebook, 2011), it is crucial that we further examine the effects this social networking

6

site may be having on our relationships with others, and ultimately how it may be influencing

our sense of community.

Internet Growth and Rise of Social Networking Sites.

During the 1990s, the Internet experienced a substantial growth from only one percent of

America’s population having Internet access in their homes to nearly 75 percent. Such rapid

growth is “substantially greater than almost any other consumer technology in history” (Putnam,

2000). Along with the growth of the Internet came the introduction and rise of social networking

sites such as Facebook.com. Facebook.com was first launched in 2004 by Mark Zuckerburg and

two college classmates. They created the site as a way to connect their fellow classmates together

socially by exchanging ideas and information (Markoff, 2007). The creators of Facebook.com

describe the site as a “social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their

friends, family and coworkers” (Facebook, 2011). There are currently more than 480 million

daily active Facebook.com users and each of those users has on average, 120 “friends” they are

linked to from their account (Facebook, 2011).With over 800 million users worldwide to-date,

Facebook.com is considered to be the number one social networking site (Wauters, 2010).

In February 2009, Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, and Zickuhr (2010) conducted a study through

the Pew Research Center of 2,253 young adults (defined as ages 18-29) to uncover findings

about Internet and social media use of this age group. Lenhart et al. (2010) found that 72% of

young adults online use social networking sites. Of that 72%, 73% have a Facebook.com

account. Lenhart et al. also found that of the young adults online, 75% have wireless access to

the Internet through a laptop, cell-phone or other wireless device making sites such as

Facebook.com easily accessible to them. A second Pew study in 2011 found that 79% of

American adults use the Internet, and nearly half of all adults say they use at least one social

7

networking site (Hampton et al., 2011). This is close to double the 26% of adults (34% of

Internet users) who used a social networking site in 2008. Hampton et al. also reported the

average age of a social networking site user has shifted from 33 in 2008 to 38 in 2010; over half

of all adult social networking site users are now over the age of 35. Further, 56% of social

networking site users are now female. Most notable is that of those who use a social networking

website, almost all (92%) use Facebook.com. Of those 92%, 52% of users use the site daily to

update their own status or engage with other users (Hampton et al., 2011).

Statement of Purpose

Facebook.com is widely regarded as the current social networking site of choice

(Hampton et al., 2011). This website was launched in 2004 as a social utility that “gives people

the power to share and make the world more open and connected” (Reagan, 2009). At an

estimated 800 million users worldwide (Wauters, 2010), it is reasonable to conclude

Facebook.com truly is making the world more connected. It logically follows that a website

connecting people at a high frequency worldwide should be increasing the user’s sense of

community on a measurable level. Why then, are social commentators coming out with terms

such as Facebook Depression? Is it possible that a utility meant to enhance our sense of

community actually detracts from it? The research reviewed and results of this study are intended

to help answer these questions, adding to the current literature on this topic.

Definition of Terms Used

Depression.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) separates feelings of sadness from

depression; while sadness may be fleeting, depression interferes with one’s daily life (NIMH,

2011). NIHM (2011) explains that there are several forms of depressive disorders: major

8

depression, minor depression, dysthymia, psychotic depression, postpartum depression, and

seasonal affective disorder. For the purpose of this study, unless otherwise stated, “depression” is

a blanket term to include all types and levels of depression without stipulation of other factors.

Sense of Community.

Sense of Community (commonly abbreviated as SOC) is a concept that is difficult to

define. In recent study on the presence of community in e-learning courses, Harter (2011) says

“[that a] majority of individuals have a desire to interact with others on some level. Communities

are created when these individuals find and connect with other they can identify with due to

common interest and shared values” (pg. 12). Bellah (1992) defines community as a group of

people who are socially interdependent on each other, who participate together in discussion and

decision-making, and who share practices that define the community. McMillan and Chavis

(1986) developed a well-known model of analyzing a SOC that was used in this study. McMillan

and Chavis’ model is the most widely accepted model for assessing SOC, and many researchers

who study this topic engage this model. This term and concept is further expanded upon in

Chapter Two.

Social Networking Sites.

Social Networking Sites (SNSs) were first created in 1997, starting with sixdegrees.com

(Boyd & Ellison, 2007). In the year following, dozens of sites were created that allowed users to

create profiles and link to other users for mostly social purposes. In general, a social networking

site is a web-based service that allows users to create a user-profile on that website, seek out

other users on that site based on shared connections, and then interact with those other users

within the constraints of that particular website (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Popular SNSs include:

Six Degrees, Friendster, LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter. With the rise in popularity

9

of these sites, some contend that Americans spend more time using SNSs than doing any other

activity online (The Nielson Company, 2010).

Facebook.com.

Facebook.com (from here on referred to only as Facebook), is a website launched in

2004 by Mark Zuckerburg and two college classmates; together they created the site as a way to

connect their fellow classmates together socially by exchanging ideas and information (Markoff,

2007). The co-creators define Facebook as a “social utility that helps people communicate more

efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers” (Facebook, 2011). With over 800 million

users worldwide to-date, Facebook is considered to be the number one SNS (Wauters, 2010).

Computer Mediated Communication.

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) has existed since World War II, when the

first digital computer was invented. From that time forward, people have been using the

computer to communicate with each other. Essentially, CMC is “any human communication

achieved through, or with the help of, computer technology” (Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2004).

Organization of the Remaining Chapters

The information in this thesis is presented in five separate chapters. The second chapter

establishes the philosophical and theoretical considerations relevant to CMC and SOC, namely

Buber’s Dialogical Ethics and Walther’s Social Information Processing theory. The second

chapter also provides an exemplary review of the literature surrounding SNSs and SOC. The

research reviewed reinforces the questionability of effects of SNSs upon users, and supports the

importance of the study contained in Chapter Four. Chapter Three outlines the scope and

methodology used in gathering relevant data for this particular study. Chapter Four discusses the

study itself, which is aimed at investigating the relationship between Facebook use and the user’s

10

SOC. Chapter four also provides discussion of the study results in light of the philosophical and

theoretical considerations outlined in Chapter Two, as well as the research contained in the

review of the literature. Chapter five includes limitations of the study, further study

recommendations, and final conclusions.

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

Philosophical Considerations

Human beings inherently desire to be in community with one another (House, 2011).

How does community come about, though? Buber explains community between people as the “I-

thou” relationship (Buber, 1937). Whereas the “I-it” relationship refers to the connection

between man and things or objects, the “I-thou” relationship refers to the connection between

people. “The primary distinction between the two orders in which men live concerns on the one

hand, the meaning of community, and on the other hand the meaning of organization” (Buber,

1937). Wright further explains that community exists in the relations of persons, which is

consistent with Buber’s distinction between two models of existence: relation and experience.

The “I-Thou” encounter provides relation, and the “I-It” encounter provides experience.

According to Buber, the way in which one has an “I-Thou” encounter is through dialog. By

dialog, however, Buber did not mean typical conversation, but instead meant the general act of

one person encountering another person in any way (Buber, 1937, italics added). In present day,

the Internet has added a plethora of ways in which two persons can “encounter” each other, and

thus be exchanging dialog. Following the path backwards, this dialog between two persons is

what leads to an experience, which is the basis of existence for community according to Buber.

This thesis assumed that community with others is fundamental not only to the emotional

and mental well-being of all people, but also fundamental to their very existence. This study also

assumed that community is created through communication with others. Next, Walther’s Social

Information Processing theory is used to demonstrate how CMC is an effective medium for

communication, and thus can be used to foster community. Ultimately, this thesis aims to add

insight and understanding of community in direction relation to Facebook use.

12

Theoretical Considerations

Until Walther’s Social Information Processing (SIP) theory, most communication

theorists believed that CMC was an inferior medium when trying to create or maintain

relationships (Walther, 1996). Conversely, Walther’s SIP theory, which builds on Altman and

Taylor’s Social Penetration Theory (SPT) as well as Berger’s Uncertainty Reduction Theory

(URT), claims that CMC is not an inferior medium; users can adapt to the absence of face-to-

face (FtF) cues in building thriving relationships through online communication (Walther, 1996).

SIP theory suggests that CMC relationships grow only to the extent that both people first gain

information about each other (SPT) and then use that information to form interpersonal

impressions of the other person (URT). Walther’s (1996) theory hinges on the argument that,

despite lacking FtF cues, CMC does in fact provide access to gain the information needed to

form interpersonal relationships with others; the CMC process just takes longer as the

communication rate is retarded in comparison to FtF.

