the development of online friendship scale · the friendship in the real world, namely the lack of...

DOI: 10.4018/IJCBPL.2017100102

International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017

Copyright©2017,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

The Development of Online Friendship ScaleAvin Fadilla Helmi, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Indonesia

Wahyu Widhiarso, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Indonesia

Aftina Nurul Husna, Faculty of Psychology & Humanities, Universitas Muhammadiyah Magelang, Magelang, Indonesia

ABSTRACT

ThisarticlediscussesconceptandmeasurementofonlinefriendshipinanIndonesiancontext.Onlinefriendshipisconsideredtobesuperficialduetothelackofface-to-faceinteractionandemotionalintimacy.Basedongroundedtheoryresearch,onlinefriendshipconsistsoffivedimensions:caution,voluntariness,companionship,sharing,andmutualsupport(Study1).UGM’sOnlineFriendshipScalewasdevelopedasmeasurementofonlinefriendship(Study2).Initialsetofitemswasadministeredtouniversitystudents(N=42)andresultedin21reliableitems(r=.408-.687).Constructvaliditytestingwasappropriatelyusedforthedata(Bartlett’sTest=1174.1(p<.05),KMOvalues=.837).CFAconfirmsthattheonlinefriendshipscaleismultidimensional.Thefactorloadscameupwithfourdimensions:sharing(30.197%),voluntariness(8.576%),companionship(8.256%),andmutualsupport(7.769%).Sharing(informationandknowledge)wasthedimensionwithhighestcontribution,indicatingonlinefriendshipservesmoreasmeansofnetworkingbetweenusersratherthansocialbonding.

KeywORDSAdolescent, Indonesian Context, Online Friendship, Online Friendship Scale, Scale Development, Social Network Sites

INTRODUCTION

Inthecurrenteraofinformationanddigitaltechnology,anewformoffriendshipemerges.Itchallengestheconceptoftraditionalfriendship.Friendshipisdefinedasa“voluntaryinterdependencebetweentwopeopleovertime,thatisintendedtofacilitatesocio-emotionalgoalsoftheparticipants,andmayinvolvevaryingtypesanddegreesofcompanionship,intimacy,affection,andmutualassistance”(Hays,inDemir&Ozdemir,2010;Collins&Madsen,2006).Threeaspectshavebeenknowntoformthebasisoffriendship,namelyreciprocality,interdependency,andvoluntaryactions(Rubin,Bukowski,&Parker,2006).Hence,exploringthecurrentstyleoffriendshipbecomesessential,mainlytounderstandyounggenerationsthesedays.

Onlinefriendshipdevelopsandevolvesthroughcomputer-mediatedcommunication(CMC)inanonlinesocialcontext(Chan&Cheng,2004).Theemergenceofsocialnetworkingsites(SNS)that connect millions of internets users worldwide, such as Friendster, MySpace, LinkedIn, andFacebook,significantlyincreasesthenumberofonlinefriendship.Situatedincompletelydifferentspace,unusualphenomenabegintooccurandarefailedtobeexplainedbyexistingpsychologicalandsocialtheoriesoffriendship.

12


13

CMCbecameincreasinglypopularinthe1990sanddrivesmanyexpertstoinvestigatethenatureofinterpersonalrelationshipincyberspaceaswellasitsantecedents(Hwang,2014),dynamics(DeChoudhury, Sundaram, John, & Seligmann, 2010), and effects (Helliwell & Huang, 2013). Forexamples,thephenomenaofloveinthevirtualworldindicatestheuniquedevelopmentofonlinerelation (Cooper & Sportolari, 1997); occurrence of self-contradiction and distinct dynamics ofpersonality(Amichai-Hamburger,Wainapel,Fox,2002),andmoreintenseandfrequentexpressionresultingfromonlinedisinhibitioneffect(Suler,2004).

Some studies have specifically investigated online friendship, its development and features.ParksandFloyd(1996) investigatedhowpeoplebuildfriendships incyberspace.Friendshipisatypicalrelationshipincyberspace,formedwithnewacquaintancesinSNS.Itevolveswithtimeandusuallyprogressesintoofflinesituations.Formanypeople,cyberspaceisanotherplacetomeetandthefriendshipwilleventuallymoveintotherealworld.

Osborn (2000) defined online friendship based on its characteristics. The methods includeapplyingcharacteristicsofofflinefriendshipontoonlinefriendshipsandseeingthedifferenceinscoresthatthesubjectsgavetotheironlineandofflinefriends.Similartoofflinefriendship,onlinefriendshipischaracterizedbythepresenceofmutuality,authenticity,fun,complementarity,understanding,andcommonality,butinalowerlevel.However,sincethisstudysoughttoexploreonlinefriendshipinofflinefriendshipperspective,nonewfindingswerefoundregardingthenatureofonlinefriendship.

ChanandCheng(2004)comparedthequalityofonlineandofflinefriendshipatdifferentstagesofdevelopmentbasedonsevendimensionsofinterpersonalrelationships,namelyinterdependence,breadth,depth,codechange,understanding,commitment,andnetworkconvergence.Inlinewithpreviousstudy,onlinefriendshiphasarelativelylowerqualitycomparedtoofflineone.However,astimepasses,allowingmoremessagingexchanges,thequalitywillincreasetothepointthatitnolongerdiffersmuchwithofflinefriendshipquality.

TalmudandMesch(2007),andAntheunis,Valkenburg,andPeter(2012)foundthatthequalityofonlinesocialrelationsdependsonthedurationanddiversityoftopicsandactivitiesthatpeopletaketogether.Timeplaysavitalrolebecauseitfacilitatesthedevelopmentofcollectivehistoryandidentity.Meanwhile,intimacyisformedthroughparticipationinjointactivitiesanddiscussionofvariousissuesofpersonalconcern.Proximitytofriendsisafunctionofperceivedsocialsimilarity,diversityofcontentandactivity,anddurationofrelationships.

