newer sociability media perspectives
Post on 17-Jul-2016
10 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter12TowardaNew(er)Sociability:Uses,Gratifications,andSocialCapitalonFacebook
ZiziPapacharissiandAndrewMendelson
Emergingconvergentplatformsofsocialityonlinegeneratepublicinterestandinvitea
reconsiderationoftraditionaltheoreticalparadigmsofmediaresearch.Socialnetwork
sites,specifically,affordavarietyofsocialbehaviorsthatsimultaneouslyexpandand
challengeourconventionalunderstandingofsociability,audienceactivity,passivity,and
involvement.OnlineplatformssuchasFacebook,MySpace,LinkedIn,orCyWorldand
othersprovideindividualswiththeopportunitytopresentthemselvesandtoconnectwith
existingandnewsocialnetworks.Thesenetworkedplatformsofsociallyorientedactivity
permitanintroductionoftheselfviapublicdisplaysofconnection(boydandEllison,2007;
Donathandboyd,2004;Papacharissi,2002a&b;2009).Indoingso,theypromote
multimediatedidentity‐drivenperformancesthatarecraftedaroundtheelectronic
mediationofsocialcirclesandstatus.Inaddition,theyprovideflexibleandpersonalizable
modesofsociability,whichallowindividualstosustainstrongandweaktiesthrougha
varietyofonlinetoolsandstrategies(Ellison,Lampe,SteinfieldandVitak,2010).These
customizedexpressionsofonlinesociabilityallowuserstopursuesocialbehaviorsthrough
variablelevelsofinvolvement,activity,andmulti‐tasking(HargittaiandHsieh,2010;
Papacharissi,2010).
Individualsengagetheconnectiveaffordancesofsocialnetworksites(SNSs)soasto
combineofflineandonlinecommunicationstrategiesforinteraction.Thesestrategies
employconvergedmediabutalsoconvergesocial,culturalandpoliticalpracticesand
spheres(e.g.,Waltheretal.,2010).Conductingresearchinaconvergedmediaenvironment
requiresthatresearchersdeveloptheoriesandanalyticaltoolsthatexamineuses,effects,
activity,involvement,andcontentacrossmedia.Thesetoolsmustalsorecognizethatina
convergedenvironment,mediauseallowsaudiencestoserveasbothconsumersand
producersofmedia,frequentlyatthesametime.Theresultingconfluenceofemerging
behaviorsescapestheanalyticallensoftheoreticalapproachesthatassociateuses,user
profileswithparticularmediaandgenresofactivity.Thischapterproposesatheoretical
modelthatcombineselementsoftheUsesandGratificationsandtheSocialNetworks
approachessoastoexplicatepatternsofmediause,activity,andsociabilityemergingpost
convergence.
UsesandGratifications
Usesandgratifications(U&G)isapsychologicalcommunicationperspectivethatexamines
howindividualsusemassmedia,ontheassumptionthatindividualsselectmediaand
contenttofulfillfeltneedsorwants.ContemporaryU&Gresearchisgroundedinthe
followingfiveassumptions:(a)"communicationbehavior,includingmediaselectionand
use,isgoal‐directed,purposive,andmotivated";(b)"peopletaketheinitiativeinselecting
andusingcommunicationvehiclestosatisfyfeltneedsordesires";(c)"ahostofsocialand
psychologicalfactorsmediatepeople'scommunicationbehavior";(d)"mediacompetewith
otherformsofcommunication(i.e.,functionalalternatives)forselection,attention,anduse
togratifyourneedsorwants";and(e)"peoplearetypicallymoreinfluentialthanthemedia
intherelationship,butnotalways"(A.Rubin,1994,p.420).U&Ghasbeenemployedto
understandvariousmediausesandconsequences,coveringforinstancesoapoperas(e.g.,
Alexander,1985;Perse,1986;A.Rubin,1985),newsprograms(e.g.,Palmgreen,Wenner
andRayburn,1980;A.Rubin,1981),usingtheVCR(e.g.,Levy,1987;A.RubinandBantz,
1989),listeningtotalkradio(e.g.,Turow,1974),watchingcableTV(e.g.,Becker,
DunwoodyandRafaell,1983),channelsurfing(e.g.,Ferguson,1992),magazinereading
(Payne,SevernandDozier,1988;Towers,1987a),tabloidreading(SalwenandAnderson,
1984),theInternet(e.g.,PapacharissiandRubin,2000),realityTV(e.g.,Papacharissiand
Mendelson,2007)andreligioustelevision(Pettersson,1986).
Specificallyrelatedtotechnologicalconvergence,U&Ghasbeenusedtounderstand
howindividualsemploytheInternettomeetdifferentgoals,basedontheirsocio‐
psychologicaldisposition(e.g.,Rubin,1994).Scholarshaveexaminedconnectionsbetween
onlinenewsandcivicengagement,publicopinionorpoliticalbehavior(e.g.,Hardyand
Scheufele,2005;KayeandJohnson,2002)orhowindividualsselectorcombineonlineand
offlinenewssources(e.g.Dimmick,ChenandLi,2004;DeWaal,SchoenbachandLauf,
2006).ResearchhasidentifiedmotivesforusingtheInternet,linkingthemtodistinct
socio‐psychologicalcharacteristicsandtypesofInternetuse(PerseandFerguson,2000;
PapacharissiandRubin,2000;Papacharissi,2002aandb,2007).Consensussuggeststhat
onlinemediaserveasfunctionalalternativestointerpersonalandmediated
communication,providingoptionsorcomplementsforaspectsofanindividual’s
environmentthatarenotasfulfilling.Alignedwithtimeandothermediumdisplacement
effectsthatotherstudiesonthesociabilityofnewmediahaveidentified(e.g.,Krautetal.,
1998;2002),thesestudieshelpexplicatetheplaceofnet‐basedtechnologieswithinthe
individualsmediaecology.Tothisend,U&Ghasbeenusefulinconnectingspecific
attributestocertainusesoftheInternet,anddistinguishingbetweenusesthataremore
goal‐orientedorinstrumentalversusothersthatareofahabitualorritualisticnature.The
perspectivehasalonghistoryofbeingcombinedwithotherperspectives,andmore
recently,ithasbeenintegratedwiththeexpectancyvalueapproachtounderstandonline
mediaadoptionbehaviors(Lo,Li,ShihandYang,2005),andwithdiffusionofinnovations
toanalyzeindividualdifferencesingamingadoption(Chang,LeeandKim,2006).
However,U&Ghasnotyetidentified,instudiesofthesociabilityofnewmedia,a
particularsocialoutcomethatwouldbetheresultofmotives,socio‐psychopredispositions
andusesworkingtogether.Infact,lackofconceptualclarityontheconceptofgratifications
hasbeenrepeatedlyraisedasatheoreticallimitationoftheperspective(Lometti,Reeves
andBybee,1977;Swanson,1977).Theperspectivehasbeencritiquedasbeingtoo
individualisticandunderemphasizingthevalueofinteraction(McQuail,1979).Thesocial
networkapproach,ontheotherhand,isstructuredaroundtheconceptofnetworked
interaction.Itfocusesontheoutcomeoftheinteraction,thatis,thenetworkandthesocial
capitalgeneratedbythenetwork.Still,whilethesocialnetworksapproachisrichinits
examinationofstructuralfeaturesofnetworks,itisbydefinitionnotconcernedwiththe
socio‐psychologicalprofileoftheindividual.Thispresentsapossibleareaforconceptual
integrationbetweenthetwoapproaches,soastopresentaframeworkthatexamines
individualorientationstowardsocialnetworkuseonline.