When the SIP theory was first developed, it was contrasted against two prominent “cues

filtered out” theories that supported notions that CMC was a lesser communication medium,

mostly because of its impersonality (Culnan & Markus, 1987). The first of those two theories,

Social Presence (SP) theory, contends that the fewer channels available within a medium, the

less attention a user will pay to the presence of other communicators in an interaction. The

implicit assumption was that CMC was limited to one channel (text), and thus CMC users would

experience less social presence, and thus their communication would be more impersonal

(Walther, 1996). The second theory, Information Richness (IR) theory, contends that different

media vary in richness related to the number of cues they convey, the capacity for natural

language, and the immediacy of the feedback. The logic follows that rich media are better for

13

highly equivocal tasks, whereas lean media (such as text-only communication channels) are the

opposite. Thus, Media Richness (MR) theory suggests that CMC is not appropriate for highly

personal communication (Walther, 1996). What these two theories have in common is their

belief and acceptance that the absence of nonverbal cues in CMC is a permanent flaw in the

communication medium (Culnan & Markus, 1987). It is argued that this flaw limits the

usefulness of CMC for developing interpersonal relationships (Walther, 1992).

Conversely, Walther claimed that CMC users can adapt to the absence of FtF cues and

thus still use CMC effectively to develop close relationships (Walther, 1996). Walther (1996)

argues that CMC users adapt to the lack of FtF communication in two ways: by using the verbal

cues that are available, and by using extended time to develop the relationship. Verbal cues are

interchangeable with nonverbal cues insofar as one is meeting their assumed need for affiliation.

In addition to verbal cues, the presence of extended time is the adaptation that is crucial in

making CMC a viable communication form, as Walther explains that CMC is much slower than

traditional FtF (Walther, 1996).

Expanding upon the element of extended time, Walther (1995) added that anticipated

future interaction and chronemic cues both play a more specific role in fostering intimacy

between the communicators. Anticipated future interaction is a way in which psychological time

is extended, which enhances the motivation to develop a relationship (Walther, 1995).

Chronemic cues are those cues that intentionally do not filter out the aspect of time in CMC (for

example, a time stamp on an e-mail), allowing the users to gain additional information about the

users or the nature of the message based on the time it was sent (Walther & Tidwell, 1995). Like

anticipated future interaction, chronemic cues are also used to aid intimacy between

communicators.

14

Walther argues that in some instances, CMC actually surpasses the quality of relational

communication available during FtF (Walther, 1996). Walther (1996) calls this extension of his

theory Hyperpersonal Perspective, which is comprised of four related elements of the

communication process: receiver’s idealized perceptions, sender’s optimized self-presentation,

asynchronous channels allowing for relational coordinator and information management, and a

feedback process which can develop in a self-fulfilling prophecy of expectations. Any one, or

combination, of these elements in CMC can render hyperpersonal communication as the

communicators have increased control over how they are perceived, ability to perceive what they

desire to believe, and flexibility (and thus control) over when, where and what they are

communicating (Walther, 1996). Walther (1996) claims hyperpersonal communication can

ultimately be more intimate than FtF communication, which further supports his original theory

that CMC is not a lesser means of communication, despite the lack of FtF cues.

The one variable that is difficult to account for in SIP theory is that different people have

varying motivation levels for affiliation with others. While there is a basic human need to belong

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Maslow, 1995) some will be extremely driven to connect with other

regardless of the communication medium, whereas others will be deterred by certain mediums

depending on their personality. Also, Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) Social Identity (SI) theory

concurrently suggests that, depending on one’s self-image within a group, an individual may be

more or less motivated to connect with other members of their own group or a new group. Tajfel

and Turner explain that varying degrees of motivation to communicate with others could

influence a person’s desire to develop personal relationship, online or otherwise.

SIP is relevant when studying CMC because when combined with Buber’s philosophy on

relationship being the framework in which community is created, Walther’s theory lays the

15

framework for the examining of CMC user experience. If it is true the CMC can be just as

effective as, if not more than, FtF communication, then it may be accepted that there is value in

further researching current CMC venues that foster relationships, such as Facebook.

Review of the Literature

SIP theory and recent research suggests that CMC through SNSs contributes to and/or

enhances the user’s SOC. However, concern has existed that online communities created by

SNSs actually detract from the user’s SOC in a variety of ways. Much of the negative

commentary was and still hinges upon the notion that FtF contact must be present for a

community to exist and flourish. As the use of SNSs continues to increase, so does the research

surrounding these sites and the positive and negative effect they are having on their users.

The rise of social networking sites and their effects on the user.

One year after the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting data on Internet use (U.S.

Department of Commerce, 2001), Kraut et al. (1998) released a study on social technology and

its effect on social involvement and psychological well-being. Their study found that increased

use of the Internet within the home was associated with decreased family communication,

reduced social circle, and an increase in depression and loneliness. This study was consistent

with a series of studies that continued to emerge for nearly a decade; as increasing research was

being conducted on the prevalence and effects of Internet use, the results had consistently

negative implications.

Two years after the study by Kraut et al. (1998), Sanders, Field, Diego and Kaplan (2000)

conducted a study to research the relationship between Internet use and depression, and social

isolation among adolescents. Sanders et al. (2000) site Kraut et al. as support for their own study.

Their results among adolescents were consistent with Kraut et al.’s results in adults: high Internet

16

use proved to be related to weaker social ties, and low Internet use was linked to better

relationships with family members. These results gave researchers much reason to believe that

increased Internet use was leading to many negative consequences, both personal and relational,

for the Internet users.

The following year, Nie (2001) argued that Internet use detracts from in-person

relationships with others and can diminish a person’s social capital and decrease their

involvement in a community. In 2003, Amichai-Hamburger and Ben-Artzi (2003) found that

Internet use in general may interfere with the development of social relationships, decreases

individual’s social activities and is associated with increased depression for users of any age.

That same year, a study done by Morgan and Cotton (2003) confirmed more negative side-

effects of Internet: in a study of freshman college students they found that increased time spent

surfing the net was uniquely associated with increased reported depression. By this time, it was

becoming common knowledge that increased time spent on the Internet was leading to decreased

time spent with family and friends, increased presence and/or risk of depression, decrease in

social activities, and increase in isolating behavior.

In 2006, Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield (2006) conducted a study on Internet use and

social relationships, specifically the use of Facebook among college students. This study was

released just two years after the launch of Facebook, when the site’s success had not yet been

proven. Lampe et al.’s (2006) study of 1,440 students suggested that, at that time, Facebook

users were largely using the site to learn more about people they met offline, as opposed to using

the site to initiate new relationships. Lampe et al. based their research around the idea that online

social networks might foster relationships between participants while also supporting a variety of

offline relationships. Lampe et al.’s research is often cited on subsequent research of this topic,

17

and it can be inferred that this particular study marked the beginning of a new era of thought

regarding the perceived benefits of Internet use, specifically for communication purposes via

SNSs such as Facebook.

The following year, Wright, Craig, Cunningham, and Igiel (2007) also studied college

students’ use of Facebook in order to examine the perceptions of support providers, emotional

support and perceived stress of Facebook users. They found that perceived emotional support

from Facebook use was predictive of perceived lower stress. Stress is a known factor in many

physical and mental health conditions, depression being one of those (National Institute of

Mental Health, 2011). The same year, Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) released a study

examining the benefit of Facebook friends and how Facebook users might use online social

networking sites for social capital gain. In this study of 286 college students, the researchers

found that Facebook might provide greater benefits for users experiencing low self-esteem and

low life satisfaction. Specifically, the researchers were looking to determine where offline social

capital could be gained by online tools, such as Facebook. They were interested because previous

research proved that greater social capital increases commitment to a community (Ellison et al.,

2007; Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). Similar to Lampe et al. (2006), Ellison et al. (2007) found that

students use Facebook to maintain existing offline relationships, as opposed to initiating new

relationships. These results confirmed their initial inquiry, determining that Facebook may be

used to create and maintain social capital. When combined, these results indicate the Facebook

users experience lower stress and higher social capital as a result of perceived emotional support

through using the site to maintain existing friendships.

As studies about Facebook continued, other researchers began looking at the concept of

virtual communities as a whole, and their effects on their users. In 2009, Baym and Ledbetter

18

(2009) conducted a study on music-based social networking site, and found that fears of SNSs

lessening the value of offline friendships were misguided. In their six week study of 701

respondents, Baym and Ledbetter used the SNS Last.fm to confirm previous findings that while

SNSs may launch new friendships, their primary role is to enhance friendships that already exist.

Two years prior, Blanchard (2007) conducted a study that directly addressed the idea of

community online by applying McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) SOC model to a virtual

community. Blanchard was able to apply this model, and determined from her research that

perception of norms are the mediating factor between a sense of virtual community and

relationship support, identity perception, and created identity. While these results are interesting,

the key element of this study is Blanchard’s use of McMillan and Chavis’ SOC model in a

virtual community setting. The success of adapting this previously FtF model can be found in

Walther’s SIP theory, which accounts for the lack of FtF cues when using CMC.

Within the past 14 months, there appeared to be a notable increase in studies supporting a

conception that CMC through online SNSs actually foster interpersonal ties and the user’s SOC.

In 2011, Ledbetter et al. (2011) conducted a study to determine how various attitudes might

contribute to participants Facebook communication behavior and in-turn participants’ relational

closeness with others. The researchers found that participants’ Facebook communication habits

positively predicted their experience of relational closeness with others. Ledbetter et al. noted

that “on a more practical level, [our] results refute some popular claims that SNSs reduce the

relational closeness, as Facebook communication positively predicted relational closeness, even

when controlling for the contribution of offline communication” (2011, p. 47).