These studies contribute significantly to a better understanding of online friendship and itsinfluencing factors. However, there is no study found to have focus on conceptualizing onlinefriendship. The current conceptualization of online friendship is still largely affected by theconceptualizationofofflinefriendshipandfailstocapturetheaccuratefeaturesoffriendshipsituatedincyberspace.Tofillthistheoreticalgap,thecurrentresearchaimstodiscoverhowonlinefriendshipisperceivedbythepeoplewhoexperienceit.Theresearchquestionsposedare:WhatisthemeaningofonlinefriendshipaccordingtoSNSusers?Whatarethedimensionsofonlinefriendshipthatmightdistinguishitfromtraditional-offlinefriendship?

Toexploretheconceptofonlineresearch,weconductedtwostudies.InStudy1,weconductedaqualitativestudytorevealtheexperienceofundergoingonlinefriendshipfromseveralactiveusersofSNS.InStudy2,tovalidatetheconceptofonlinefriendship,wedevelopedanonlinefriendshipscalebasedonthedimensionsfoundandanalyseditusingConfirmatoryFactorialAnalysis(CFA).

Thepurposeofthisstudyisimportant,notonlytodeveloptheoryforonlinefriendship,butalsotounderstandonlinesocialbehaviorinthecontextofdevelopingcountrysuchasIndonesia.InvestigationofonlinefriendshipinIndonesiaisrelativelyrare,despitethefactofIndonesiabeingtheworld’seighthlargestinternetuser.Indonesianinternetusersreached88millionpeople.Young


14

peopleaged18-25years(49%)isthemostextensiveuser,usingitmainlyforsocializing(AsosiasiPenyediaJasaInternetIndonesia,2014).

Thissituationposessomeriskstomanycountriesbecauseintensiveuseofsocialmediaisoftennotaccompaniedwithproperdigitalliteracy(Suwana&Lily,2017;Fardiah,Rinawati,&Karsa,2015;Rice,Haynes,Royce,&Thomson,2016).ThereareseveralcasesinIndonesiathatindicatetheoccurrenceofcybercrimebyutilizingonlinefriendshipasitsmodus operandi.Byunderstandingthenatureanddynamicsofonlinefriendship,wecanprovideinformativefeedbackforhealthyonlinefriendshippromotionefforts.

MeTHODS

Exploratory research in Study 1 used grounded-theory methods as the primary methodologicalframework, inwhich theories arederived fromdata (Charmaz,2006).Thismethod isbetter forexploringonlinefriendshipqualitythathasneverbeenstudiedbefore,especiallyinIndonesiancontext.

Datawerecollectedintwostages:focus-groupdiscussions(FGD)andsurveyswithopen-endedquestionnaires.FGDwasconducted to tenstudents fromvarious faculties inUniversitasGadjahMadaandfourhighschoolstudents.Allparticipantsareselectedwiththemaincriteriabeingactiveinonlinesocialmedia,suchasFacebookandTwitter.IntheFGD,thequestionsaskedabouttheuseofsocialmedia(activityandintensity)andtheprocessofonlinefriendship.AftertheFGD,asurveywasconductedon86studentsinthethirdsemesterusingquestionnaires.Therearethreequestionsaskedinthequestionnaire:

1. Accordingtoyou,whatismeantbyonlinefriendship?2. Whatdoyouexperiencewhenyoufeellikeyouhaveonlinefriends?3. Whatdoyouexperiencewhenyoufeellikeyouareunabletohaveonlinefriends?

Datawerecollectedandanalyzedusinggroundedtheorymethod(opencoding,focusedcoding,andaxialcoding).Inopencodingstage,severalkeywordswereobtained.Thenextstageidentifiedcategoriesandsubcategoriesofthesekeywords,resultinginmajorthemesconstitutingthecoreorcentralphenomenonofthetopicunderstudy.

ReSULT OF STUDy 1: eXPLORING THe QUALITy OF FRIeNDSHIP ON SOCIAL NeTwORKS

Core Category 1: Definition of Online FriendsThecorecategoryof“definitionofonlinefriendship”consistsoffivecategories:location,partner,befriendingmethod,natureofinteraction,andfriendshipgoals.Thefivecategoriesarebasedon17categoriesshowninTable1.Thedefinitionofonlinefriendshipindicatesthatithasseveraldifferentrelationalcharacteristicsfromofflinefriendships,whichinturnaffectactivitiesthatoccurinonlineenvironment,asfurtherelaboratedincorecategory2.

Onlinefriendshipisinterindividualrelationthatoccursamongpeopleinthevirtualworld.Onlinefriendshipoccursthroughutilizationofonlinemedia,suchasinternetapplications,websites,andsocialnetworks,suchasFacebook,Twitter,andMySpace.Onlinefriendshipisestablishedamongpeoplewhohaveorhadknowneachotherintherealworld,eitherinpresentorpasttime.Inthiscase,onlinefriendshipactsasanextensionofspaceandsupportforofflinefriendship.

Onlinefriendshipcanalsobemadewithacquaintancesincyberspace.Itsdevelopmentinvolvesthepresenceofinteractionandintroductionthatcanturnstrangersintofriends,evenevolvesfurtherintoofflinefriends;whiletheabsenceoffurthertransitionwouldleavethemtobestrangers.Uniquely,


15

strangerscanstillbelabeled“friends”aslongasthepersonalaccountbetweenthetwopartiesisstillconnected.

Computer-mediatedcommunication(informofpersonalcomputersorsmartphones)limitsthedepthoftheinteractionofonlinefriendshipduetotheabsenceofnonverbalcues.Peoplerelyonatleastthreemodalitiestocommunicatetoeachother,i.e.,text(visual-verbal),imagesorphotos(visual-pictorial),andvideo(audiovisual)toexchangemessages.Therefore,interpersonalcompatibilitywhichisessentialforthecontinuityoffriendshipdependsonhowoneusesthesethreemodesofcommunication.