OnlineSocialNetworksandSocialNetworkSites
Researchononlinesocialnetworksexaminestheformationandmaintenanceofonline
networksthatsupportexistingandnewsocialties(WassermanandFaust,1994;Wellman
andBerkowitz,1997).Theunitofanalysisistheinteractionorrelationbetweenpeople,
measuredintermsoftiesheldbyindividualsmaintainingarelation,thetypesof
exchanges,frequencyofcontact,strengthofties,intimacy,qualitativeelementsofrelations,
sizeofnetworks,globalorlocalspanofnetworksandnumerousothervariables
(Haythornthwaite,2000,2005;Haythornthwaite,WellmanandMantei,1995;
HaythornthwaiteandWellman,1998).
Earlieronlinesocialnetworkresearchexaminedcommunicationandmediumuse
(e‐mail,phone,faxandvideoconferencing)inaworknetworkofco‐locatedresearchers,to
findthatpairsofindividualspossessingstrongertiestendedtocommunicatemore
frequently,maintainagreaternumberofrelationsandcommunicatemorefrequently
(Haythornthwaite,WellmanandMantei,1995;HaythornthwaiteandWellman,1998).This
findinghasre‐surfacedinavarietyofnetworksandcontext,includingdistancelearning
(e.g.,Haythornthwaite,2000),organizationalcontexts(e.g.,Garton,Haythornthwaiteand
Wellman,1997),andsocialsupportnetworks(e.g.,Hlebec,ManfredaandVehovar,2006)
allowingresearcherstofinetunetheconceptsofsocialnetworkrelation(typeofexchange
orinteraction,characterizedbycontent,directionandstrength),tie(pairswhomaintain
oneormoretypesofrelations,developingstrong,weakorlatentties),networkaswebof
person‐to‐personconnectivity(distinguishingbetweenego‐centeredorwholenetwork
analysis,whichmayexaminerange,centralityorroles),andmediamultiplexity(the
tendencyofmorestronglytiedpairstomakeuseofmoreavailablemedia).Studies
focusingonNetville,awiredsuburbofToronto,revealedthatonlineinteractionfrequently
supplementedorservedasanalternativetoface‐to‐faceinteraction,inwaysthathad
positiveeffectsonsocialcapital(e.g.,HamptonandWellman,2000;Hampton,2002).
Socialnetworksitesrepresentanaturalextensionofthiswork,astheyconnect
networksofindividualsthatmayormaynotshareaplacebasedconnection.Social
networksitesaredefinedas“web‐basedservicesthatallowindividualsto(1)constructa
publicorsemi‐publicprofilewithinaboundedsystem,(2)articulatealistofotherusers
withwhomtheyshareaconnection,and(3)viewandtraversetheirlistofconnectionsand
thosemadebyotherswithinthesystem”(boydandEllison,2007).Theyhostsocial
networksthatarearticulatedonline,andassuch,theypresentoneiterationoraspectof
socialnetworkresearch.OnmostSNSs,usersarenotlookingtomeetnewpeopleorto
network,butrathertosustaincontactwiththeirexistinggroupoffriendsand
acquaintances(boydandEllison,2007).Indoingso,presentingaprofileanddisplaying
connectionswithotherspubliclyformsthebasisforinteractiononSNSs(boydandEllison,
2007;boydandHeer,2006;Donath,2007;Donathandboyd,2004).SNSssupportvarying
typesofinteractionondiverseanddifferingplatforms,andSNSslikeFriendster,MySpace
andFacebookhavehadasignificantinfluenceontheorientationofmostotherSNSs(fora
timelineofSNSs,seeboydandEllison,2007).
SocialNetworkSitesasSocialArchitectures
ResearchonSNSsgeneratesinterdisciplinaryinterestandevidenceofevolvingsocial
behaviorsonline.Selfpresentationonlineandimpressionmanagementpresentsacommon
startingpointformostresearchers.boydandHeer(2006)studieduserprofilesonSNSsas
conversationalpieces,andfoundthatFriendsterusersdisplayfriendstosuggestor“signal”
aspectsoftheiridentitytopotentialaudiences.Inthiscontext,‘publicdisplaysof
connection’presentthecenterofidentityperformance,andaretypicallyviewedas“a
signalofthereliabilityofone’sidentityclaims”(Donathandboyd,2004:73).
SeveralresearchersemploythearchitectureoftheSNSasstartingpoint,todiscuss
andinvestigateavarietyofrelatedtopics.Stutzman(2006)trackedthetypesofpersonal
informationmostlikelytobedisclosedonSNSs,pointingoutthatlexicalorarchitectural
differencesamongtheseSNSs(Friendster,MySpace,andFacebook)contributedto
tendenciesorvariationsinpersonalinformationdisclosure.GrossandAcquisti(2005)
furtherexaminedhowindividualsdiscloseinformationandprotectprivacyonFacebook,
findingthatmostuserssharepersonalinformationopenlyandfewmodifytheirdefault
privacysettingsforincreasedprotection.FormembersofaYouTubecommunity,‘publicly
private’(privatebehaviors,exhibitedwiththemember’strueidentity)and‘privately
public’(sharingpubliclyaccessiblevideowithoutdisclosingmember’strueidentity)
behaviorsweredevelopedwithinthearchitecturalconfinesofthesystemtosignal
differentdepthsofrelationshipsandtocommunicateempathy,respectorinclusionamong
membersofthenetwork(Lange,2007).OnMySpaceandFriendster,displaysofinterests
werecarefullyselectedandarrangedsoastocommunicateaffiliationwithaparticular
tastecultureorfabric(Liu,MaesandDavenport,2006;Liu,2007).Thesetrendsare
reflectiveofbehaviorsthatareneedoriented,andaredevelopedaroundthecustomization
ofsocialattributesoftechnologies,effectedforthecommunicationofsocialinformation.
Theysuggestaconfluenceofusermotives,mediaattributes,andsocialtiesoroutcomes
thathavebeenpreviouslyexaminedinmediaresearchwithintheapproachesofusesand
gratifications,socialnetworks,andthroughadiscussionofmediaattributesoraffordances
ofparticularmediagenresorplatforms.