Last year, as adult Internet use reached an all-time high (Hampton et al., 2011), Erickson

and Johnson (2011) conducted a study aimed at general Internet use and the psychological

19

wellness of adults during late adulthood. The study showed that adults who used the Internet had

higher perceptions of self-efficacy than those who used it less, or not at all. This is significant

because as Erickson and Johnson note self-efficacy “most often refers to a positive orientation

towards life and is generally based on such feelings as happiness, morale, positive effect and life

situation” (2011, p. 198). Thus, those with higher perceptions of self-efficacy are likely to not

experience high levels of depression, which was confirmed by Erickson and Johnson’s findings.

These findings, at least for adults, negate previous research by Kraut et al. (2008) and Sanders et

al. (2000) that time spent online leads to depression, among other negative results.

In May 2011, Harter (2011) published a thesis specifically on the absence of a SOC in e-

learning courses, and how the implementation of tools used by Facebook can help foster a

missing SOC. Harter used McMillan and Chavis’(1986) SOC components (membership,

influence, integration and fulfillment of goals, and shared emotional connection) to show that

Facebook creates a SOC online consistent with what users experience offline. Harter inherently

argued that Facebook users do experience a SOC through Facebook’s elements of profile, wall

posts, personal photographs and social gaming. Her findings are supported by Lampe et al.

(2006), Reich (2010), and Zhang (2010). These researchers have determined that FtF elements

necessary to create a SOC online do exist and are necessary to establish an online community,

online social networks foster connections between participants, and ultimately that SNSs can and

do provide a SOC (Lampe et al., 2006; Reich, 2011; Zhang, 2010).

Currently, the most recent research on the topic of Facebook and its influence on

community/personal relationship and emotional side effects (such as depression) is a study

conducted by the Pew Research Center (Hampton et al., 2011). The key findings of this study are

that Facebook users have more close relationships than non-Facebook users, and Facebook users

20

get more social support than other people. This study reports that the average American has just

over two people with whom they discuss important matters; this is a small number, but

statistically larger than the average of 1.93 close confidants reported during a similar survey in

2008 (Hampton et al., 2011). Controlling for other factors, the researchers found that someone

who uses Facebook several times per day averages 9% more close ties in their overall social

network compared with other Internet users. More so, they found that Internet users in general:

score 3 points higher in total support, 6 points higher in companionship, and 4 points

higher in instrumental support. A Facebook user who uses the site multiple times per day

tends to score an additional 5 points higher in total support, 5 points higher in emotional

support, and 5 points higher in companionship, than Internet users of similar

demographic characteristics. (Hampton et al., 2011, p. 4)

The researchers explained that the additional points are equivalent to about half the total support

that the average American receives as a result of being married or cohabiting with a partner.

Further, this study found that specifically SNSs are used to keep up with close social ties: 40% of

those polled had friended all of their closest confidants, which is up from 29% in 2008 (Hampton

et al., 2011). The researchers also found that the “average user of social networking site has more

close ties and is half as likely to be socially isolated as the average American” (Hampton et al.,

2011, p. 24). More specifically, they found that Facebook seems to support intimacy, rather than

undermine it. In summary, the researcher’s results show there is little validity to the concerns

that people who use SNSs experience smaller social networks and less closeness.

Sense of community.

The most widely regarded measure of gauging a SOC was developed by McMillan and

Chavis in 1986 (Blanchard, 2007; Mannarini & Fedi, 2009; Zhang, 2010). McMillan and Chavis

21

(1986) were motivated by the perceived lack of a “coherently articulated perspective focused on

sense of community” (pg. 8), in that no previous measures were developed directly from a

definition of SOC. They proposed four elements for a definition, and measure, of SOC:

membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection.

As virtual online communities became more prevalent, researchers began applying McMillan

and Chavis’ SOC model to their study of online communities and how virtual communities affect

offline communities (Blanchard and Markus, 2004; Harter, 2011; Koh & Kim, 2004).

In 2010, Zhang (2010) directly researched if McMillan and Chavis’ model for SOC could

be applied to SNSs. Zhang felt that at that time, there was not one coherent opinion regarding

how SOC should be modeled in online communities and how, coupled with other factors, SOC

might affect usage of a specific SNS. Through his research, Zhang ultimately found that user

satisfaction (measured by information quality and system quality) and SOC are the direct and

most important predictors of SNS usage. At the conclusion of Zhang’s study, he remarked that,

to his knowledge, his study was the first attempt “to formally test the presence, the

dimensionality, and the determinants of [SOC], and an initial step in building a theory on virtual

communities that relates [SOC] to continued social networking usage” (2010, p. 234). Zhang’s

findings serve to re-confirm McMillan and Chavis’ model is still the current standard measure of

SOC, even when researching the effects of SNSs.

Research Rationale

Research on the individual and social ramifications of SNS use is relatively recent and

underdeveloped. Researchers and commentators have claimed that Internet use, specifically

SNSs, cause people to isolate themselves, leading to depression and decreased SOC. In light of

new research, however, researchers and commentators are now suggesting that SNSs actually

22

contribute to and reinforce user’s relationships with others, thus increasing their SOC. Additional

research needs to be conducted, however, to further reinforce these recent findings. Research

suggests it is possible that use of a SNS, such as Facebook, may influence the user’s SOC, but

the consistency and reliability of that influence remains under-researched at this time.

Additionally, nearly every researcher included in this review of current literature has

claimed that more research on the effects of SNSs is needed. Specifically, Ellison et al. (2007)

commented on the lack of empirical research when doing her research on social capital. Also in

2007, Wright et al. (2007) commentated that future research should assess the degree to which

college students use SNSs to supplement or even replace offline support networks. Ledbetter et

al. (2011) acknowledged that the recent widespread use of SNSs calls for a better theoretical

understanding of how SNSs may contribute to relational closeness between users. Further, Reich

(2010) remarked at the beginning of her study that at that time no studies had looked at SOC on

social networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace. This was the basis for Reich’s research;

since that time increasingly more studies have been done on SNSs and SOC. Last year, Erickson

and Johnson (2011) commented that the existing literature on psychological wellness and

Internet use during late adulthood yields inconsistent findings, leaving the nature of the

relationship ambiguous. Further research in this area would work to clarify their recent findings

that adults benefit from Internet use during late adulthood. Currently, Erickson and Johnson note

that existing research on the relationship between Internet use and adults has yielded inconsistent

findings, which still leaves the causal relationship ambiguous.

Further, in the non-academic realm social commentary on the effects of social

networking sites is robust. A simple Google search prompted by the AAP article of the terms

“Facebook” and “Depression” returns 172,000,000 hits specifically on those combined terms.

23

This is compared to the 4,803 results returned by ProQwest, none of which were a direct match.

More so, another Google search of “Facebook” and “effects” returned more than 235,000,000

results. Unless specifically using Google Scholar to conduct those searches, the researcher would

have to page through dozens of non-scientific commentaries on the topic until coming across

something substantial. Not only will the academic community benefit from further research on

SNS use, but so will the millions of Facebook users who are potentially being misinformed by

mainstream media about the effects of their Facebook use.

As the research continues to develop in this field, there are great ramifications

considering the millions of people in the United States alone using SNSs like Facebook on a

daily basis (Hampton et al. 2011). If society is going to continually use SNSs and consider how

its use affects our communities, researchers need to continue to understand the concept of

community (both online and offline), and how sites like Facebook contribute or detract from

one’s SOC. It is necessary to conduct additional research on Facebook use and SOC to offset the

abundance of social commentary on this topic.

Research Question

The following question was designed to expand upon previous research in the field of

CMC and SOC, by examining Facebook use and how it affects the user’s SOC.

RQ: Does the use of Facebook have a direct effect on the user’s sense of community?

24

Chapter Three: Scope and Methodology

Scope of the Study

The idea for this study spawned from skepticism about the term Facebook Depression

and developed into curiosity around the possible correlation between the use of Facebook and the

user’s SOC. Thus users of Facebook, specifically, were solicited. To intentionally limit the scope

of this study, participants were limited to women, ages 18-35, residing in the United States. This

particular age range is common in previous studies of SNSs, including Facebook studies.

Methodology of the Study

Of the studies previously cited, those concerning SNSs and SOC all used the survey

method as at least one of the research methods. This is most likely because surveys are a time-

efficient way of systemically gathering data (Rubin, Rubin, Haridakis, & Piele, 2010). The

survey method was used in this study as well to maintain consistency in data collection on this

subject matter. This survey aimed to collect information about participant’s Facebook use (depth

of use and frequency) and their SOC. The participant’s responses were self-reported through

quantitative and qualitative questions.