In general, we get friends from the real world and then continue in cyberspace. I think real friendship only exist in the real world .... (Subject 2, questionnaire)... it’s very easy to gain and lose friends online. This is what makes it (friendship online) different from the friendship in the real world, namely the lack of respect for each other. While the positive side of online friendship is that it is an effective medium for sharing information. (Subject 40, questionnaire)Regarding not being able to make online friends, I personally do not care much about it. I am able to keep intimate friendship and communication in the real world. (Subject 41, questionnaire)

Formost subjects, online interaction is consideredpseudo, abstract, orunreal, unless it cancontinueintherealworld.Theformedrelationshipisalsoconsiderednotintimateandsincere,as

Table 1. Core categories, categories, and subcategories

Core categories Category Sub-category

DefinitionofOnlineFriendship

Location Existinthevirtualworld

Partner OfflinefriendsNewfriendsfromsocialmediaStrangers

BefriendingMethod ModalityMessageexchangesinpublicandprivatemedia

NatureofInteraction Feign,unrealNotin-depthHighself-disclosureUncertaintyandliesFreedom,butwithhighcautionNotlimitedbytime&space

Purposeofmakingfriend Sharingknowledge&informationBuildingnetwork(withnewpeople)“Silaturahim”(reconnectwitholdfriends)“KEPO” (Knowing every particular object)

OnlineFriendshipDimensions

Cautiousness AwarenessonthedangersofcyberspaceBeingselectiveandcautious

Voluntariness FreedomeonpersonalpreferenceFreedomtoconnectanddisconnectarelationship

MutualSupport TheneedforequalreciprocalinteractionTheneedforpositiveinteraction

Companionship ActivitiestogetherCompatiblecommunication

Sharing Sharinginformation,knowledge,thought,&feelings


16

wellaslackingemotionalattachment.Someonecangetnewfriendsasquickaslosingthem(justclick“unfriend”).

Thepurposeofbefriendingincyberspaceisnottogaincompletesupport,especiallytheemotionalone.Themainpurposesaretoshareorexchangeinformation,tobuildnetworkswithnewpeople,andtomaintainrelationshipswitholdfriendsfromtherealworld.Onlinefriendshipworksmoreassupporterofofflinefriendship.Onlinefriendsserveasadditions,extensions,add-ons,orsubstitutesforofflinebuddies.

Duetoitssecondaryrole,oneconsidersfriendshipincyberspaceaslessimportantthanfriendshipintherealworld.Virtualandrealworldareunderstoodasaseparateworldandhavetheirownlife.Onlinefriendshipwithfriendsintherealworldcanbeconnectedanddisconnectedwithoutaffectingofflinerelations.Forsomereason,thedegreeoffriendshipcanbedecided,andapersoncanremainordinaryalltimewithoutcausingrelationalproblem.Peoplealsodonothavetotryhardtobeagoodfriendforhisfriendincyberspace.

Core Category 2: Online Friendship DimensionsThesecondcorecategory,“dimensionsofonlinefriendship”,showssomedistinctcharacteristicsofonlinefriendshipwhichaffectonlineactivities.Thereareatleastfivecategories,namelycautiousness,voluntariness,supportivemutuality,companionship,andsharingbehavior.

CautiousnessTheneedofsecuritystandsoutinonlinerelationships,especiallywithstrangers(peoplewhoareneverseenorknownbeforeintherealworld).Cautiousnessiscloselyrelatedtotheawarenessofthedangersofcyberspace.Forsomesubjects,thevirtualworldisconsideredasuncertainandfullofliewhereinpeoplecanusefalseidentitiesandhaveevilintentions.Informationaboutpeopleislimitedwhichconsequentlymakesbackgroundchecking–whichisessentialfordecisionmakingtobefriendornot-difficulttodo.

There was a stranger on my friend list (I didn’t know how it came to be). He chats me and I responded casually, but after awhile he became interested in me ... I refused to have a relationship and no longer stayed in contact with him by ignoring his messages. (Subject 5, questionnaire)At first I had good communication with a friend on social networking. We know each other closely, but over time the person becomes impolite, and eventually I was forced to block him/her. (Subject 52, questionnaire)

Themostprominentbehaviorinthiscategoryisactinginselectiveandvigilantmannerbeforeapprovingfriendrequestsandduringtheperiodofbefriending,especiallywithstrangers.Initially,toensuresecurity,subjectstakeintoconsiderationthestranger’sname(whetheritisarealnameofthepersonoracheesyone),bioinformation,avatarorprofilepicture(realphotographornot),statusof“mutualfriend”,andrecommendationfromothers.Ifthesecriteriaarenotmet,subjectsunhesitatinglyrefusethefriendrequest.

Inothercases,whensubjectshaveapprovedastranger’sfriendrequest,theassessmentismadebasedonthequalityof their interactionduringaperiod.Subjectswillstopconsideringapersonas their friend, ignorehim/her,cancel friendshiporevenblock thatperson,when theyperceivesuspiciousintentions,experiencenegativecommunications(e.g.,offensivespeech),orlackinmutualinteractionexpected.

VoluntarinessOnlinefriendshiphasmorefreedomincomparisontotheofflineone.Onecanfreelyandeasilyinviteorapprovefriendinvitationsusing“add/acceptfriend”and“follow”featuresothatthenumberof


17

one’sfriendscanreachhundredsandevenmillionsofpeople.Theycanbefriends,familymembers,nowandpastacquaintances,publicfigures,andnational/internationalcelebrities.Onecanalsofreetocutfriendshipwithanyonetheydislike,whetheritisastrangerorsomeonetheyknow,withoutanypenalty.