Inthesenetworksthatareparticularlyego‐centered,individualsatthecenterof
theirownnetworkstakechargeandadaptnetworknormstofitpersonal,culturaland
socialcontext(boyd,2006a).Moreover,SNSusersfrequentlyinterpretcuesdepositedin
memberprofiles,suchasmessageonFacebook‘walls’orpicturesofmemberfriendsto
makeinferencesaboutthemember’scharacter(Walther,VanDerHeide,Kim,Westerman
andTong,2008).Inacontextthatismarkedlynon‐western,suchasCyworld,architectural
SNSfeaturesareadaptedtomatchtheculturalnormsoftheusersandthehigh‐context
relationaldialecticsofKoreans(KimandYun,2007).Theseempiricaldatafurther
documentreappropriationsoftechnologythatcatertothefulfillmentofparticularneeds
associatedwiththesustenanceofsocialtieswithavarietyofcirclesornetworks.
Finally,severalstudiesdeveloparoundFacebook,themostpopularofsocial
networksatpresent.Inparticular,studiesofFacebookfindthatusersemploythenetwork
tolearnmoreaboutindividualstheymeetoffline,thusfurtherdocumentingtheconnection
betweenonlineandofflinebehaviorsandtendencies(Lampe,EllisonandSteinfield,2006).
Furtherstudiesrevealastrongassociationbetweenbridgingsocialcapital,whichexpands
socialopportunitiesandenhancesinformationsharingamongprimarilyweakties,and
individualsreportinglowsatisfactionandlowself‐esteem(Ellison,SteinfieldandLampe,
2007).Thesefindingsunderlineconnectionsbetweenuserorientationsandsubsequent
generationofsocialcapital,whichmapoutacredibleintersectionforU&Gandthesocial
networksapproach.
Rationale
TheproposedstudyisbasedonatheoreticalframeworkthatcombinesU&Gwith
thesocialnetworkapproachtostudyhowmotivesandsocial‐psychologicaltraitsaffect
Facebookuse,socialnetworkstructuralfactors(sizeofnetwork,density,typesofties)and
socialcapitalgenerated.ThestudycombinesconceptsidentifiedandmeasuredbyU&Gand
socialnetworkresearchers,withaparticularfocusonsocialandpsychological
predispositions,motives,socialties,andsocialcapital.Thefollowingparagraphsdetailthe
variablesstudiedwithinthistheoreticalframework,andhowtogethertheyformthe
conceptualstructurefortheintegrationofthetwoperspectives.Thestudyfocusesonthe
followingresearchquestions:
RQ1: WhataresalientmotivesforFacebookuse?
RQ2: Howdomotivesandsocialandpsychologicalantecedentsinteractwithsocial
capitalgeneratedonFacebook?
Method
Sample
Atotalof344studentsenrolledinintroductorycommunicationclasseswithinanurban
universityweresurveyedabouttheiruseofFacebook.Participationinthestudywas
voluntary,andparticipantsreceivedextracreditinthecourses.Theinitialsamplewasthen
snowballed,throughparticipantsaskingtheirFacebookfriendstocompletethesurvey.An
onlinesurvey,administeredthroughZoomerang.com,wascreatedinordertoexamine
individual’suses,motivationsandeffectsofFacebook.Thesamplebreakdownwas64.3%
female(n=221)and35.7%male(n=123);85%ofsamplewerecurrentundergraduates
incollege.Ofthose36.8%werefreshman;25.1%weresophomores;26.4werejuniors;
and,11.7%wereseniors.Themajorityofparticipantswerebetweentheageof18and25
(88.4%).73.7%ofthesamplewasWhite,14.5%AfricanAmerican,7.4%AsianAmerican,
3.6%Hispanic,and4.1%ofmultiethnicorigin.
FacebookUse
PatternsofFacebookuse.ParticipantsweresurveyedabouttheirgeneralInternet
andFacebookUse.Overall,participantsspentanaverageof74minutesonline(SD=77.53)
perweek.Morespecifically,83.7%oftheparticipantsreportedcheckingtheirFacebook
pagedaily.Infact,participantsreportedcheckingtheirFacebookpagesanaveragealmost
6timesperday(m=5.78;SD=5.831)andspendinganaverageofalmost36minutesper
dayonFacebook(m=35.83;SD=127.427).Wewantedtogetasenseofwhatparticipants
didwhentheyloggedontoFacebook.Aseriesofquestionsexaminedanumberofactivities
(ona1to5scale;1=everytimeIlogon;5=never).Participantsmostoftensentmessages
(M=2.54;SD=.901;median2.00)andwroteonfriends’walls(M=2.17;SD=.907;median
=2.00).Lessfrequentlyparticipantspostednewphotographs(M=3.04;SD=.963;median
=3.00),searchedforadditionalfriends(M=3.16;SD=.992;median=3.00),andtagged
alreadypostedphotos(M=3.16;SD=1.022;median=3.00).Theyseldomupdatedtheir
ownprofile(M=3.60;SD=.885;median=4.00),playedgames(M=4.37;SD=.984;
median=5.00),tookquizzes(M=4.26;SD=.919;median=5.00),incorporatednew
addons(M=3.97;SD=.823;median=4.00)andusedaddonstheyalreadyhad(M=3.97;
SD=1.075;median=4.00).
91.3%oftheparticipantsreportedhaving51ormorefriends.Sixtypercentofthe
participantsreportedhaving51ormorephotospostedontheirpage.55.8%reported
havingbetweenoneandfiveaddonsontheirpage,andanother30.7%reportedhaving
between6and15addons.Finally,20%oftheparticipantsbelongedtobetweenoneand
fiveFacebookgroups,another37.9%belongedtobetweensixand15groups,and25.6%
morebelongedtobetween16and30.Only37.8%oftheparticipantsreportedstartinga
Facebookgroup.
Motives
Wecombinedinterpersonal(inclusion/companionship),media(entertainment,habit,
information,socialinteraction,escape,passtime,andrelaxation),newermedia(coolness
factor/noveltyoftechnology,self‐expression),andprofessionaladvancementmotivesto
construct11apriorimotivecategoriesofpossibleFacebookmotives:passtime,relaxation,
entertainment,informationsharing,professionaladvancement,companionship,social
interaction,coolandnewtechnology,selfexpression,habit,escape).Threeitemswereused
torepresenteachoftheseaprioricategories,andweadaptedthestatementsfrom
previousresearchtoFacebook(Papacharissi&Rubin,2000;Pornsakulvanich,Haridakis&
Rubin,2008).Respondentswereaskedtoindicatehowmuchthesereasonswereliketheir
ownreasonsforusingFacebookona5‐pointLikertscale(5=exactly,1=notatall).We
usedprincipalcomponentsanalysiswithVarimaxrotationtoextractandinterpretpossible
Facebookmotivefactors.Werequiredaneigenvalueof1.0orgreatertoretainafactor,
whichalsohadtocontainatleastthreeitemsmeetinga60/40loadingcriteria.Responses
totheretaineditemsweresummedandaveragedtoformthescalesrepresentingeach
factor.Theanalysisaccountedfor69%ofthevariance,andtheresultsaresummarizedin
responsetoRQ1below.
SocialandPsychologicalAntecedents
Contextualage.Contextualageisaconstructthatwasdevelopedtoaccountforthe
inaccuraciesresultingfromonlyusingchronologicalageincommunicationresearchand
wasdevelopedas"atransactional,life‐positionindexofaging"(A.Rubin&Rubin,1986).