To deliberately limit the amount of data collected while guarding against

unrepresentative data samples, quota sampling was used. Ten participants from each age within

the age range (18-35) were recruited for a total of 162 responses, creating a saturation point

where additional data did not change the results. The original aim was ten participants, but only

nine from each age remained viable due to incomplete data sets. Quota sampling method is a

nonrandom sample in which the general categories are identified into which participants were

selected, and then participants were recruited until a predetermined number of cases in each

category was met (Neuman, 2006). Other nonrandom sampling methods such as haphazard,

25

deviant case, theoretical, and snowball sampling were not used due to their lack of usefulness for

comparing data; both purposive sampling and sequential sampling were not used for their lack of

feasibility (Neuman, 2006). All methods of probability sampling were eliminated because it is

difficult to draw a probability sample unless all members of target population are accounted for

(similar to purposive nonprobability sampling), and in this study it would be unrealistic to

account for all people in the United States who use Facebook, let alone all women ages 18-35.

Thus, quota sampling’s narrowed scope and determinate end point proved to be the most

beneficial method for this research study.

To eliminate any researcher bias, only the first nine participants to respond for each age

group have been included in the study; additional responses per age were saved and included in

the data analysis of this study for comparison sake. Over the course of two weeks, participants

were solicited electronically via Facebook and e-mail at the initiation of the researcher.

Individuals who completed the survey were encouraged to forward the survey to others in an

effort to help solicit additional participants outside of the researcher’s social, professional, and

educational spheres.

The survey was designed by the researcher (see Appendix A) and is primarily adapted

from materials created and used by Chavis, Lee, and Acosta (2008) and Hampton et al. (2011).

The survey was aimed at finding a potential correlation between participants Facebook use and

SOC. Based on Walther’s (1996) SIP theory discussed in Chapter Two, it can be hypothesized

that higher levels of Facebook use may actually increase the user’s SOC offline, as the user will

be able to enhance existing offline relationship through CMC on Facebook. Participants were

given access to an anonymous, online survey for this study using Survey Monkey.com, a web-

based survey facilitation company. When potential participants began the survey, they were

26

asked three questions: gender, age, and if they are a member of Facebook. If the potential

participants were not women, age 18-35 who used Facebook, they were not allowed to complete

the survey.

Section One of the survey was a participant consent form. Participants had to

acknowledge they had read this consent statement and agreed with the content. Participants were

also asked to attest that their answers were true and accurate to the best of their knowledge;

participants were not offered any incentives to participate in this survey. Section Two of the

survey consisted of the three qualifying questions (gender, age, and Facebook member). If

participants selected no to any of those three questions, they were not allowed to continue on

with the survey.

Section Three collected factual information about the participant including exact age,

gender, employment status, education, location, religion, and marital status. This data was used

to recommend further studies based on themes that developed in reviewing the data.

Section Four of the survey collected information about the participants Facebook use.

This section of the survey was adapted from components of Hampton et al.’s (2011) survey used

in their study on social networking sites. A Likert scale was used to give value to the

participant’s responses. Participants were asked a series of 20 questions aimed at determining the

frequency and activeness of their Facebook use. The first two questions were created by the

researcher, quantifiable in nature, and participants were scored 1 through 6 depending on which

category they chose. The third question was also created by the researcher, and asked

participants to identify how many categories they have Facebook friends in; there were six

categories listed and participants were given one point for each category selected for a total of

six possible points. The remaining questions, adapted from Hampton et al., were directed at how

27

often the participant did a certain activity on Facebook. In response to those questions,

participants were given six choices to indicate their frequency, ranging from “never” to “more

than once a day” and their responses were scored 1 to 6, respectively. The quantitative data from

this chapter was used to give each participant a numerical score to represent the depth of their

Facebook use.

Section Five of the survey collected information on the participant’s SOC. A Likert scale

was used in this chapter to give value to the participant’s responses, as well. Participants were

asked a series of 27 questions aimed at determining the presence of SOC in their lives.

Participants were first asked to indicate groups that constitute their primary community; there

were eight choices and participants were given a half point for each group they selected. Next,

the participants were asked to pick one community they are a part of and use that community to

assess the accuracy of 24 statements. The 24 statements were a direct replication of Chavis et

al.’s (2008) SOC Index 2. In response to those statements, participants were given four choices

to indicate the accuracy of the statement, ranging from “Not true at all” to “Completely true” and

their responses were scored 1 to 4, respectively. Following the 24 statements were two follow-up

statements added by the researcher for further insight. Participants were given the same four

choices to indicate the accuracy of the two statements, and their responses were scored

accordingly.

Section Six asked participants to use the same scale as Section Five to assess the

accuracy of four very direct statements created by the researcher regarding the possible

relationships between Facebook use and SOC. The quantitative data from this chapter was

combined with the quantitative data from Section Five to give each participate a numerical score

to represent the SOC they experience.

28

Section Seven asked three open-ended questions about participant’s opinions of

Facebook and how it may or may not affect their SOC. Finally, in Section Eight participants

were given the option to reveal their identity and provide contact information, but were under no

obligation to do so.

It may be noted that sections four and five of the survey use two different Likert scales.

Section four was adapted from Hampton et al.’s (2001) survey, which consisted of six answers to

each question or statement. Section five was adapted from Chavis et al.’s SOC Index 2 (2008),

which consisted of four answers to each question or statement. In a Likert scale, the numbers

assigned to the responses are arbitrary (Neuman, 2006); as long as they are consistent within

each section, the variation in the two scales does not affect the graphing of the results.

Ethical Considerations.

There are four major ethical issues when conducting survey research: invasion of privacy,

voluntary participation by respondents, exploitation of surveys and pseudosurveys, and rigged

surveys (Neuman, 2006). To protect participants’ privacy, this survey clearly stated it was

anonymous (unless the participant chose to leave their name at the end of the survey).

Participants were also informed that they could quit the survey at any time, and a few dozen

incomplete data sets confirmed that some participant’s chose to discontinue the survey before

they reached the end. Thus, all completed data sets were voluntarily provided by the participants.

To be above reproach with the purpose of this survey, participants were given

background about the educational nature of the survey before they began. This survey was

created with the assistance of an academic advisor to guard against poor design or potential

rigging of the results.

29

Chapter Four: The Study

Introduction

All data for this study was gathered using SurveyMonkey.com in March 2012.

Participants were sought electronically through both passive and direct Facebook, e-mail, and

message board solicitation by the researcher.

Over the two-week period of time, 361 total individuals started the survey. A total of 314

participants actually completed the survey, lending to an 87% completion rate. Of the 47 that did

not complete the survey, 14 were males, 2 were women who were under the age of 18, 26 were

older than 35, and 11 were not members of Facebook. It is possible that more than one

disqualifying factor could be present in one potential participant, which accounts for the

accumulation of those not qualified being greater than 47 total people. It is also possible that

qualified participants were accepted to complete the survey, and then did not finish the survey

for an unknown reason.

The quota sampling method used in this study only called for nine respondents of each

age (a total of 162 responses), which was secured from the 314 participants who completed the

survey. Determining the 162 responses for data analysis was achieved by sorting the data by age

and then by the time stamp, only accepting the first nine of each age.

Data Analysis1

All data was quantitatively analyzed by the researcher based on the participant’s selection

of the predefined responses. Applicable data was coded according to the Likert scales assigned to

each section, as explained in Chapter Three.

Demographics.

1 See Appendix B for detailed results.

30

Of the 162 official data sets, the most common participant reported being white, single,

working 25+ hours/week, completed a bachelor’s degree, Christian, and residing Washington

state (all participants were female, by intention).

Section Four: Facebook Use.

This section had a total of 20 questions, all of which were quantifiable using a 6-point

Likert Scale, with six being the highest score and one being the lowest score. The highest

possible score was 120, and the lowest possible score was 20. Of the 162 participants, the highest

score was 99, the lowest score was 26, the average score was 70.33 and the median score was

70.5. Most commonly, participants reported belonging to Facebook for 3-5 years, having 600+

Facebook friends, and logging on to Facebook more than once a day.

Controlling for demographic factors, Facebook use was highest among younger, single

participants. This was correlated with an increase in scores for those who had completed high

school and/or some college, and those who are currently students (regardless of work status).

There were no significant correlations based on religion, race, and geographical location because

the responses were too heavily skewed in specific categories to determine any relationships.

Section Five and Six: SOC.

These two sections had a total of 31 questions, all of which were quantifiable using a 4-

point Likert Scale, with four being the highest score and one being the lowest score. The highest

possible score was 124, and the lowest possible score was 31. Of the 162 participants, the highest

score was a 121.5, the lowest score was 44.5, the average score was 97.5, and the median score

was 99.75.

Controlling for demographic factors, SOC was higher among younger, married survey

participants. This was correlated with an increase in scores for those who had completed high

31

school and/or some college, and those who reported being stay-at-home moms. As with the

previous section, there were no significant correlations based on religion, race, and geographical

location because the responses were too heavily skewed in specific categories to determine any

relationships.