Onlinefriendshiphappenswithoutcoercionbasedonpersonalinitiative.Eachpersonhasagreatcontroltomakeorbreaktheirrelationshipwithothers.However,thevoluntarinessisnotimmunefromcertainsocialinfluences.Thiswasdemonstratedintheexperienceofoneofthesubjectsoffocusgroupdiscussion:

On Twitter I do not foll-back (follow back) friends who do not ask, because I’m the type of person who does not like to be an open follower. ... (but) usually if it’s someone I know who asks for a follback, then I will follback. If suppose he/she does not ask and I do not know who it is then I won’t follow. ... if I need it, I’ll follow ... like an artist. Or maybe suppose I like some of my artists then I’ll follow to see their activities. (Subject IE, FGD)

Voluntarinessisboundtoanunstatednormamongsocialmediausers,i.e.,mutualinteraction(equalreciprocating).Ifsomeonedoessomethingforothers(e.g.,followhispage),thenthepartneris“obliged”todothesame(follow-back).Ifsomeonehascommentedorpressedthe“like”buttononhisfriend’sstatus,thenhisfriendinotheroccasionshavetodothesameforthatperson.Ifsomeonedoesnotdothesamething,thisunfairbehaviorwouldhurttheirrelation.Unfairnessdoesnotsupportonlinefriendshiprelation.

Mutual SupportMutual interaction is thedeterminant factor forsustainableonlinerelation.Basedon thesurvey,somesubjectssaidthattheywantedtocancelfriendshipsorcompletelyremovefriendships,tobeignorantandunconcerned,asaformofretaliationbecausetheirfriendsdidnotinteractinmutuallyreciprocalmanner.

Mutualsupportisreflectedinbalancedandequalpositivemutualinteraction;“ifyouaregivengood things,youhave to turn thesame”,Friendshipends if there isno reciprocal interactionoronlyonepartyisactive(e.g.messagesarenotrespondedwellbybyreplying,notcommenting,andignoringitaltogether;refusetofollow-back,orrefusetoexchangeinformationbystayingprivate).

Whenapersondoesnotgettheexpectedfeedback,thenevenifhisorherpeerstatusisstillafriend,thepersonlosesthesenseoffriendship.Forpeopleinsocialmedia,friendsarepeoplewhowanttointeractreciprocally,mutually,andsupportivewiththem.Reciprocalandmutualrelationsareasourceofself-esteemandhappiness.Unresponsivenessisthreatforonlinefriendship.

Some examples of experiences when I don’t feel like being friends are when I start communicating but was not well responded, they give rudimentary answers, or they don’t want to participate/comment on what I write on my status. (Subject 38, questionnaire)In any social networking site, if there are interactions such as being addressed or greeted ... if we are treated as human being then we will also feel appreciated. Mutual greetings on Facebook, Twitter, and email are enough to show relationships. There are even groups or forum for discussion which is no different from the real world. Discussions can be done through social networking and the results are the same. The greetings and discussions, made me feel like my existence matters. I felt appreciated and acknowledged as a friend who are needed by others. The feeling of being acknowledged is especially strong when my online friend discusses and confides important matters to me. (Subject 44, questionnaire)


18

CompanionshipFriendsarepartnertoperformactivitiestogether,bothinrealworldandincyberspace.Theexistenceofmutualandreciprocalrelationsdenotescompanionship.Evenifthereisnoface-to-faceinteractionand lacking in nonverbal cues during communication, companionship can still be built throughactivitiessuchaschatting,commentingorjokingaboutadisseminatedstatus,photo,information,news,orengagingindiscussionsinonlineforumoronlinecommunity.Romanticrelationshipscanbemaintainedthroughcompanionshipinsocialnetworks.Oneofthesubjectsinthisfocusgroupdiscussionstold:

Well people normally use Facebook to communicate with their girlfriend/boyfriend, right? I personally prefer to use Facebook chat or skype. Sometimes while waiting for him/her I’ll just play a game… (Subject IE, FGD)At that time, I just got accepted into the Faculty of Psychology UGM, and through my social network I got to meet with new friends who also got accepted into the same faculty. At first, we only chatted through Facebook, but later exchanged phone numbers until we became best friends at Campus (Subject 46).

Companionshipinonlinesocialmedia isnotasdeepandgoodas thecompanionshipin thefriendships formed in the real world. Although most people felt that online interaction lacks inproximity,emotionalattachment,andwarmth,itdoesnotclosethepossibilitythatitmightbringasenseofexcitement.Thisfactorisconsideredimportanttoimprovethequalityofofflinefriendshiprelationshipsthroughthesupportofonlinerelations.

Sharing BehaviorSharingisthegoalandprimaryactivityinsocialmedia,rangedfromsharingnewsorinformation,specific knowledge, life experiences, thoughts, to deep personal feelings. Sharing is a form ofexpressionandself-disclosure.Sharingisawaytogainrecognitionforexistenceinsocialmedia,toidentifyinterestsamongpeoplewhoarefriends,andtomaintainexistingrelationships.Lifeincyberspaceisdynamicwithpeoplewillingtoshare.Peoplewhodonotsharewillbelostorcut-offbecausesharingisthekeytoobtainmutualresponsethatdeterminesexistenceandrelationship.

However,notallsharingbehaviorsareacceptedbysocialmediausers.Someformsofsharingbehaviordegradethequalityoffriendshiporevendamageit,asitchangesthejudgmentofthepersonsharing.Theappropriatenessofsharingbehaviorisassessedthroughthecontentoftheinformationshared.Mostpeopleenjoyusefulknowledgeorinformation,relevantinterestsorhobbies,schoolassignments,andfunexperiences,buthate(feelinguncomfortablewith)inappropriatecontenttosharewiththepublic,suchasexcessive(overlyemotional)expression,extravagantshowofprivatelife,orunimportantandunworthytalks.