Dependingoncontextualage,peoplemayalsousemediatedchannelsasfunctional
alternatives(overinterpersonalones)forthefulfillmentofinterpersonalneeds(A.Rubin&
Rubin,1982,1986;R.Rubin&Rubin,1982).A.RubinandRubin's(1982)ContextualAge
Scalewasusedtoassesslifeposition,consistingofthefollowingdimensions:physical
health,interpersonalinteraction,mobility,lifesatisfaction,socialactivity,andeconomic
security.Thephysicalhealthandeconomicsecuritydimensionswerenotincludeddueto
lowexpectationofsignificantvariationwithinthepopulationunderstudy.Eachremaining
dimension—lifesatisfaction,mobility,socialactivity,andinterpersonalinteraction—
containedfiveitems(A.Rubin&Rubin,1982;R.Rubin&Rubin,1982).Respondentsstated
theirlevelsofagreementwiththesestatementsona5‐pointLikert‐typescale(5=strongly
agree,1=stronglydisagree).Responsestotheitemsofeachsubscaleweresummedand
averaged.Themeanscoresfortheseparatedimensionswere:lifesatisfaction(M=3.32,SD
=.75,α=.68);mobility(M=3.68,SD=0.87,α=.62);socialactivity(M=3.67,SD=0.70,α
=.67);andinterpersonalinteraction(M=3.75,SD=0.66,α=.45).
Unwillingnesstocommunicate.Burgoon(1976)conceptualizedunwillingnessto
communicateas“achronictendencytoavoidand/ordevalueoralcommunication”(p.60).
Theconstructhasbeenlinkedtoanomiaandalienation,introversion,self‐esteem,
communicationapprehension,andreticence(Burgoon1976).Ithasbeenappliedtomass
mediaresearchtohelpexplaindifferencesinmediaandnewtechnologyuseandhasbeen
linkedtoapreferenceforonlineormediatedchannelsofcommunicationforindividuals
whodidnotfindface‐to‐facechannelsasconvenient,readilyavailable,orcomfortable.It
hastwodimension:(a)approachavoidance(UCAA),whichindicatesanxiety,introversion,
anddiminishedparticipationingeneralcommunication,and(b)reward(UCR),which
includesdistrust,perceivedisolation,andanevaluationoftheoverallutilityof
communication.WeadaptedBurgoon’s(1976)20‐itemscaleto10itemsforuseinthis
study.ThescalewascodedsothathighscoresforUCAAimplyatendencytowelcomeand
seekoutinterpersonalencounters,andhighscoresforUCRreflectanindividualwhofeels
valuedbytheirenvironmentandperceivesinterpersonalcommunicationtoberewarding.
Weuseda5‐pointLikert‐typescale(5=stronglyagree,1=stronglydisagree)tobe
consistentwiththerestofthemeasuresinthestudy,andsummedandaveragesresponses
totheitems.ThemeanfortheUC‐AAdimensionwas(M=3.69;SD=.65,α=.79)andfor
theUCR(M=4.07;SD=.52,α=.70).
CommunicationOutcomes
SocialCapital.Socialnetworktiesarefrequentlyassessedbymakinguseoftheconcept
ofsocialcapital.Previousliteratureonsocialcapitalconceptualizesthreedifferentformsof
socialcapital.Bondingsocialcapitalfocusesonresourcespeoplehaveforstrengthening
theconnectionbetweenpeopleintheirclosely‐connectedgroups.Bridgingsocialcapital
focusesonreachingoutsidetraditionalin‐groupstolinkwiththoseunlikeyou.And
maintainedsocialcapitalfocusesonstayingconnectedtogroupsfrompreviousmoments
inone’slife(Ellison,Steinfield&Lampe,2007).Fifteenitems(fiveforeachtypeofsocial
capital),modifiedfromWilliams(2006)andEllison,Steinfield&Lampe(2007)were
included(maintained(M=3.94;SD=.62;α=.75),bridging,(M=3.43;SD=.63;α=.72),
andbonding(M=3.38;SD=.67;α=.72).
Affinitywithmediahasbeenlinkedtomanymotives,suchasarousal,habit,pass
time,escape,entertainment,companionship,andinformationseeking,inthetelevisionand
onlinecontext.(e.g.,A.Rubin,1981;Papacharissi&Rubin,2000).TheTelevisionAffinity
Scale(A.Rubin,1981)wasadaptedtoassesslikingfororaffinitywithFacebook.Thiswasa
5‐itemLikertscale(5=stronglyagree,1=stronglydisagree),reflectinghowattached
peoplearetotheplatform,howmuchtheymightmissitifgone,orhowmuchtheydepend
onitfortheirdailyroutines.Responsestotheitemsweresummedandaveraged.The
meanforthescalewas2.50(SD=0.33,α=.88).
OpenEndedQuestions
ParticipantsweregiventheopportunitytoexpandupontheirviewsofFacebook
throughthreeopen‐endedquestions.Theseresponseswereanalyzedqualitatively,pulling
outthemajorthemesthatarose.Weasked:“Inyourownwords,whatisitaboutFacebook
thatmakesitappealing?WhatdoyoulikethemostaboutFacebook?Whatdoyoulikethe
leastaboutFacebook?Responsesareemployedinthediscussionsection,toilluminateand
substantiatequantitativefindings.
Results
RQ1:MotivesforFacebookUse.
Thefactoranalysisofthemotivestatementsyieldednineinterpretablefactors:
expressiveinformationsharing,habitualpasstime,relaxingentertainment,coolandnew
trend,companionship,professionaladvancement,escape,socialinteraction,andnew
friendships.Thefirstfactor,expressiveinformationseeking(α=.85),accountedfor11.39%
ofthevarianceafterrotation.Itcombinedfiveitemsfromtheinformationsharingandself
expressionaprioricategories,pointingtoaneedtosharebothgeneralandpersonal
informationwithothers,andalludingtoalackofdistinctionbetweenthetwothatis
characteristiconFacebook.Thesecondfactor,habitualpasstime(α=.85),consistedoffive
itemsfromtheaprioricategorieshabitandpasstime,andexplained10.54%ofthe
variance.TheitemsallpointedpasstimeusesofFacebookofaritualisticnature,possibly
attestingtotheaddictivenatureofthegenre.Thethirdfactor,relaxingentertainment(α=
.82),combinedfiveitemsfromtherelaxandentertainmentmotivecategories,and
accountedfor9.4%ofthevariance.Thefactorindicatedapassiveandentertainment
orientedmodeofengagingwithFacebook.Thefourthfactor,coolandnewtrend(α=.80),
accountedfor7.03%ofthevariancecontainedallthreeitemsofthesameapriorimotive
category,representingacleanloadingofthisfactor.Thismotivecategorysuggestedthat
individualswereonFacebookbecauseitis“thethingtodo,”“itiscool,”andbecause
“everybodyelseisdoingit,”thuspointingtothesocialdesirabilitycostofstayingoff
Facebook.Thefifthfactor,companionship(α=.83),retainedallthreeitemsfromits
respectiveaprioricategory,andexplained6.76%ofthevariance,pointingtotheabilityof
themediumtosimulatecompanionshipintheabsenceofotherchannels.Thesixthfactor,
professionaladvancement(α=.80),alsodidnotdeviatefromit’saprioriconceptualization,
andaccountedfor6.74%ofthevariance.Theseventhfactor,escape(α=.75),alsoemerged
initsaprioriformationpostrotation,andaccountedfor6.56%ofthevariance.Thisfactor
suggestedprocrastinatoryusesofFacebook,toavoidtasksorindividuals.Theeighth
factor,socialinteraction(α=.83),explained6.16%ofthevariance,butonlycontainedtwo
itemsfromitsaprioricategory,andthuswasnotemployedissubsequentanalysis.The
ninthandfinalfactorwasasingleitemfactor(“Meetnewpeople”),explaining4.3%ofthe
variance.WhiletheitemattestedtotheimportanceofFacebookinmakingnew
connections,unfortunatelythemake‐upofthefactordidnotmeetthecriteriaforinclusion
instatisticalanalysis.Futurestudiesmaytrytoexpandandperfecttheselasttwofactors,
astheyappeartoalludetoimportantsocialneedsfulfilledbyFacebook.