Results of the Study

A complete review of data shows a positive correlation between participants’ depth of

Facebook use and reported SOC. Each participant’s Total Facebook Use Score (TFUS) was

paired with their Total SOC Score (TSOCS) on an x-y axis to show the correlation between the

two (Figure 4.1, r = .38). The TFU score consists of all the questions in Section Four of the

survey, and the TSOC consists of all the questions in Section Five and Section Six of the survey.

When looking only at participant’s Facebook Activity (FA) score combined with only

participant’s Sense of Community Index-2 (SOCI-2) score, there is still a positive correlation

present (Figure 4.2, r = .27). Participant’s FA score consists of only the responses to question 15

(which consisted of 17 statements) on the survey, adapted from Hampton et al.’s (2011) survey

31.00

41.00

51.00

61.00

71.00

81.00

91.00

101.00

111.00

121.00

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

TSOC

(Range: 31-124)

TFUS

(Range: 20-120)

4.1 Facebook Use and Sense of Community

4.1 Facebook Use and Sense of Community

Linear (4.1 Facebook Use and Sense of Community)

32

on Facebook use. Participant’s SOCI-2 score consists of only the responses to questions 19 and

20 (which consisted of 24 statements) on the survey, replicated without alteration from Chavis et

al.’s Sense of Community Index-2 (2008). The FA score and SOCI-2 score are void of any

survey questions created by the researcher.

Several survey respondents came forward and explained that while they log-on to

Facebook more than several times a day, then do not typically engage in any Facebook activity

other than viewing other people’s updates and profiles. When comparing solely just the

frequency of which users log-on to Facebook to their sense of community, a positive correlation

was still present (Figure 4.3, r = .32).

24

34

44

54

64

74

84

94

17 27 37 47 57 67 77 87 97

SOCI-2

(Score: 24-196)

FA

(Range: 17-102)

4.2 Facebook Activity and SOCI-2

Facebook Activity and SOCI-2 Linear (Facebook Activity and SOCI-2)

33

Finally, when removing the narrowed scope on the data and assessing the entire

participant pool of 314 responses, the positive correlation between Facebook Use and SOC

remained (Figure 4.4. r = .31).

31415161718191

101111121

1 2 3 4 5 6

TSOC Score

(Range: 31-124)

Facebook Log-On Frequency

(Range: 1-6)

4.3 Facebook Log-On Frequenecy and TSOC Score

Facebook Log-On Frequenecy and TSOC Score

Linear (Facebook Log-On Frequenecy and TSOC Score)

31415161718191

101111121

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

TSOC

(Range: 31-124)

TFUS

(Range: 20-120)

4.4 Facebook Use and Sense of Community

(all survey participants)

4.4 Facebook Use and Sense of Community (all survey participants)

Linear (4.4 Facebook Use and Sense of Community (all survey participants))

34

The quantitative results were supported by the responses to the open ended portion of the

survey. In response to the question “In what ways, if any, does using Facebook make you feel

more connected to your community?”, respondents commented on the viability of Facebook as

means to communicate with others:

“I lived abroad for many years, and Facebook allows me to maintain contact with all of

my friends. It's nice to be able to watch their babies grow up, even though I'm not able to

watch in person.”

“Because I work so much, I don't necessarily get to talk to [others] much, so Facebook

can help me stay connected with them, talk with them and see how they are doing.”

“I am able to keep in touch with friends and family who are outside my immediate

geographical area.”

“I have friends who live in other countries who I care deeply for. With Facebook I can

continue to connect with them on a daily basis, which I wouldn't be able to do

otherwise.”

“As a stay at home mom, I'm stuck at home a lot of the time caring for my kids.

Facebook is a way for me to quickly interact with my friends and see what they are up

to.”

“…Since a lot of my loved ones live in another state, Facebook allows me to see some of

the little day to day things that they experience that I wouldn't otherwise get to see. Being

able to see posts from mutual acquaintances, get invitations to parties…, and photos from

daily life really enriches my communication with them and helps me feel not so far away”

. “I feel like it's easier to communicate with the community via Facebook, especially when

work, school, etc. make it hard to meet face-to-face.”

35

“[My] community has updates on events and scheduling over Facebook. We share our

funny/weird/interesting stories or things from the Internet on the "groups" part of

Facebook. Pictures of our group at a particular event are tagged over Facebook and

make the community seem and feel more connected.”

Discussion

The data collected in this study was able to answer the research question posed in this

thesis.

RQ1: Does the use of Facebook have a direct effect on the user’s sense of community?

Answer: Yes. This study showed an increase in Facebook use is directly related to an

increase in SOC.

These results are consistent with Walther’s SIP theory, which argues that CMC (such as SNS,

including Facebook) is an effective communication medium for creating and maintaining

relationships, despite the lack of FtF cues (Walther, 1996). Walther’s theory holds that CMC

users adapt to the lack of FtF cues by using verbal cues that are available, and by extending the

amount of time over which interactions occur.

In accordance with Walther’s theory, the data of this study shows that Facebook users are

able to adapt to the lack of FtF cues, allowing for them to develop and maintain relationships

online. The success of their relationships is evidenced by the corresponding level of sense of

community that increases with Facebook use. Buber’s “I-Thou” Philosophy of community lends

explanation to why Walther’s (1996) SIP is successful. As detailed in Chapter Two, Buber

(1937) contends that while the “I-It” encounter provides experience, the “I-Thou” encounter

provides relation. According to Buber, the way in which one has an “I-Thou” relational

encounter is through dialog, and that dialog is considered any general act of one person

36

encountering another person in any way. Explained by Walther’s theory on the effectiveness of

CMC, Facebook is an entity where users are able to communicate to a degree that allows them to

engage in dialog with each other, thus providing an “I-thou” relationship according to Buber.

Buber notes that the “I-thou” encounter is what leads to community, which lends explanation to

why an increase in Facebook use is correlated with an increase in sense of community.

In returning to the literature on the topic of Facebook use and its effect on the users, the

results of this study are consistent with the most current literature reviewed in Chapter Two.

Over a decade ago, the literature suggested that CMC led to decreased family communication,

reduced social circles, increased depression and loneliness (Kraut et al., 1998; Morgan and

Cotton, 2003; Sanders, Field, Diego & Kaplan, 2000); detraction from in-person relationships,

diminished social capital, and decreased community involvement (Nie, 2001); and interference

with the development of social relationships, decreased social activities, and increased

depression for users of any age (Amichai-Hamburger and Ben-Artzi, 2003). While these “side-

effects” are inconsistent with the most recent literature on CMC, including Facebook use, a little

less than half of the survey participants did report some feelings of disconnectedness from their

community that they attributed to their Facebook use; the remaining participants either chose not

to report any negative experiences, or specifically reported experiencing no disconnectedness. Of

those that did report disconnectedness, the most common manifestations of this feeling were

caused by homesickness/not being able to participant in things they knew their family and

friends were doing; finding out about an event they were not invited too; and feelings of

impersonality, lack of closeness, or that relationships are cheapened by lack of FtF interaction.

These are all life circumstance that can cause negative reactions outside of Facebook use, and not

solely because of Facebook. For example, if an individual overhears friends talking about an

37

event that they were not invited to, that individual is most likely going to experience the same

level of sadness as when they see pictures of that event on Facebook. The feeling of sadness is

inevitable; Facebook just provides a virtual way to “overhear” things. Interestingly enough, of

those who reported any experience of disconnectedness as a result of their Facebook use, 100%

also listed ways in which Facebook does make them feel more connected to their community.

Also, the average TSOC score of those reporting experiences of disconnectedness was 100.91,

higher than the overall average TSOC score for all participants of 97.5. Thus, it may be true that

Facebook Depression does exist, but it appears to merely be temporary and not have long-lasting

effects on the user’s relationships, use of Facebook, or sense of community.

More recently, researchers have found that Facebook users experience perceived

emotional support (lending to less overall stress) (Wright et al., 2007); users use Facebook to

maintain existing offline relationships, as opposed to initiating new relationships (Baym &

Ledbetter, 2009; Ellison et al., 2007); and that Facebook communication positively predicts

relational closeness (Ledbetter et al., 2011). Even more noteworthy is Harter’s (2011) research

that found that Facebook users do experience a sense of community through Facebook’s

elements of profile, wall posts, personal photographs and social gaming. Those findings are

consistent with Hampton et. al’s (2011) research on social networking sites that Facebook users

have more close relationships than non-Facebook users, Facebook users get more social support

than other people, those who use Facebook several times per day average 9% more close ties in

their overall social network compared with other Internet users, and that Facebook seems to

support intimacy, rather than undermine it.

This study adds to the most recent literature further confirmation that increased Facebook

use is no longer associated with isolation, loneliness or depression. The data from this study’s

38

survey confirms what the most recent literature contends, that increased Facebook use leads to an

increased SOC. This correlation between increased Facebook use and SOC is most likely

through the successful facilitation of maintaining existing relationships (Ellison et al., 2007;

Baym and Ledbetter, 2009), consistent with Walther’s SIP theory that CMC can provide for

viable relationships, and Buber’s “I-Thou” philosophy that community is created from relations

through dialog (as achieved through CMC).