At that time, my friend was being very overly dramatic with the things he was facing, such as when he was rejected by a girl and felt suicidal. I became angry and annoyed. (Subject 3)… in Twitter, I just feel uncomfortable with the contents… sometimes he/she just blabbers about things that only discourage us… they comment on everything, even the smallest trivial things. (Subject IE, FGD)

Discussion: Online Friendship ModelBasedonthedefinitionanddimensionsfound,thedynamicsofonlinefriendshipisdescribedinFigure1.Onlinefriendshipisakindoffriendshipthattakesplaceinonlinesituation,involvestwotypesofpartnersi.e.strangersencounteredinSNSandknownofflinefriendsorrelatives.Thesetwotypesofpeoplearerespondeddifferentlybyindividualusers.Mostofflinefriendscanreadilybe


19

acceptedasonlinefriendssothattheonlinefriendshipfunctionsasextensionofofflinefriendship.However,towardstrangers,individualsdoaseriesoffilteringasamanifestationofcautiousness.

Cautiousness affects one’s willingness to accept friendship invitations. Decision to approveinvitationisrelatedtoself-assurancethatthepartnerisnotadangerousperson.Publicprofiles,names,andtheexistenceofmutualfriendsareessentialbecausetheyaretheprimarysourceofinformationaboutapersoninthevirtualworld.Ifanonlineprofileseemsnotgenuine,thenthefriendrequestmostlikelywillbedeclined.

Twopeoplebecome“onlinefriends”whentwoaccountsareconnected,butthatconditiondoesnotnecessarilygeneraterealexperienceoffriendship.Bothpartiesneedtobeequallywillingtoestablishmutualandsupportiverelationshipsforthefriendshiptosurvive.Theexistenceofmutualandsupportiveinteractions(givingpositiveimpactsontheindividualsinvolved)isessentialbecauseitistheonlybasistojudgewhethersomeoneisagoodonlinefriend.Someonewillbeconsideredafriendevenifthemutualinteractionsareassimpleasexchangingmessages,liking,commentingonposts,andgivingbirthdaygreetingsonsocialmedia.MutualinteractionsshowamutuallyrewardingrelationshipamongSNSusers.

Mutualexchangesareillustratedinavarietyofsharingbehaviors,usuallyintheformofself-relatedinformation(personalexperience,thoughts,andfeelings)orgeneralinformation(news,stories,jokes).Thissharingturnsonsocialnetworkingsites,whilethecompanionshipthatpeopleexperiencebecomesasourceofjoywheninteractingonsocialnetworks.

Fromtimetotime,someonewillevaluatehis/heronlinefriendsandfriendshipstatus.Ifafriendprovideshim/hersecurefeeling,respect,andjoy,thenonlinefriendshipwouldbepreserved.Onlinefriendwillthenbeperceivedastruefriend.Otherwise,ifafrienddoesunpleasantactsanddisrespectstherelationship(e.g.,ignores),thenthefriendshipwouldloseitscredibility.Onemayavengethesameneglect,andonfurtheradversedevelopment,cancelthefriendship.

Study 1 produced important findings. First, seeing these in perspective of previous studies,we found that four out of five online friendship dimensions is cognate with aspects of offlinefriendship.Goodqualityfriendship,eitherinofflineoronlinesituations,demandssharingbehaviorandcompanionshipaswellasmutualsupportandvoluntariness(Collins&Madsen,2006;Rubin,Bukowski,&Parker,2006).Someaspects,suchascommitmentandintimacywilldeveloplateronceonlinefriendshipiseventuallytransformedintoanofflineormixed-modefriendship(Antheunis,Valkenburg,&Peter,2012;Mesch,2005).

Second,oneuniquedimensionstandsoutinonlinefriendship,i.e.cautiousness.Incyberspace,individualstendtobecautiousinestablishingnewrelationshipswithstrangers.Theydonoteasily

Figure 1. Online Friendship Model


20

trustandacceptstrangerstobecomefriends.Coutiousnessismanifestedinseveralbehaviorssuchasbeingselectiveindisplayingbiodata,keepingcertainpersonalinformationsprivateorlimitedtopublic,refusingfriendinvitationsfrompeoplewithsuspiciouslyfakeprofile,andunhesitatinglypressing“unfollow”or“block”buttontoavoidunpleasantpeople.Allofthesearedrivenbyawarenessofthedangersofcyberspaceandneedofsecureenvironmentandpersonalsafety.Theseprecautionaryactionsareentirelyreasonable,primarilybecauseofthenatureofvirtualworldthatdoesnotallowonetoseetheotherpersondirectlyandsomeoftheinformationcontainedinitmightnotcorrespondtoreality(Deilbert,2012).

ReSULT OF STUDy 2: DeVeLOPMeNT OF ONLINe FRIeNDSHIP SCALe

Thesocialnetworkingschemeisbasedontheaspectsobtainedfromstudyresults1.Atleastfiveaspectsareusednamelycautiousness,voluntariness,companionship,sharing,andmutualsupport.TheresultsofthedifferencetestofOnlineFrienshipScaleitemsisdoneon43fifthsemesterstudentsofFacultyofPsychology,obtaining19itemsthathaveadiscriminationpowerofmorethan0.3.Theconstructvalidationisthenperformed.

The construct validation was carried out on 150 psychology students and analyzed usingexploratoryfactoranalysis.TheKaiserMeyerOlkinMeasureofSamplingAdequacyobtainedresultsof0.837.Theresultsareintherangeof0.5to1,asrecommendedbysomeexperts.Furthermore,Barlett’sTestSphericitywithchisquareapproachobtainedavalueof1174,1(p<0.05).ItcanbeconcludedthatthescaleoffriendshipinUGMsocialnetworkisappropriatelyanalyzedbyusingexploratoryfactoranalysis.ThefactorloadforthewholedimensioncanbeseeninTable2.