Habitualpasstime(M=3.82,SD=.75)andrelaxingentertainment(M=3.02,SD=
.68)hadthehighestmeanscores,renderingthemthemotivesmorelikelytobesalientto
most.Expressiveinformationsharing(M=2.75,SD=.80),escapism(M=2.54,SD=.87),and
coolandnewtrend(M=2.50,SD=.92)werealsofairlysalientfactors,alongwith
companionship(M=2.35,SD=.95),toalesserextent.Professionaladvancement(M=1.92,
SD=.84)wastheleastsalient,indicatingthatitwasmorelikelytobesignificantfora
specificandsmallerpartofthestudypopulation.Mostmotivescorrelatedmoderately,with
thehighestcorrelationsnotedbetweencompanionshipandescapism(r=.45),
companionshipandrelaxingentertainment(r=.40),escapismandhabitualpasstime(r=
.43),andescapismandrelaxingentertainment(r=.44),p<.001.Thesetendencies
sketchedoutratherritualisticandsociallyorientedusesoftheFacebookgenre.
RQ2:Motives,Antecedents,andSocialCapital
Themostsignificantandhighestcorrelationswerenotedamonginterpersonal
interactionandtheapproach‐avoidance(UCAA)(r=.43,p<.001)andthereward(UCR)(r
=.53,p<.001)dimensionsoftheunwillingnesstocommunicatescale.UCAAalso
correlatedhighlywithlifesatisfaction(r=.49,p<.001)andsocialactivity(r=.40,p<
.001),asdidUCRwithlifesatisfaction(r=.46,p<.001)andsocialactivity(r=.45,p<
.001).Maintained,bondingandbridgingsocialcapitalcorrelatedpositivelyand
significantlywithallmotives,withthehighestandmostsignificantrelationsnoted
betweenbridgingsocialcapitalandexpressiveinformationsharing(r=.43,p<.001),as
wellasrelaxingentertainment(r=.38,p<.001).
Fourseparatehierarchicalmultipleregressionanalyseswereconductedtofurther
investigatethenatureanddirectionoftheserelationships.FacebookAffinity,bonding,
bridgingandmaintainedsocialcapitaleachservedasthedependentvariableforthefour
regressions.Variablesassociatedwiththeamountoftimespentonline,numberoftimes
individualscheckFacebookdaily,estimatedtimespentonFacebookperweek,andnumber
ofyearsofexperiencewiththeInternetwereenteredonthefirststepoftheregression
analysis.Contextualagedimensions(mobility,interpersonalinteraction,lifesatisfaction
andsocialactivity),UC‐ApproachAvoidanceandUC‐Rewardwereenteredonthesecond
step,asantecedentvariables.TheMotivesforFacebookUsescaleswereenteredonthe
thirdstepoftheanalysis.Foraffinity,twopredictorsemergedatthefinalstepofthe
analysis:TotaltimespentonFacebookperweek(F=4.90,p=.03)andthemotiveof
escapism(F=4.13,p=0.5),inanoverallsignificantequation(R=.73,R2=.54,F[7,29]=
2.02,p=.01).ThisindicatedthatthemorepeopleusedFacebook,thegreatertheaffinity
theydevelopedforit,especiallyforusesassociatedwithescapistneeds.
Thesamehierarchicalregressionprocedurewasrepeatedforthethreetypesofsocial
capital.Theequationforbondingsocialcapitalyieldedtwosignificantpredictors,bothof
whichincreasedinsignificanceinthefinalstepoftheanalysis:Totaltimespentonlineper
dayoffwork(F=5.76,p=.02),andthecontextualagedimensionofsocialactivity(F=
11.13,p=.002),inanoverallsignificantequation(R=.81,R2=.66,F[7,28]=3.22,p=
.003).Theseresultsindicatedstrongersocialtieswerebestservedbymoretimespentline,
forthoseindividualswhoenjoyedagreateramountofsocialactivity.Thesefindings
supporttheideathattimespentonlineallowsthosesocialtomaintainorincreasetheir
levelofsocialconnectivity.
Theregressionequationcalculatedforbridgingsocialcapitalproducedanoverall
significantequation(R=.86,R2=.74,F[7,28]=4.72,p=.000),withfoursignificant
predictors,allofwhichemergedonthefinalstep:Mobility(F5.68,p=.02),andthemotives
ofrelaxingentertainment(F=5.63,p=.02),coolandnewtrend(F=5.64,p=.02),and
professionaladvancement(F=6.12,p=.02).Theresultsoftheequationindicatedthatthose
withincreasedmobility,usingFacebookforentertainment,relaxation,becauseitisanew
trend,andforprofessionaladvancementtendedtoincreaseandsustainweakertieswith
distancedfriendsorindividualsinextendedornon‐traditionalin‐groupsofcontact.The
findingssupporttheideathatmobileindividualstendtouseFacebooktosupportand
extendtheirmobilitytospheresofcontactthatmaynotbereadilyavailableoraccessible.
Finally,theregressionequationformaintainedsocialcapitalwasoverallnot
significantandfailedtoproducesignificantpredictors.Itispossiblethisisrelatedtothe
variablesexaminedorthedemographiccharacteristicsofthepopulationsurveyed.
Discussion
ThisstudyfocusedonthesocialutilityofFacebook,byemployingatheoretical
modelthatcombinedtheUsesandGratificationsperspectivewithSocialNetworktheory,
especiallycenteredontheconceptofSocialCapital.Theconceptualframeworkproposed
thatantecedentvariables,togetherwithusermotives,morphtheFacebookexperienceand
influencethetypeofsocialcapitalgeneratedbyFacebookuse.Inordertoprovide
supportingevidenceforthismodel,relationshipsamongtheincludedconceptswere
examined.