39

Chapter Five: Summaries and Conclusions

Limitations of the study.

This study is limited to the self-reported data by the participants. It is possible that

participants were influenced by social desirability bias, which occurs when respondents distort

answers to make their responses conform to perceived social norms (Neuman, 2006). While the

researcher made every attempt to exclude any social influence, it is still possible that the

respondents, while taking the survey, determined a perceived norm and then chose their answers

accordingly. It is also possible that participants overstated their Facebook use, or sense of

community. This study did not measure participant’s actual Facebook use or their actual SOC,

just their self-reported use and self-reported sense of community.

A second limitation of this study is the length of the survey. This survey had a total of

361 total individuals start the survey, and 314 participants actually complete the survey. Thirteen

percent of the original participants did not complete the survey, for various reasons (not eligible,

survey fatigue, technical failure, or some other unknown reason). Had the survey been shorter,

participants may have been more inclined to complete it.

The third limitation of this study is the limited demographic profile of the participant

pool, most likely in direct relation to the researcher. Participants were solicited from the

researcher’s various social networks: graduate school classmates, undergraduate alumni,

undergraduate affiliations, colleagues and previous co-workers, and current social circle. The

researcher used Facebook, e-mail, and message boards to attract participants. Despite the

participant pool representing women from 25 of the 50 United States, the respondents were

overwhelmingly white (87%), residents of Washington state (67%), and Christian/Catholic

(80%) - the same demographics as the researcher.

40

Further studies and recommendations.

In response to the limitations of this study, further studies need to be conducted of similar

nature to eliminate social norm bias, survey fatigue, and limited participant demographic. To

avoid social norm bias, future surveys could convey less qualifying information about the

survey, and simply present the questions. The survey could also come in several versions, where

each version has the questions in a random order; this could potentially prevent participants from

noticing a theme or direction within the questions and statements. To avoid survey fatigue, future

surveys would need to be shorter in length, containing fewer questions. This could be achieved

by having two separate surveys, one for Facebook use and one for sense of community which

could be issued separately and completed at different times. This may also help prevent social

norm bias, and the participant will be less aware that the researcher is attempting to discover a

correlation between Facebook use and sense of community. To eliminate the limited participant

demographic, any future surveys need to be distributed to a wider participant pool. This may

have associated costs, yet will likely yield a more evenly represented participant pool.

Another area for future study, somewhat related to CMC and its effect on the user, is

perceived CMC and/or SNS usage versus actual usage. It is likely that survey participants both

over and under estimate their CMC and/or SNS usage, based on their own perceptions of their

use and also what they want their answers to be. It would be interesting to track what

participant’s actual usage is, versus what they report. Such results would lend credibility or

discredit to the responses reported in studies such as this one.

Conclusions.

The philosophy and theory used in this study work cohesively to suggest that Facebook is

a viable medium of communication for building and sustaining relationships, and that

41

maintaining relationships through Facebook is directly correlated to increased SOC. The

literature presented in this study supports this premise, and the data collected confirms it. The

results of this study work to support the truth about the positive correlations between Facebook

use and SOC in the face of social misconceptions about the negative effects of Facebook use.

Currently, social commentators incorrectly suggest that Facebook is making us lonely, depressed

and disconnected with others. The results of this study lend evidence and support to the idea that

while people may experience temporary Facebook Depression, the alleged condition is not

something to be feared long term.

42

References

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., and Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and internet use. Computers in

Human Behavior, 19(1), 71-80. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00014-6.

Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments

as fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Baym, N. K. & Ledbetter, A. (2009). Tunes that bind?: Predicting friendship strength in a music-

based social network. Information, Communication & Society. 12(3). 408-427. doi:

10.1080/13691180802635430.

Bellah, R. (1996). Habits of the heart: Individualism and Commitment in American life. Los

Angeles: University of California Press.

Blanchard, A.L. (2007). Testing a model of sense of virtual community. Computers in Human

Behavior, 24(2008). 2107-2123. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.002.

Blanchard, A.L., & Markus, M.L. (2004). The experienced “sense” of a virtual community:

Characteristics and processes. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1). 65-

79.

Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved from

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

Buber, M. (1937). I and thou. (R.G. Smith, Trans.). Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.

Chavis, D.M., Lee, K.S., & Acosta J.D. (2008). The Sense of Community (SCI) Revised: The

Reliability and Validity of the SCI-2. Paper presented at the 2nd International Community

Psychology Conference, Lisboa, Portugal.

43

Culnan, M.J., & Markus, M.L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, et al, Eds,

Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:" Social

capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 12(4).. Retrieved from

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

Erickson, J. & Johnson, G. (2011). Internet use and psychological wellness during late

adulthood. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30(2). 197-209.

Facebook. (2011). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

Hampton, K., Goulet, L.S., Purcell, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Social networking sites and

our lives: How people’s trust, personal relationships, and civic and political involvement

are connected to their use of social networking sites and other technologies. Retrieved

from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Technology-and-social-networks.aspx.

Harter, S. (2011). Absence of sense of community in e-learning courses: Can the

implementation of tools used by Facebook help? Retrieved from

http://www.proquest.com

Helliwell, J.F., & Putnam, R.D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical

transactions of the royal society, 359 (1449), 1435-1446.

House, B. (2011). Community: Taking your small group off life support. Illinois: Crossway.

Koh, J., & Kim, Y.G. (2004). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and

empirical validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2). 75-93.

44

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (2008).

Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological

well-being? The American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031. .

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A face(book) in the crowd: social searching vs.

social browsing. CWCW ’06: Proceedings of the 2006 20th

anniversary conference on

computer support cooperative work. New York, New York: ACM.

Ledbetter, A., Mazer, J., DeGroot, J., Meyer, K., Mao, Y., & Swafford, B. (2011). Attitudes

toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook

communication and relational closeness. Communication Research, 38(1), 27.

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickur, K. (2010). Social media and mobile internet use

among teens and young adults. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1484/social-

media-mobile-internet-use-teens-millennials-fewer-blog.

Mannarini, T., & Fedi, A. (2009). Multiple Senses of Community: The experience and meaning

of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(2). 211-227. doi:

10.1002/jcop.20289.

Markoff, J. (2007). Who Founded Facebook/ A new claim emerges. The New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html?

pagewanted=all

Maslow, A. (1995). Motivation and personality. New York, New York: Harper.

McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal

of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.

Morgan, C., & Cotton, S. (2003). The relationship between internet activities and depressive

symptoms in a sample of college freshman. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 6, 133-142.

45

National Institute of Mental Health. (2011). Depression (NIH Publication No. 11-3561).

Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/complete-

index.shtml.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

O'Keeffe, G., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents,

and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Reagan, G. (2009). The evolution of Facebook’s mission statement. New York Observer.

Retrieved from http://www.observer.com/2009/media/evolution-facebooks-mission-

statement.

Reich, S. (2010). Adolescents sense of community on Myspace and Facebook: A mixed-methods

approach. Journal of Community Philosophy (38)6, 688-705.

Rubin, R.B., Rubin, A.M., Haridakis, P.M., & Piele, L.J. (2010). Communication research:

Strategies and sources. Boston: Wadsworth.

Sanders, C., Field, M., Kaplan, M., Diego, M., & Kaplan, M. (2000). The relationship of internet

use to depression and social isolation among adolescents. Adolescence, 35(138), 237-42.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin

& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

The Nielson Company. (2010). What Americans do online: Social media and games dominate

activity: August 2010. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/

46

what-americans-do-online-social-media-and-games-dominate-activity/

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social

interaction and the internet. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

(2001). Home computers and internet use in the United States: August 2000. Retrieved

from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf.

Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A relational

perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90. doi: 10.1177/009365092019001003

Walther, J.B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: experimental

observations over time. Organizational Science, 6, 186-202.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated Communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and

hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. doi:

10.1177/009365096023001001.

Walther, J.B., & Tidwell, L.C. (1995). Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication,

and the effect of chronomics on relational communication. Journal of Organizational

Computing, (5), 362.

Wauters, R. (2010). Zuckerburg makes it official: Facebook hits 500 million members.

TechCrunch. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/21/facebook-500-million/

Wright, K. B., Craig, E. A., Cunningham, C. B. & Igiel, M. (2007). Emotional support and

perceived stress among college students using Facebook.com: An exploration of the

relationship between source perceptions and emotional support. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the NCA 93rd Annual Convention, Chicago, IL.

47

Zhang, Z. (2010). Feeling the sense of community in social networking usage. IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(2), 226-239.

48

Appendix A: The Survey

Section 1: Consent Form

Please read the following statement and acknowledge your consent to participating in this

survey before proceeding forward.

This survey is for educational purposes only. Guided by the Social Information

Processing Theory, the purpose of this survey is to collect information for a study on the

emerging role Facebook.com (Facebook) plays in computer mediated communication and how

that role may affect the Facebook user's sense of community.