Thevarianceexplainedofthisscaleis60.287%,whiletheacceptablevarianceexplainedlimitof60%.Therearefourdimensionsobtainedbybasingontheeigenvalueofmorethanoneandeachfactorloadmorethan0.4(Hair,Anderson,TathamandBlack,2004),i.e.,sharing,voluntariness,companionship,andmutualsupport.ThereliabilitytestresultswithalphaCronbachof0.880.

DatafortheconfirmatoryfactoranalysisderivesfromtheadministrationofthemeasuringtooltoPsychologystudents(N=190).Theaimofthisanalysisistoprovethatthemeasurementmodeloftheonlinefriendshipconstructfitthebasictheory.Theconformitybetweenthemeasurementmodelandthedataobtainedshowsevidenceofconstructvalidity.

Themeasurementmodeldevelopedisthemeasurementmodeloftwolevels,thefirstlevelisthemeasuringconstructwhilethesecondlevelisthedimensionsofthemeasuringconstruct.Themodelmeasuredisamultidimensionalmodelthathasinterrelateddimensions.ThesecondorderCFAmodelaccommodatesthisconcept.Specifically,themeasurementmodeltestedinthisstudyisasimplificationofthemeasurementmodelthatcorrespondstothestructureandcompositionoftheitemsinthescale.Simplificationisdonebymergingtwotothreeitemsinonedimension.Thisisdonetoadjustthenumberofitemsbysamplesizeanditemcharacteristics.Someitemshaveaveryhighcorrelationbetweenitemsthatneedtobeone.

CFAanalysisofsecondorderconcludesthatonlinefriendshipconstructmeasurementmodelisinaccordancewiththedataobtained.Itshowsthatall themodel’saccuracyindexesfit thefitmodelcriteria.Thechi-squaredscoreis25,024(p>0.05)whichshowsthediscrepancybetweentheproposedmeasurementmodelandtheidealmodel,i.e.themodelthatcanexplainthediversityinthedata,showsnosignificantdifference.Inotherwords,themeasuredtestmodelisinaccordancewiththedataobtainedfromthemeasurementresults.Ontheotherhand,alldescriptiveindicesofmodelaccuracyalsoshowfindingsonmodelaccuracy.Thecomparativefitindices(CFI)indexis0.987andtheTuckerLewisIndices(TLI)scoreis0.977.Bothareabovethecriticalpointofacceptanceofthemodelaccuracyis0.90.Meanwhile,RootMeanSquareErrorofApproximation(RMSEA)scoreis0.056whichisbelow0.08.Thisresultindicatesthatallindexofmodelaccuracyisinaccordancewiththecriteriaofmodelaccuracy(seeFigure2).


21

Parameterofthetestedmodelfoundthatallfactorloading,bothindicatoranddimension,scoresabove0.50.Theloadingfactorindicatormovesbetween0.664and0.988,whilethedimensionfactorloadingmovesbetween0.640and0.920.Allloadingfactorsaresignificantat5%level.

DISCUSSION

The exploratory factor analysis used to reduce the dimension of the Online Friendship Scale isconsideredentirelyappropriate.ThisisbasedontheresultsofKaiserMeyerOlkinMeasureofSideAdequacytestthatobtainedascoreof0.837.Theresultiswithintherangeof0.5and1(Hairetal,2004).Furthermore,avalueof1174,100(p<0.05)wasobtainedusingBarlett’sTestSphericitywithkaisquareapproachasrecommendedbyHairetal(2004).

Table 2. Factor Loads of Exploratory Factor Analysis of UGM’s Online Friendship Scale

No. Statement* Factor Load

In interacting with friends on social networks, how often do you: Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Sharing

1 Encouragethem .744

2 Shareexperiencewiththem .655

3 Shareinformationonactivitiesyoudidwithyourfriends

.565

4 Giveinspirationtothem .804

5 Congratulatethem .499

Voluntariness .499

6 Talkaboutcommonthingswiththem .542

7 Sendmessageswhenyouareonline .685

8 Receiveachatreplyfromyourfriend .711

9 Chatcasuallywiththemonsocialnetwork .728

10 Givecommentstoeachother(withfriends) .512

Companionship

11 Asknewsonyourfriendonsocialnetwork. .452

12 Careabouttheactivitiesthatyourfriendsdo .551

13 Talkabouteverydayactivities .640

14 Makeanappointmenttomeet .603

15 Openupaboutmypastfailings .637

Mutual Support

16 Likeastatus/postwithyourfriendsonsocialnetwork

.852

17 Respondtoastatus/postwithyourfriendonsocialnetwork

.621

18 Likeyourfriend’sstatus/post .787

19 Getrespond(like/comment)onyourstatus/postonsocialnetworkfromfriends

.449

* This English version of Online Friendship Scale is translated from Bahasa Indonesia.


22

Thefactorloadforthewholedimension,whichincludessharing,voluntariness,companionship,andmutualsupport,isbasedontheexploratoryfactoranalysis.Themostsignificantdimensionscontributing variance are sharing (30.197%), voluntariness (8.576%), companionship (8.256%),andmutualsupport (7.369%)andunidentified(5.889%).Testing throughCFAconfirms that theonlinefriendshipscaleismultidimensionalandhasinterrelateddimensions.Forfurtherexplanationregardingconceptofmultidimensional testwithcorrelateddimensions, readerscanconsultwithFurrandBacharach(2008).

Inthiscontext,thesharingdimension(e.g.sharingknowledge)isthelargestvariancecontributor.Thisprovidesarelevantoverviewoftheparticipants‘characteristics.Theprimarytaskofthestudentsistogainacademicachievementanddevelopgreatsocialrelations.Theattemptstohaveacademicachievementareinseparablefrominnovativeandcreativebehavior.Thedimensionofknowledgesharingprovidesapositivecontributiontoinnovativebehavior(Helmi&Pertiwi,2012).Itisthusunderstandablethatsharingknowledge,whetherintheformofdata,information,orexperience,isanessentialtoolinthecompletionofacademictasks(Helmi&Pertiwi,2012.,Majid&Panchapakesan,2015).

