Arguably, the technical features of social network sites simplify the process of maintaining and interacting with hundreds of social connections. At the same time, however, these sites’ affordances—namely the visibility and persistence of content and the articulation of those connections—raise new questions about how individuals engage in relationship maintenance with various types of ties. In this talk, I will highlight some key findings from a recent study of adult Facebook users (N=407), including the development of a new measure of relationship maintenance strategies and a series of analyses that tease out the types of relationships most likely to benefit from engaging in relationship maintenance behaviors through the site. Findings indicate that while these behaviors are generally beneficial for all types of relationships, specific groups—namely weaker ties, those at a greater geographic distance, and those who rely on the site as the primary communication channel—see more benefits from engaging in the four identified relationship maintenance behaviors. Implications of using these newer communication technologies as part of the relationship formation and maintenance process will also be discussed.
(How to Program) Paul Deitel, Harvey Deitel-Java How to Program, Early Object...
Being "Friends" in the Facebook Age: Examining Social Media's Role in the Relationship Maintenance Process
1. Being "Friends" in the Facebook
Age: Examining Social Media's
Role in the Relationship
Maintenance Process
Jessica Vitak
College of Information Studies
jvitak@umd.edu | @jvitak
jessicavitak.com
April 23, 2013
5. Research Questions
(1) How do the affordances of social network
sites affect the relationship process?
and
(2) How do these effects vary across types of
relationships?
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
6. Social Network Site Adoption, 2005-2012 (Source: Pew Internet)
100% 18-29
30-49
90%
50-64
80% 65+
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Sept. 2005 May 2008 Nov 2008 Apr 2009 Dec 2009 May 2010 May 2011 Feb 2012
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
7. Relationship Maintenance Pre-Internet
Defining maintenance: To keep a relationship
(1) in existence; (2) in specified state; (3) in
satisfactory state; (4) in repair (Dindia & Canary, 1993)
Maintenance strategies (see Stafford & Canary, 1991)
Positivity
Openness
Assurances
Shared Tasks
Networks
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
8. Relationship Maintenance Pre-Internet
Problems with existing research applying
these strategies:
1) Focus on strong-tie relationships
2) Assumed relationship between proximity and
closeness (and measures requiring proximity)
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
9. Characteristics of modern relationships
Multi-modal
Large networks of
weak ties
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
10. Features vs. Affordances
See Treem & Leonardi (2012)
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
11. SNS Affordances
4 Affordances
1
of SNSs:
4 1) Persistence
2) Association
2
3) Visibility
4) Editability
3
12. Method
3000 non-faculty MSU staff invited to participate in online
survey about Facebook use 415 responses
Respondents: female (76.2%), Mage = 44, White
(88.9%), well-educated (72.2% had college degree)
Participants logged into Facebook and selected first Friend
from “Friend Box” in profile
Responded to items about:
General Relational Outcomes
Engagement in 49 Facebook Behaviors
Perceived Impact of Facebook on Relational Outcomes
Frequency of Communication Through Various Channels
Relationship Descriptives and Demographics 12
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
13. FB Relationship Maintenance Scales
Exploratory Factor Analysis, 55 items, PCA, Promax rotation
Supportive Communication (7 items, M=3.68, SD=.82, α=.88)
“When I see (person’s name) sharing good news on Facebook, I'll Like his/her
update.”
“My Facebook interactions with (person’s name) are generally positive.”
Shared Interests (7 items, M=2.33, SD=.88, α=.87)
“When I see something online that I think (person’s name) would find
interesting, I'll send him/her a note about it on Facebook.”
“(Person’s name) and I use Facebook to share links or videos about a celebrity or TV
show we like.”
Passive Browsing (4 items, M=2.91, SD=.89, α=.85)
“Estimate the frequency with which you browse his/her photo albums.”
“I browse through (person’s name)’s profile page to see what he/she's been doing.”
Social Information Seeking (5 items, M=2.73, SD=.86, α=.79)
“I use Facebook to get to know (person’s name) better.”
“(Person’s name) posts updates to Facebook about his/her day-to-day activities.”
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
14. Predicting FB’s Impact on Relationships
Two DVs of Interest:
Facebook’s Impact on Relational Closeness
Facebook makes me feel closer to (person’s name).
Facebook has positively impacted my relationship with (person’s name).
Facebook helps me understand (person’s name) better.
Interacting with (person’s name) through Facebook makes me feel like I know him/her
better.