Prevalentmotivesthatemergedfromtheanalysisincludedthemotivesofhabitual
passtimeandrelaxingentertainment,bothofwhichcombinedmotivecategoriesfor
traditionalmedia.Notonlydidthisreflecttheconvergednatureoftheservicesprovidedby
Facebook,butitalsosuggestedsalientusesformostuserstendedtobeofaritualisticand
relativelypassivenature.Themoreinstrumentalusesofexpressiveinformationseeking
andprofessionaladvancementwerenotassalientwiththissample.Atthesametime,
escapismandcompanionship,twotraditionalmediausemotivesusuallyassociatedwith
televisionuse,weremoderatelysalientforthispopulation,thusconfirmingtheabilityof
Facebooktoconvergetraditionalandnewmedianeeds.Intheopenendedresponses,
participantsreferredtotheabilityofFacebooktohelprelieveboredomordistractthem
fromorrelievethemofdailystresses.Asonerespondentsaid:“[Facebook]isentertaining
enoughtospendtimeontogetawayfromhomework.”Anothersaid,“Itisfun,andnot
stressfullikeschoolworkcanbe.”Thiscanvergeonaddiction,accordingtooneuser:“Its
easytogetsuckedinto,”whileanotherrespondentadded,“IthinkthereasonFacebookis
soappealingbecauseitoffersawidevarietyofwaystodistractpeoplefromthestress.
Theregressionanalysesdocumentedsomesubstantiallinksbetweensocialcapital,
Facebookmotives,andsocialandpsychologicalpredisposition.Overall,thesetendedto
supportanimageofauserwhoemploysthisparticulartechnologygenretoamplify
opportunitiesathisorherdisposal.UnlikeearlierstudiesoftheNetingeneral,which
pointedtotheparadoxofasocialtechnologythatisolatesindividualsinprivatesphereof
communication,andincontrasttothepopularstereotypeoftheanti‐socialcomputergeek,
theseresultsindicatethosemobileandleadingasociallyactivityareabletoreapthesocial
benefitsofFacebook,andemployittoincreasebondingandbridgingsocialcapital.Thus,
thisonlinesocialnetworksustainsthesocialconnectivityofmembersthatarealready
fairlyactiveandmobile.Interestinglyenough,theseusersrarelyhavethegenerationof
socialcapitalinmind,astheytendtoapproachFacebookfromthenot‐so‐goal‐directed,
relativelypassive,andritualisticmotivesforrelaxingentertainmentandhabitualpastime.
Fortheseusers,thisbecomesadailyroutinethatconvenientlymaintainsandextends
individuals’spheresofcontact.Throughtheopen‐endedresponses,participantsrevealed
someapprehensionoftheaddictivenatureofFacebook,typicallypresentedasathird‐
personeffect,affectingothersbutnotthemdirectly.Forexample,onepersonsaid,“The
obsessivewaysomepeopleareaboutcheckingFacebook,updatingtheirpage,etc.It’s
annoying.”
Additionalresponsestoopenendedquestionsfurthersolidifiedourinterpretations.
ParticipantsrepeatedlystressedthecommunicativeaspectsofFacebook,specifyingthat
theyreliedFacebookforstayingconnectedtothosetheyalreadyknowandformeeting
newpeople.ParticipantsvaluedFacebookforhelpingthemkeepupwithpeopleata
distance,informothersaboutthemselvesandfindpeoplewithsimilarinterests.For
example,onerespondentstated:[Facebookisappealingbecauseof]“theabilitytobeapart
ofsomeone’severydaylifenomatterhowfarawaytheyare.”Anotherrespondentstated:“I
canconnecttomyfriendsacrossthecountryandworldeasilyandseewhatthey’reupto
whichusedtobesomewhatofahassle.Icanstaymoreeasilyconnectedtofriendsfrom
highschoolaswell.”OnepersonsummarizedFacebook’sabilitytomeetpeopleintermsof
buildingonthosetheyalreadyknow.“Theabilitytomeetsomeonerandomlyandmake
thatpersonapartofthepeopleyouknowinyourlifetime.”Participantsenjoyedbeingable
tokeepupwiththeirfriends’achievements,news,relationshipstatusandlife
developments.SeveralindicatedthatnotbeingpartofFacebookwouldequalbeingleftout
ofthesedevelopmentsandsphereofcontact,thusalludingtothesocialcostofnotjoining.
QualitativeandquantitativeresponsesondominantusesofFacebookpointedtoa
userstatethatpalindromesbetweenthesociallyactiveandidle,ormorecolloquiallyput,
describesasocialcouchpotato.Usershappilyconnectwithotherssocially,aslongasthey
maydosofromthecomfortanelectronicallymediatedcouch,inastatethatpermitsthe
stationarypursuitofsocialactivity.Thisantithesisreflectstherealitiesofour
contemporaryeverydayroutines,whichblurspheresofworkandplay,friendsandco‐
workers,publicandprivatelife.Futureresearchcouldplacesocialnetworksinthegreater
contextofpubliclife,andspecificallyexaminehowtheysupportandreinforcedominant
work‐lifepatternsandroutines.Beyondthepointoffulfillingshort‐termneedsfor
relaxation,entertainmentandsocialcontactsimultaneously,thesenetworksaretellingof
contemporarytrendsthatincludeglobalization,trasnationalmobilityandwork,social
spheresthatarelocal,globalandglocal,andingeneral,withwhatZygmuntBauman(2005)
referstoasamoreliquidpaceoflife.Challengingourconventionalunderstandingof
sociabilityasanactivity‐drivenimperative,theseresultssuggestacontemporary
interpretationofsociabilitythatincludesstaticsocialbehaviorsenabledthroughonline
technology.Inarelaxedstatethatconvergespassivityandsociality,socialnetworksite
userstraversespheresofsocialinteractiontolearnaboutandinteractwithothersthey
connectto.
Moreover,equippedwithatoythatenablessocialconnections,individualsareable
tofulfilltraditionalmediatedandinterpersonalneedssimultaneously,whileatthesame
timeexpandingtheirsocialconnectionsandso‐calledsocialnetworthinsatellitesocial
spheres.RelaxingentertainmentalsoprovidedawayinwhichFacebookbecameusefulfor
thegenerationofbondingsocialcapital,thusreaffirmingusers’tiesandconnectionsto
theirclosesphereoffamilyandfriends.
Inconclusion,forcommunicationresearchers,thesefindingsbothaffirmand
challengeourunderstandingofaudienceactivityandpassivity.Therelevanceoftraditional
mediatedandinterpersonalmotivesforFacebookusersconfirmsthepermanenceofthese
needsandtheirfulfillmentviamediatedcommunication.Atthesametime,theseneeds
emergeinaconvergedstate,capturingintermittentlyactiveandidlestatesofengagement
thatchallengethebinarymannerinwhichwe,ascommunicationscholarsunderstand
activityandpassiveuses.Futureresearchononlinemediacouldmoveawayfromlinear
understandingsofusermotivationsandsocialoutcomes,tonetworkedtheoretical
conceptualizationthatpermitustofollowtheorganicgenerationofdevelopingformsof
sociability.Thesocialnetworksapproachincorporatestheorganicappropriationofsocial
ties,socialcapitalgeneration,andthefrequentlynon‐linearrationaleofsocialbehavior.