A person who can share knowledge usually focuses on task completion as their motivationtogainachievement(Kasim,2015).Theyshareknowledgebecausetheyhavethesamepurpose.Therefore,socialnetworkingisoftenusedasameansoptimizedfor thecompletionofacademictasks,giventheirlimitationstomeeteachotherface-to-face.Thus,itcanbestatedthatthesharingofknowledgecontributestothevariant,implyingthattheytooexistintherealworld.Socialmediaactasamediator.Thesesocialnetworkingusersarenotworriedabouttheproblemsthatappearinsocialnetworkingmedia.Forexample,whethertheycanbetrustedornot;whethertheycanappreciatetheircampusfriends.

Severalotherdimensionsoffriendshiparevoluntarinesscontributes10.576%,ofthevariance,companionship 10.256%, and mutual support 9.369%. These three dimensions have behavioralindicatorsforinterpersonalrelationshipsandnotforcompletingtasks.Whentheuserconsidersthesedimensions,thenthesethreedimensionsreferstointerrelatedstagesoffriendship.

Social penetration theory can be used to explain the psychological dynamics of the threedimensions,suchaswhensocialnetworkusersarewillingtoperformsocialinteractionthatislimited

Figure 2. Loading Factors Analysis


23

toperipheralthings.Alongwiththepassageoftime,thefriendshipwillbemoreintensive;fromordinaryfriendstogoodfriends.

Operationally,manybehaviorsreflectcompanionship,startingfromthedesiretokeepsocialinteractionuptoface-to-facemeetingsandrecountingfailures.Behavioralindicatorsthatindicateintimateexplorationwasnotevident.Whensomeoneinteractsonasocialnetworktheactualbehaviorismeanttoberelatedtoallonlinecommunitiesthroughpublicchannels.Therefore,one’sresponsetootherswillalsobeknownbymembersofthesocialnetworkingcommunity.Itisasdescribedbysocialnetworkanalysisfromthesocioculturalperspective.Companionshipandsocialsupportareexpectedwhensomeoneisintertwinedinsocialnetworking.Therefore,thethirdandfourthdimensionsonthisscalerelatetocompanionshipandmutualsupport.Thisisinaccordancewithsocialneedtheoryandsocialnetworkanalysist,whichstatesthatindividualsformrelationshipstofulfilltheneedforself-validationandcompanionship(Buhrmester,inTalmud&Mesch,2006).

CONCLUSION

BasedonStudy1and2results,itcanbeconcludedthatindividuals,particularlyadolescents,havetheneedtoestablishrelationshipswithpeersinaccordancewiththeneedtobelongtheory.Informationtechnology has become a mediator for relationships among friends on social networks. OnlinefriendshipisportrayedbyTalmudandMesch(2006)astheonlinerelationshipbetweenadolescents,occurringatdifferentlevelsofgroups,schools,andcountries.

Whenviewedfromadolescents’stagedevelopment,HelmiandPertiwi(2012)showedthatthereisadifferencebetweentheneedsofhighschoolstudentsandcollegestudentswhenjoiningsocialnetworkcommunity.Highschool students still require self-verification,having to reinforce theirpersonalidentity.Atthisstage,theyarestillinsearchfortheirpersonalidentity.Meanwhile,collegestudentsareatthefinalstageofdevelopment,enteringearlyadulthood.Forthem,thefulfillmentofthesedevelopmentaltasksisinpreparationforenteringtheprofessionalworld,bridgedbyacademicachievement.

Academicachievementisabridgetoperformverticalmobility.Thismeansthataftertheyhaveadegree,theyarefacedwiththetasktopursueacareerinthefutureandwillelevatetheirsocialstatus.Therefore, inUGM’sOnlineFriendshipScale, thebiggestcontribution is thesharingdimension(30.197%).Inthiscontext,socialmediaisnotusedtomeettheneedtoestablishrelationshipswitholdfriendsoraddnewrelationships,butratherserveasamediumforsharingusefulinformation,data,orexperiences.

Thissharingdimensionisadistinguishingfeaturetopreviousfriendshipscalesthathavebeendevisedsofar,whichfocusedmoreonfriendshipintherealworld.FriendshipQualityQuestionnaire-Revised(FQQ-Parker&Asher,1993)revealsdimensionsofcompanionship/recreation,validation/caring, help/guidance, intimate disclosure, conflict/betrayal and conflict resolution. Similarly,FriendshipQualitiesScale(FQS-Bukowski,Hoza,&Boivin,1994)alsocomprisesthedimensionsofcompanionship,help,security,closeness,andconflict.

Basedon thequalityof two friendship scales, adolescents’ friendshipactsmoreas a socialfunctionamongfriends.Onanonlinefriendshipscale,however,itappearsthatthetaskcompletionfunction(particularlyacademictask)becomesmoreprominent.Otherfindingsinthisstudyindicatethatonline friendship is less involved indeepaffectionaspects.This research is the first step inpreparingtheconceptandconstructionofonlinefriendship.Furtherresearchisexpectedtodevelopconceptsandconstructsofonlinefriendshipbyinvolvingabroadersubject.


24

ReFeReNCeS

Amichai-Hamburger,Y.,Wainapel,G.,&Fox,S.(2002).“OntheInternetnooneknowsI’manintrovert”:Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 125–128.doi:10.1089/109493102753770507PMID:12025878

Antheunis,M.L.,Valkenburg,P.M.,&Peter,J.(2012).Thequalityofonline,offline,andmixed-modefriendshipsamongusersofasocialnetworkingsite.Cyberpsychology (Brno),6(3).doi:10.5817/CP2012-3-6

Bukowski,W.M.,Hoza,B.,&Boivin,M.(1994).Measuringfriendshipqualityduringpreandearlyadolescence:ThedevelopmentandpsychometricpropertiesoftheFriendshipQualitiesScale.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,11(3),471–484.doi:10.1177/0265407594113011

Chan, D. K. S., & Cheng, G. H. L. (2004). A comparison of offline and online friendship qualities atdifferentstagesofrelationshipdevelopment.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,21(3),305–320.doi:10.1177/0265407504042834

Charmaz,K.(2006).Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research.London:SagePublicationsLtd.