Your participation is voluntary. You will be asked to self-report information about your

demographics, Facebook use, and sense of community. While you may discontinue your

participation at any time, you are hereby encouraged to finish the survey in its entirety to avoid

unfinished sets of data.

Your answers will be anonymous, unless you choose to reveal your identity at the end of

the survey. Should you choose to provide it, your contact information will not be used, sold or

shared with any parties aside from the researcher.

There are no known risks or direct benefits to you for participating in this survey. By

participating in this survey, you are agreeing to provide truthful answers, to the best of your

knowledge.

Questions can be directed to swatson2@zagmail.gonzaga.edu.This survey is 25

questions, and takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.

1. I have read the above information and understand the conditions of participating in this

survey:

I have read the information above and agree to provide truthful answers.

I do not agree to the information above.

Section 2: Qualifying Questions

Please answer the following three questions to see if you qualify to take this survey:

2. What is your gender?

Male

Female

3. What category below includes your age?

17 or young

18-35

36 or older

4. Are you a member of Facebook?

Yes

No

Section 3: Tell Us About Yourself

Please help us learn a little bit about who you are:

5. What is your exact age:

18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29

49

30 31 32 33 34 35

6. What race are you?

American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian

Black or African American From Multiple Races

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander White

Other (please specify):

7. Which of the following categories best describes your employment status?

Employed, working 1-25 hours per week Employed, working 25 or more hours per week

Not employed, looking for work Not employed, NOT looking for work

Retired Disabled, not able to work

Student Stay at home mom

Other (please specify):

8. What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have

received?

Less than high school degree High school degree or equivalent (e.g., GED)

Some college but no degree Associate's degree

Bachelor's degree Graduate degree

Doctorate degree

9. In what state or U.S. territory do you live: _____________________________________

10. What is your religious affiliation?

Agnostic/Atheist Buddhist Catholic Christian Jewish Muslim

Other (please specify):

11. What is your current marital status?

Single Engaged Married Divorced Re-married Widowed

Section 4: Tell Us About Your Facebook Use

Help us understand a little bit more about how and why you use Facebook:

12. How long ago did you become a Facebook member?

Less than 6 months ago 6 months – 1 year ago 1-2 years ago

2-3 years ago 3-5 years ago More than 5 years ago

13. Approximately how many people are you “friends” with on Facebook?

1-100 101-300 301-400

401-500 501-600 600+

14. Of which of the following categories do you have Facebook friends:

Family Current or past co-workers Current or past classmates or schoolmates

50

Members of a group you belong to outside of work or school (church, sports club, volunteer

group, etc.)

People you’ve never met in person Other’s not listed in the above categories

15. On average, how often do you:

More than

once a day

Once a day 2-5 times

per week

Every few

weeks

Every few

months

Never

Log on to

Facebook

Update your

status

Update your

profile

picture

Post photos

Use the chat

function to

initiate

conversation

with others

Send private

messages

Use the

event

feature

Post links to

articles or

websites

16. On average, how often do you:

More than

once a day

Once a day 2-5 times

per week

Every few

weeks

Every few

months

Never

Post details

about your day

through status

updates,

photos and/or

check-ins?

Click “like” or

comment on

other friend’s

activity (status

updates,

posted links,

or photo

updates)

51

Write on

friends’

walls/timelines

Use Facebook

to get news or

information

about current

events

(including

within your

social circle)

17. On average, how often do your Facebook friends:

More than

once a day

Once a day 2-5 times

per week

Every few

weeks

Every few

months

Never

Write on

your

wall/timeline

Acknowledge

your activity

by clicking

“like” or

leaving a

comment

Send you

private

messages

Initiate

conversation

with you via

the chat

function

Invite you to

events using

the event

function

Section 5: Tell Us About Your Community

Help us learn a little bit about the community you belong to. In this survey, "community" refers

to those whom you share and experience life with. This can include family, co-workers and

friends. In this survey, "community" does not necessarily refer to your geographical community.

18. Mark the following groups of people that constitute your primary community:

Neighbors, housemates, or housing association groups Co-workers

Sports teammates (school, club, or group included) Family

52

Community class or group members (for example: art class, parenting group, volunteer group)

People from your place of worship and/or faith-based group

School-related (teachers, students, and/or college roommates/housemates)

People from other groups, clubs, or type of organization not listed

19. Pick a community from above that you feel the most connected to (if the word "community"

is confusing, substitute it for the word "group" below). Use that community (or "group") to

assess the accuracy of the following statements:

Completely true Mostly true Somewhat true Not true at all

I get important

needs of mine met

because I am part

of this community.

Community

members and I

value the same

things.

This community

has been successful

in getting the needs

of its members met.

Being a member of

this community

makes me feel

good.

When I have a

problem, I can talk

about it with

members of this

community.

People in this

community have

similar needs,

priorities, and

goals.

20. Continue to use the same community (or "group") to assess the accuracy of the following

statements:

Completely true Mostly true Somewhat true Not true at all

I can trust people in

this community.

I can recognize

most of the

members of this

community.

Most community

53

members know me.

The community has

symbols and

expressions or

memberships such

as clothes, signs,

art, architecture,

logos, landmarks,

and flags that

people can

recognize.

I put a lot of time

and effort into

being a part of this

community.

Being a member of

this community is a

part of my identity.

Fitting into this

community is

important to me.

This community

can influence other

communities.

I care about what

other community

members think of

me.

21. Continue to use the same community (or "group") to assess the accuracy of the following

statements:

Completely true Mostly true Somewhat true Not true at all

I have influence

over what this

community is like.

If there is a

problem in this

community,

members can get it

solved.

This community

has good leaders.

It is very important

to me to be a part of

this community.

I am with other

54

community

members a lot and

enjoy being with

them.

I expect to be a part

of this community

for a long time.

Members of this

community have

shared important

events together,

such as holidays,

celebrations, or

disasters.

I feel hopeful about

this future of this

community.

Members of this

community care

about each other.

22. Using the same community from above, indicate the accuracy of the following two

statements:

Completely true Mostly true Somewhat true Not true at all

I communicate with

members of this

community using

Facebook.

I am friends with

members of this

community on

Facebook.

Section 6: Final Questions

Just a few last questions about Facebook and your community:

23. Please indicate the accuracy of the following statements:

“The more time I spend on Facebook…

Completely true Mostly true Somewhat true Not true at all

…the more isolated

I feel from others.”

…the lonelier I

feel.”

…the more

connected I feel to

others.”

55

…the more

involved I feel in

other’s lives.”

Section 7: In Your Opinion

If you so desire, please share your opinion with us:

24. In what ways, if any, does using Facebook make you feel more connected to you

community?

25. In what ways, if any, does using Facebook make you feel less connected to your community?

26. Is there anything else you would like to share with the researcher regarding your Facebook

use or sense of community?

Section 8: Who Are You? (optional)

This survey is anonymous, unless you choose to provide the researcher with your name and e-

mail address. Provision of this information would be for the researcher's use only, in the event

the researcher would like to contact you for further information. Your information will not be

shared with any outside parties.

27. Your contact information:

Name:

E-mail address:

56

Appendix B: Detailed Results2

Chart B.1: Race

Question 6 # of respondents Average TFBU Score Average TSOC

American Indian 1 78 89

Asian 9 79.11 97.33

Black 2 51.5 93.5

Multi-race 7 78.29 102.79

Other 2 62.5 92.25

White 141 69.7 97.86

Chart B.2: Employment

Question 7 # of respondents Average TFBU Score Average TSOC

Part-time + student 9 75.33 106.39

Part-time + stay at home mom 2 79.5 108.75

Part-time 11 73.63 99.82

Full-time + student 7 73.86 98.79

Full-time 88 67.33 96.31

Unemployed, looking for work 9 69.22 88.61

Unemployed, not looking 1 85 99

Disabled 1 93 94.5

Student only 26 76.62 98.42

Stay at home only 14 68.79 95.21

Chart B.3: Education

Question 8 # of respondents Average TFBU Score Average TSOC

AA 8 68.87 100.94

BA 80 68.35 94.56

Doctorate 3 75.6 101.83

Grad 29 67.97 99.1

HS or equivalent 8 79.87 101.56

< HS 29 65.8 86.8

Some college 5 76.16 105.38

Chart B.4: Location

Question 9 # of respondents Average TFBU Score Average TSOC

Alaska 2 72 95.25

Arizona 1 68 109.5

Cali 12 69.25 94.38

Colorado 5 70.2 103.4

2 These results pertain to the 162 participants whose data was used in this study.

57

Florida 1 70 86.5

Hawaii 1 56 67.5

Idaho 2 63 97.5

Indiana 1 70 113.5

Iowa 1 64 83

Louisiana 1 62 74

Missouri 1 60 112

Nebraska 1 57 96

Nevada 1 63 111.5

New Jersey 1 82 114.5

New York 2 61 104

North Carolina 3 79.67 86

Oklahoma 1 60 108

Oregon 5 74.4 98.3

Pennsylvania 1 71 118

South Carolina 1 73 113

Tennessee 1 59 82.5

Texas 5 63.6 91.4

Utah 1 54 46.5

Virginia 3 60.5 94.5

Wash 108 71.64 98.94

Chart B.5: Religion

Question 10 # of respondents Average TFBU Score Average TSOC

Agnostic 19 68.9 93.82

Catholic 17 69.41 94.32

Christian 111 69.76 98.66

Jewish 4 84 104.88

Muslim 2 85.5 109.75

Other 9 72.66 97.56

Chart B.6: Marital Status

Question 11 # of respondents Average TFBU Score Average TSOC

Divorced 2 67.5 99

Engaged 10 62.1 96.95

Married 59 66.29 109.5

Re-married 0 0 0

Single 90 73.31 98.78

Widowed 1 93 94.5

Chart B.7: Section Four (Facebook Use)