Theusesandgratificationsapproach,ontheotherhad,adoptsamoreconventionally
linearityinitsapproach,but,atthesametime,isparticularlyisusefulforasystematic
understandingoftheconnectionsbetweenuserprofiles,motivations,orientations,
practices,andresultingoutcomes.
Acombinedperspectiveexaminingtheuses,networks,andaffordancesof
convergentmediawouldconnectantecedentvariablesandmotivestoparticularusesof
networks,whicharesensitivetotheaffordancesofonlinemedia.Suchanapproachwould
beguidedbythefollowing,remediatedassumptionsthata)"sociallymotivatedbehaviors,
includingmediaselectionanduse,arebothpurposiveandritualistic";(b)"ahostofsocial
andpsychologicalfactorsmediatepeople'scommunicationbehavior";(c)"peopleadoptor
adapttheaffordancesofconvergentmediatosatisfyfeltneedsandtoformandmaintain
socialnetworks";(d)"mediacompeteandconvergewithotherformsofcommunication
forselection,attention,andusetogratifyourindividualandcollectiveneeds";and(e)
"mediatedbehaviorspossesssocialoutcomes,whichresultinavaryingqualitiesand
quantitiesofsocialcapitalgenerated.”Thisisasocio‐psychologicalcommunication
perspectivethatexamineshowindividualsuseconvergedmedia,tofulfillfeltneedsor
wantsthatarepersonalandcollective,andgeneratesocialoutcomesthatpermita
networkedsociality.
References
Alexander,A.(1985)‘Adolescents’soapoperaviewingandrelationalperceptions’,Journal
ofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,29:295‐308.
Bauman,Z.(2005)LiquidLife,Cambridge:PolityPress.
Becker,L.,Dunwoody,S.7Rafaell,S.(1983)‘Cable'simpactonuseofothernewsmedia’,
JournalofBroadcasting,27:127‐142.
boyd,d.andEllison,N.B.(2007)‘Socialnetworksites:Definition,history,andscholarship’,
JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,13(1):article11.AvailableHTTP:
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>
boyd,d.andHeer,J.(2006)‘Profilesasconversation:Networkedidentityperformanceon
Friendster’,ProceedingsofThirty‐NinthHawai'iInternationalConferenceonSystem
Sciences.LosAlamitos,CA:IEEEPress.
Chang,B.,Lee,S.andKim,B.(2006)‘Exploringfactorsaffectingtheadoptionand
continuanceofonlinegamesamongcollegestudentsinSouthKorea:Integrating
usesandgratificationanddiffusionofinnovationapproaches’,NewMediaand
Society,8(2):295–319.
DeWaal,E.,Schoenbach,K.andLauf,E.(2006)‘Onlinenewspapers:Asubstituteor
complementforprintnewspapersandotherinformationchannels?’,
Communications:TheEuropeanJournalofCommunicationResearch,30(1):55.
Dimmick,J.,Chen,Y.andLi,Z.(2004)‘CompetitionbetweentheInternetandtraditional
newsmedia:Thegratification‐opportunitiesnichedimension’,JournalofMedia
Economics,17(1):19‐33.
Donath,J.andboyd,d.(2004)‘Publicdisplaysofconnection’,BTTechnologyJournal,22(4):
71.
Ellison,N.B.,Lampe,C.,Steinfield,C.andVitak,J.(inpress)‘WithaLittleHelpfromMy
Friends:HowSocialNetworkStiesaffectSocialCapitalProcesses’,inZ.Papacharissi,
(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites.
NewYork:Routledge.
Ellison,N.B.,Steinfield,C.andLampe,C.(2007)‘ThebenefitsofFacebook"friends:"Social
capitalandcollegestudents'useofonlinesocialnetworksites’,JournalofComputer
MediatedCommunication,12(4),article1.AvailableHTTP:
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html>
Ferguson,D.A.(1992)‘Channelrepertoireinthepresenceofremotecontroldevices,VCRs
andcabletelevision’JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,36:83–91.
Garton,L.,Haythornthwaite,C.andWellman,B.(1997)‘Studyingonlinesocialnetworks’,
JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,3(1).AvailableHTTP:
<jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html>
Hampton,K.(2002)‘Place‐basedandITmediated‘community’’,PlanningTheoryand
Practice,3(2):228‐231.
Hampton,K.andWellman,B.(2003)‘NeighboringinNetville:HowtheInternetsupports
communityandsocialcapitalinawiredsuburb’,CityandCommunity,2(4):277‐
311.
Hardy,B.andScheufele,D.(2005)‘ExaminingdifferentialgainsfromInternetuse:
Comparingthemoderatingroleoftalkandonlineinteractions’,Journalof
Communication,55(1):71‐84.
Hargittai,E.andHsieh,Y.L.(inpress)‘FromDabblerstoOmnivores:ATypologyofSocial
NetworkSiteUsage’,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:Identity,
CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites,NewYork:Routledge.
Hargittai,E.(2007)‘Whosespace?Differencesamongusersandnon‐usersofsocial
networksites’,JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,13(1):article14.
AVAILABLEHTTP:<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html>
Haythornthwaite,C.(2000)‘Onlinepersonalnetworks:Size,compositionandmediause
amongdistancelearners’,NewMediaandSociety,2(2):195–226.
Haythornthwaite,C.(2005)‘Socialnetworksandinternetconnectivityeffects’,Information
CommunicationandSociety,8(2):125‐147.
Haythornthwaite,C.andWellman,B.(1998)‘Work,friendshipandmediausefor
informationexchangeinanetworkedorganization’,JournaloftheAmericanSociety
forInformationScience,49(12):1101‐1114.
Haythornthwaite,C.,Wellman,B.andMantei,M.(1995)‘Workrelationshipsandmediause:
Asocialnetworkanalysis’,GroupDecisionandNegotiation,4(3):193‐211.
Hlebec,V.,Manfreda,K.L.7Vehovar,V.(2006)‘Thesocialsupportnetworksofinternet
users’,NewMediaandSociety,8(1):9‐32.
Kaye,B.,Johnson,T.(2002)‘Onlineandintheknow:UsesandgratificationsoftheWebfor
politicalinformation’,JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,46(1):54‐71.
Kraut,R.,Patterson,M.,Lundmark,V.,Kiesler,S.,Mukophadhyay,T.andScherlis,W.(1998)
‘Internetparadox:Asocialtechnologythatreducessocialinvolvementand
psychologicalwell‐being?’,AmericanPsychologist,53:1017‐1031.
Kraut,R.,Kiesler,S.,Boneva,K.,Cummings,J.,Helgeson,J.andCrawford,A.(2002)‘Internet
paradoxrevisited’,JournalofSocialIssues,58(1):49‐74.