Collins,W.A.,&Madsen,S.D.(2006).Closerelationshipsinadolescenceandearlyadulthood.InHandbook of personal relationships.CambridgeUniversityPress.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606632.012

Cooper,A.,&Sportolari,L.(1997).Romanceincyberspace:Understandingonlineattraction.Journal of Sex Education and Therapy,22(1),7–14.doi:10.1080/01614576.1997.11074165

De Choudhury, M., Sundaram, H., John, A., & Seligmann, D. D. (2010). Analyzing the Dynamics ofCommunicationinOnlineSocialNetworks.InB.Furht(Ed.),Handbook of Social Network Technologies and Applications.Boston:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7142-5_4

Deilbert,R.(2012).Thegrowingdarksideofcyberspace(…andwhattodoaboutit).Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs,1(2),260–274.Retrievedfromhttp://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol1/iss2/3/

Demir,M.,&Özdemir,M.(2010).Friendship,needsatisfactionandhappiness.Journal of Happiness Studies,11(2),243–259.doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9138-5

Fardiah,D.,Rinawati,R.,&Karsa,S.I.(2015).Literasiinternetdalammeminimalisasidampaknegatifmediajejaringsosial.Prosiding SNaPP: Sosial, Ekonomi dan Humaniora, 5(1),509-516.

Furr,R.,&Bacharach,V.R.(2008).Psychometrics: An Introduction.LosAngeles:SagePublications.

Helliwell,J.F.,&Huang,H.(2013).Comparingthehappinesseffectsofrealandon-linefriends.PLoS One,8(9),1–17.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072754PMID:24019875

Helmi,A.F.,&Pertiwi,Y.G.(2012).‘Eksis’Vs‘TidakEksis’:Exploringrelationalself-conceptofadolescentsparticipating in social networking. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Asian Association of Indigenous and Cultural Psychology 2012(pp.99-105).Perlis:UniversitiMalaysiaPerlis.

Helmi,A.F.,&Pertiwi,Y.G.(2012).IdentitasRemajaPenggunaJejaringSosial.InFaturochman, T. H. Tyas, W. M. Minza, & G. Lutfiyanto, Psikologi untuk Kesejahteraan Masyarakat(pp.101–117).Yogyakarta:PustakaPelajar.

Hwang, Y. (2014). Antecedents of interpersonal communication motives on twitter: Loneliness and lifesatisfaction.International Journal of Cyber Society and Education.,7(1),49–70.doi:10.7903/ijcse.1090

Indonesia,P.K.K.U.(2014).AsosiasiPenyelenggaraJasaInternetIndonesia,2015.Profil Pengguna Internet Indonesia 2014.

Kasim,H.A.(2015).Antecedentsofknowledgesharingbehaviour–analysingtheinfluenceofperformanceexpectancyanduser’sattitude. International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences,1(3),452–478.

Majid,S.,&Panchapakesan,C.(2015).Perceptionsandknowledge-sharingbehaviorofpre-universitystudents.The International Information & Library Review,47(1-2),30–38.doi:10.1080/10572317.2015.1049489

http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493102753770507

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12025878

http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2012-3-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407594113011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407504042834

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606632.012

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1997.11074165

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7142-5_4

http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol1/iss2/3/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9138-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072754


http://dx.doi.org/10.7903/ijcse.1090

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2015.1049489


25

Parker,J.G.,&Asher,S.R.(1993).Friendshipandfriendshipqualityinmiddlechildhood:Linkswithpeergroupacceptanceandfeelingsoflonelinessandsocialdissatisfaction.Developmental Psychology,29(4),611–621.doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611

Parks,M.R.,&Floyd,K.(1996).Makingfriendsincyberspace.Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 1(4).

Rice,E.S.,Haynes,E.,Royce,P.,&Thompson,S.C.(2016).SocialmediaanddigitaltechnologyuseamongindigenousyoungpeopleinAustralia:Aliteraturereview.International Journal for Equity in Health,15(81),1–16.doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0366-0PMID:27225519

Rubin,K.H.,Bukowski,W.,&Parker,J.G.(2006).Peerinteractions,relationships,andgroups.InW.Damon,R.M.Lerner,&N.Eisenberg(Eds.),Handbookofchildpsychology(6thed.,Vol.3,pp.571–645).NewYork.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.doi:10.1089/1094931041291295PMID:15257832

Suwana,F.,&Lily,.(2017).EmpoweringIndonesianwomenthroughbuildingdigitalmedialiteracy.Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences,38(3),212–217.doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2016.10.004

Talmud,I.,&Mesch,G.S.(2006).Onlinefriendshipformation,communicationchannels,andsocialcloseness.International Journal of Internet Science,1(1),29–44.

Avin Fadilla Helmi is a Lecturer of Social Psychology in Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia, with speciality in cyber behavior and psychological measurement. In this research, she contributed on online friendship theory development, reseach design, and scale construction.

Wahyu Widhiarso is a Lecturer of Psychometrics in Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia. He was responsible for CFA of this research.

Aftina Nurul Husna is a Lecturer in Faculty of Psychology and Humanities, Universitas Muhammadiyah Magelang, with speciality in qualitative methodology. She conducted qualitative analysis for this research using grounded-theory technique.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0366-0


http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.10.004

the development of online friendship scale · the friendship in the real world, namely the lack of...

Documents