Pts. Question 12

58

1 Less than 6 months ago 1

2 6 Months - 1 Year Ago 2

3 1 - 2 Years Ago 15

4 2-3 Years Ago 19

5 3-5 Years Ago 68

6 More Than 5 Years ago 57

Pts. Question 13

1 1-100 5

2 101-300 44

3 301-400 31

4 401-500 19

5 501-600 12

6 600 plus 51

Pts. Question 14 (Quantitative)

1 One Group 3

2 Two Groups 3

3 Three Groups 30

4 Four Groups 85

5 Five Groups 35

6 Six Groups 6

Pts. Question 15

Log on to Facebook

1 Never 1

2 Every few months 1

3 Every few weeks 4

4 2-5 times per week 10

5 Once a day 23

6 More than once a day 123

Update your status

1 Never 4

2 Every few months 28

3 Every few weeks 61

4 2-5 times per week 53

5 Once a day 12

6 More than once a day 4

Update your profile picture

1 Never 10

2 Every few months 115

59

3 Every few weeks 35

4 2-5 times per week 2

5 Once a day 0

6 More than once a day 0

Post photos

1 Never 9

2 Every few months 64

3 Every few weeks 62

4 2-5 times per week 25

5 Once a day 2

6 More than once a day 0

Use the chat function to initiate conversations with others

1 Never 60

2 Every few months 35

3 Every few weeks 29

4 2-5 times per week 23

5 Once a day 6

6 More than once a day 9

Send private messages

1 Never 2

2 Every few months 33

3 Every few weeks 77

4 2-5 times per week 40

5 Once a day 8

6 More than once a day 2

Use the event feature

1 Never 62

2 Every few months 53

3 Every few weeks 32

4 2-5 times per week 14

5 Once a day 0

6 More than once a day 1

Post links to articles or websites

1 Never 38

2 Every few months 39

3 Every few weeks 43

4 2-5 times per week 26

5 Once a day 11

6 More than once a day 5

Post details about your day through status updates, photos and/or

check-ins?

60

1 Never 23

2 Every few months 32

3 Every few weeks 40

4 2-5 times per week 51

5 Once a day 9

6 More than once a day 7

Click "like" or comment on other friends' activity (status updates,

posted links, or photo updates)

1 Never 1

2 Every few months 4

3 Every few weeks 14

4 2-5 times per week 41

5 Once a day 40

6 More than once a day 62

Write on friends' walls/timeline

1 Never 3

2 Every few months 11

3 Every few weeks 46

4 2-5 times per week 62

5 Once a day 21

6 More than once a day 19

Use Facebook to get news or information about current events

(including within your social circle)

1 Never 10

2 Every few months 8

3 Every few weeks 21

4 2-5 times per week 39

5 Once a day 40

6 More than once a day 44

Write on your wall/timeline

1 Never 3

2 Every few months 11

3 Every few weeks 60

4 2-5 times per week 61

5 Once a day 17

6 More than once a day 10

Acknowledge your activity by clicking "like" or leaving a comment

1 Never 1

2 Every few months 7

3 Every few weeks 35

4 2-5 times per week 58

5 Once a day 33

61

6 More than once a day 28

Send you private messages

1 Never 1

2 Every few months 22

3 Every few weeks 72

4 2-5 times per week 52

5 Once a day 11

6 More than once a day 4

Initiate conversation with you via the chat function

1 Never 52

2 Every few months 31

3 Every few weeks 28

4 2-5 times per week 32

5 Once a day 10

6 More than once a day 9

Invite you to events using the event function

1 Never 6

2 Every few months 25

3 Every few weeks 63

4 2-5 times per week 56

5 Once a day 11

6 More than once a day 1

Chart B.8: Section Five and Six (Sense of Community)

Pts. Question 18 (Quantitative)

0.5 One Group 13

1 Two Groups 40

1.5 Three Groups 46

2 Four Groups 32

2.5 Five Groups 17

3 Six Groups 8

3.5 Seven Groups 2

4 Eight Groups 4

Pts. Question 19

I get important needs of mine met because I am part of this

community.

1 Not true at all 3

2 Somewhat true 26

3 Mostly true 61

4 Completely true 72

Community members and I value the same things.

62

1 Not true at all 2

2 Somewhat true 22

3 Mostly true 81

4 Completely true 57

This community has been successful in getting the needs of its

members met.

1 Not true at all 3

2 Somewhat true 30

3 Mostly true 82

4 Completely true 47

Being a member of this community makes me feel good.

1 Not true at all 1

2 Somewhat true 16

3 Mostly true 55

4 Completely true 90

When I have a problem, I can talk about it with members of this

community.

1 Not true at all 2

2 Somewhat true 28

3 Mostly true 53

4 Completely true 79

People in this community have similar needs, priorities and

goals.

1 Not true at all 2

2 Somewhat true 29

3 Mostly true 69

4 Completely true 62

I can’t trust people in this community.

1 Not true at all 0

2 Somewhat true 16

3 Mostly true 73

4 Completely true 73

I can recognize most of the members of this community.

1 Not true at all 1

2 Somewhat true 10

3 Mostly true 41

4 Completely true 110

Most community members know me.

1 Not true at all 1

2 Somewhat true 13

3 Mostly true 43

4 Completely true 105

63

This community has symbols and expressions of membership

such as clothes, signs, art, architecture, logos, landmarks, and

flags that people can recognize.

1 Not true at all 46

2 Somewhat true 48

3 Mostly true 30

4 Completely true 38

I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this community.

1 Not true at all 5

2 Somewhat true 31

3 Mostly true 57

4 Completely true 69

Being a member of this community is a part of my identity.

1 Not true at all 11

2 Somewhat true 31

3 Mostly true 50

4 Completely true 70

Fitting into this community is important to me.

1 Not true at all 5

2 Somewhat true 38

3 Mostly true 63

4 Completely true 56

This community can influence other communities.

1 Not true at all 8

2 Somewhat true 43

3 Mostly true 49

4 Completely true 62

I care about what other community members think of me.

1 Not true at all 5

2 Somewhat true 31

3 Mostly true 77

4 Completely true 49

I have influence over what this community is like.

1 Not true at all 9

2 Somewhat true 63

3 Mostly true 57

4 Completely true 33

If there is a problem in this community, members can get it

solved.

1 Not true at all 1

2 Somewhat true 33

3 Mostly true 75

64

4 Completely true 53

This community has good leaders.

1 Not true at all 4

2 Somewhat true 29

3 Mostly true 62

4 Completely true 67

It is very important to me to be a part of this community.

1 Not true at all 4

2 Somewhat true 22

3 Mostly true 52

4 Completely true 84

I am with other community members a lot and enjoy being with

them.

1 Not true at all 6

2 Somewhat true 27

3 Mostly true 60

4 Completely true 69

I expect to be a part of this community for a long time.

1 Not true at all 5

2 Somewhat true 23

3 Mostly true 41

4 Completely true 93

Members of this community have shared important events

together, such as holidays, celebrations, or disasters.

1 Not true at all 2

2 Somewhat true 19

3 Mostly true 44

4 Completely true 97

I feel hopeful about the future of this community.

1 Not true at all 2

2 Somewhat true 14

3 Mostly true 53

4 Completely true 93

Members of this community care about each other.

1 Not true at all 1

2 Somewhat true 12

3 Mostly true 51

4 Completely true 98

I communicate with members of this community using

Facebook.

1 Not true at all 3

2 Somewhat true 36

65

3 Mostly true 44

4 Completely true 79

I am friends with members of this community on Facebook.

1 Not true at all 1

2 Somewhat true 16

3 Mostly true 38

4 Completely true 107

…the more isolated I feel from others."

4 Not true at all 107

3 Mostly true 43

2 Somewhat true 11

1 Completely true 1

…the lonelier I feel."

4 Not true at all 123

3 Mostly true 28

2 Somewhat true 8

1 Completely true 3

…the more connected I feel to others."

1 Not true at all 11

2 Somewhat true 65

3 Mostly true 61

4 Completely true 25

…the more involved I feel in other’s lives."

1 Not true at all 15

2 Somewhat true 71

3 Mostly true 51

4 Completely true 25

66

Appendix C: Mentor Agreement Form