Lampe,C.,Ellison,N.7Steinfield,C.,(2006)‘AFace(book)inthecrowd:Socialsearchingvs.
socialbrowsing’,pp.167‐170,inProceedingsofthe200620thAnniversary
ConferenceinComputerSupportedCooperativeWork,NewYork:ACMPress.
Lange,P.G.(2007)‘Publiclyprivateandprivatelypublic:SocialnetworkingonYouTube’,
JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,13(1),article18.AvailableHTTP:
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html>
Levy,M.R.(1987)‘VCRuseandtheconceptofaudienceactivity’,CommunicationQuarterly,
35:267‐275.
Liu,H.(2007)‘Socialnetworkprofilesastasteperformances’,JournalofComputer
MediatedCommunication,13(1):article13.AvailableHTTP:
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/liu.html>
Liu,H.,Maes,P.andDavenport,G.(2006)‘Unravelingthetastefabricofsocialnetworks’,
InternationalJournalonSemanticWebandInformationSystems,2(1):42‐71.
Lo,V.,Li,Y.,Shih,Y.7Yang,S.(2005)‘Internetadoption,uses,andgratificationsobtained’,
MassCommunicationResearch,83(1):127‐165.
Lometti,G.E.,Reeves,B.7Bybee,C.R.(1977)‘Investigatingtheassumptionsofusesand
gratificationsresearch’,CommunicationResearch,7:319–334.
McQuail,D.(1979)‘Theusesandgratificationapproach:Past,troubles,andfuture’,
Massacommunicatie,2:73–89.
Palmgreen,P.C.,Wenner,L.A.andRayburn,J.D.(1980)‘Relationsbetweengratifications
soughtandobtained:Astudyoftelevisionnews’,CommunicationResearch,7:161–
192.
Mendelson,A.andPapacharissi,Z.(inpress)‘Lookatus:CollectiveNarcissisminCollege
StudentFacebookPhotoGalleries’,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:
Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites.NewYork:Routledge.
Papacharissi,Z.(2009)‘TheVirtualGeographiesofSocialNetworks:AComparative
AnalysisofFacebook,LinkedInandASmallWorld’,NewMediaandSociety,11(1‐2):
199‐220.
Papacharissi,Z.(2007)‘TheBloggerRevolution?AudiencesasMediaProducers’in
Tremayne,M.(ed.)Blogging,Citizenship,andtheFutureofMedia,NewYork:
Routledge.
Papacharissi,Z.andMendelson,A.(2007)TheRealityAppeal:Usesandgratificationsof
realityshows.JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,51(2):355‐371.
Papacharissi,Z.(2002a)‘Theselfonline:Theutilityofpersonalhomepages’,Journalof
BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,46(3):346‐368.
Papacharissi,Z.(2002b)‘Thepresentationofselfinvirtuallife:Characteristicsofpersonal
homepages’,JournalismandMassCommunicationQuarterly79(3):643‐660.
Papacharissi,Z.andRubin,A.(2000)‘PredictorsofInternetuse’,JournalofBroadcasting
andElectronicMedia,44(2):175‐196.
Payne,G.,Severn,J.7Dozier,D.(1988)‘Usesandgratificationsmotivesasindicatorsof
magazine,readership’,JournalismQuarterly,65:909–915.
Pettersson,T.(1986)‘Theaudiences’usesandgratificationsofTVworshipservices’,
JournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion,25:391–409.
Perse,E.(1986)‘Soapoperaviewingpattersofcollegestudentsandcultivation’,Journalof
BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,30:175‐193.
Perse,E.andFerguson,D.(2000)‘ThebenefitsandcostsofWebsurfing’,Communication
Quarterly,48(4):343‐359.
Pornsakulvanich,V.,Haridakis,P.andRubin,A.M.(2008)‘Theinfluenceofdispositionsand
Internetmotivationononlinecommunicationsatisfactionandrelationship
closeness’,ComputersinHumanBehavior,24:2292–2310.
Rubin,A.M.(1981)‘Amultivariateanalysisof“60Minutes”viewingmotivations’,
JournalismQuarterly,58,529‐534.
Rubin,A.M.(1985)‘Usesofdaytimetelevisionsoapoperabycollegestudents’,Journalof
BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,29:241‐258.
Rubin,A.M.(1994)‘Mediausesandeffects:Auses‐and‐gratificationsperspective’,inJ.
ZillmannandD.Bryant(eds)MediaEffects:AdvancesinTheoryandResearch,
London:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Rubin,A.andBantz,C.(1989)‘Usesandgratificationsofvideocassetterecorders’,pp.181‐
195,inJ.SalvaggioandJ.Bryant(eds)Mediauseintheinformationage:Emerging
patternsofadoptionandconsumeruse,Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Rubin,A.M.andRubin,R.B.(1982)‘Contextualageandtelevisionuse’,Human
CommunicationResearch,8:228—244.
Rubin,A.M.andRubin,R.B.(1986)‘Contextualageasalife‐positionindex’,International
JournalofAgingandHumanDevelopment,23:27—45.
Rubin,R.B.andRubin,A.M.(1982)‘Contextualageandtelevisionuse:Re‐examiningalife‐
positionindicator’,CommunicationYearbook,6:583—604.
Salwen,M.B.andAnderson,R.A.(1984)Theusesandgratificationsofsupermarkettabloid
readingbydifferentdemographicgroups,EastLansing,MI:NationalCenterfor
ResearchonTeacherLearning.
Stutzman,F.(2006)‘Anevaluationofidentity‐sharingbehaviorinsocialnetwork
communities’,paperpresentedattheiDMAaandIMSCodeConference,Oxford,Ohio.
Swanson,D.L.(1977)‘Theusesandmisusesofusesandgratification’,Human
CommunicationResearch,3:214–221.
Turow,J.(1974)‘Talk‐showradioasinterpersonalcommunication’,Journalof
Broadcasting,18:171‐179.
Walther,J.B.,Carr,C.,Choi,S.S.W.,DeAndrea,D.,Kim,J.,Tong,S.T.7VanDerHeide,B.(in
press)‘InteractionofInterpersonal,Peer,andMediaInfluenceSourcesOnline:A
ResearchAgendaforTechnologyConvergence’,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.),The
NetworkedSelf:Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites,NewYork:
Routledge.
Walther,J.B.,VanDerHeide,B.,Kim,S.Y.,Westerman,D.andTong,S.T.(2008)‘Therole
offriends'appearanceandbehavioronevaluationsofindividualsonFacebook:Are
weknownbythecompanywekeep?’,HumanCommunicationResearch34(1):28‐49.
Wasserman,S.andFaust,K.(1994)SocialNetworkAnalysis,Cambridge,MA:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Wellman,B.,Haase,A.Q.,Witte,J.andHampton,K.(2001)‘DoestheInternetincrease,
decrease,orsupplementsocialcapital?Socialnetworks,participation,and
communitycommitment’,AmericanBehavioralScientist,45(3):436.
Williams,D.(2006)‘OnandOffthe’Net:ScalesforSocialCapitalinanOnlineEra’,Journal
ofComputerMediatedCommunication,11:593–628.
top related