Being Facebook Friends with (person’s name) has improved our relationship.
Facebook’s Impact on Relational Stability
Without Facebook, (person’s name) and I would fall out of touch.
Facebook is the only way I stay in touch with (person’s name).
Overall, Facebook isn't very important in maintaining my relationship with (person’s
name). [REVERSE]
Facebook plays an important role in maintaining my relationship with (person’s name).
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
17. Geographic Distance
Regression revealed significant
positive relationship between
distance two DVs, but histogram
shows bimodal distribution
So how to address this?
MANCOVA!
Controlling for closeness, geographically distant Friends:
Engaged in three maintenance strategies to a greater extent
than geographically proximate Friends
(Supportive Communication, Passive Browsing, Social Information Seeking)
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
18. Traditional Facebook
Communication Communication
FB as Primary Communication
Face-to-face Wall posts
Phone calls Comments
Text messages Likes
Estimate the frequency with which you do the following
Email with (person's name):
Measurement scale: 1=Never, 5=Very Often Response Options: Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Often | Very Often
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
19. FB as Primary Communication
So how does this subgroup’s use of Face-to-Face
Phone Calls
Facebook differ from users? Text messages
Emails
Controlling for closeness, Friends Other
whose communication primarily Facebook
occurred through public Channels
(Wall, com
channels on Facebook: ments, Like
s)
Engaged in three maintenance strategies
to a greater extent than the rest of the sample
Perceived Facebook to have a greater impact
on their relational closeness and stability than Facebook as Primary
Communication Breakdown
the rest of the sample
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
20. Takeaways
Importance of framing when we study
relationship maintenance in online settings
Who is the population?
How are network members related?
What constitutes interaction and where does it take
place?
What constitutes an instance of relationship
maintenance?
Is “Liking” an update relationship maintenance?
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
21. Takeaways
Must consider role SNSs’ affordances play in
altering the relationship maintenance process
Visibility: helps establish common ground
Association: connect “friends of friends”
Persistence: can “relive” special moments and
conversations; keep in touch passively even when
you can’t talk
Editability: selective self-presentation; putting
your “best foot forward”
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
22. Takeaways
Must consider other ways in which these sites
differ from more traditional forms of interaction.
Context collapse
Managed through:
Boundary regulation
Self-censorship
Lack of management (i.e., embracing network
flattening to achieve greater potential benefits)
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
23. Next steps
Moving beyond tie strength to other ways of
classifying relationships.
Survey Question: Which category *best* represents
your relationship with (person's name)?
Family member Former classmate
Spouse/romantic partner Hometown friend (non-
Close Friend classmate)
Current Coworker Friend of a friend
Former Coworker
Someone in your field of
work (but not a coworker)
Current classmate
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
24. Next steps
Differences emerge when we compare engagement in
relationship maintenance strategies across certain groups.
(initial findings)
Who was significantly more engaged?
Supportive Communication: Friends of Friends
Passive Consumption: Family & Friends of Friends
Social Information Seeking: Family
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
25. Next steps
To what extent
do actual
behaviors in
Facebook map
onto perceived
relational
outcomes (e.g.,
closeness,
satisfaction,
access to
resources)?
27. Thanks!
Questions?
Jessica Vitak
College of Information Studies
jvitak@umd.edu | @jvitak
jessicavitak.com
Jessica Vitak | CASCI Talk | 4.23.13 | @jvitak | jvitak@umd.edu | jessicavitak.com
Hinweis der Redaktion
Persistence/Archivability:Communication is persistent if it remains accessible in the same form as the original display after the actor has finished his or her presentation Association: established connections between individuals, between individuals and content, or between an actor and a presentation Visibility: make their behaviors, knowledge, preferences, and communication network connections that were once invisible (or at least very hard to see) visible to others; associated with amount of effort needed to find informationEditability/Asynchronicity: individuals can spend a good deal of time and effort crafting and recrafting a communicative act before it is viewed by others Also important to note the features of these sites that are similar to other forms of CMC. Many ways to interact that include public and private channels, synchronous and asynchronous communication. In general, communicating through FB lowers the transaction costs of communicating. This is probably why it is considered less meaningful than other forms of communication. But for many weaker ties, or for people who are geographically distant, FB may be serving as the primary—or only—form of interaction, and may help connections keep from fading away and, in some cases, even strengthen relationships. So the question becomes not so much if FB can benefit relationships, but what types of relationships benefit most from using FB?