Facebook Use and Social Capital

Abstract

This study employs the uses and gratification approach to investigate how different forms of Facebook use are linked to bridging social capital and bonding social capital. A survey of 152 college students was conducted to address research questions and to test hypotheses. Factor analysis identified six unique uses and gratifications: (a) information seeking, (b) entertainment, (c) communication, (d) social relations, (e) escape, and (f) Facebook applications. Findings reveal that intensity of Facebook use and the use of Facebook for social relations are positive predictors of bridging social capital, whereas the use of Facebook for escape is negatively linked to bonding social capital.

Keywords

SNS Facebook the uses and gratifications theory bonding and bridging social capital

Over the past two decades, the primary purpose of Internet use has changed. Whereas in the 1990s people used the Internet primarily for entertainment and information, in recent years they have used it for more interpersonal communication (Gross, 2004; Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin, 2005; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). One clear indication of this is the tremendous popularity of social network sites (SNSs). Given this nascent phenomenon, social outcomes of SNS use have been an important research area for scholars who are interested in the social impact of these platforms on young Internet users (e.g., Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008; Valkenburg, Peter, & Schouten, 2006). With respect to the social outcomes of SNSs on their users, one of the frequently explored outcomes is the creation of social network ties. Research has indicated that the use of Facebook leads to the creation of the perceived bridging social capital and bonding social capital (e.g., Ellison et al., 2007; Liu, Shi, Liu, & Sheng, 2013) and that intensity of Facebook use strongly predicts bridging social capital in a longitudinal analysis (Steinfield et al., 2008). Simply put, the use of SNSs is effective at helping people connect with each other.

However, most of the research in this area has focused on the association between media use, measured in time and frequency, and the creation of social ties; little consideration has been given to the different ways individuals use SNSs and the effects of these differences on social outcomes. For example, does Facebook have the same social effect on an individual who spends an hour a day composing messages and commenting and on an individual who spends an hour a day simply surfing pictures of parties that they were not at? To fill this gap in the literature, this study will investigate the various usages of a particular SNS, Facebook, and the effects of these usages on its users.

Thus, the principal purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to identify motives facilitating Facebook use and (b) to assess the effects of certain types of Facebook use on the creation of social ties: bridging social capital and bonding social capital.

SNSs and Uses and Gratifications Theory

The uses and gratifications (U&G) theory (or approach) is one of the frequently employed and influential frameworks in media research used to explain the effect of different types of media use (Katz, Haas, & Gurevitch, 1973; for a recent review, see Rubin, 2009). Since the introduction of the U&G theory (Katz, 1959), U&G has always provided media effect researchers with a useful theoretical approach, especially in the initial introduction stage of each communication medium (Ruggiero, 2000). Part of this perpetual usefulness comes from the important and consequential concepts that U&G approach considers: (a) psychological and social environment, (b) needs and motives to communicate, (c) media, (d) attitudes and expectations about the media, (e) functional alternatives to using the media, (f) communication behavior, and (g) the outcomes or consequences of behavior (Rubin, 2009, p. 166). In addition, as a key assumption, the U&G underscores audience activity, meaning that audience members are considered to be variably active participants, and communication vehicles (including contents) can be selected and used to satisfy audiences’ social and psychological needs, desire, or interests (e.g., seeking information to solve a personal problem; Katz et al., 1973; Rubin, 2009).

Since its introduction, the U&G framework has been used to answer the question of what unique gratifications media users expect or want to gain from media use (Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001). With respect to U&G on SNSs, a number of studies have been conducted to identify U&G of SNSs, and recently Hew (2011) classified SNS use motives identified in previous research into nine categories, such as maintaining existing relationships, self-disclosure, and gaining popularity among peers.

Although a number of studies have been constructed to investigate the motives for SNS use and some motives have been revealed by the U&G approach, previous research on SNS use and the U&G approach has indicated the necessity to investigate the personal and social needs that SNS users fulfill through the use of SNSs and to apply research in a variety of online contexts (Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). Thus, the following research question was put forth to contribute to a more accurate understanding of motives for the use of SNSs, especially Facebook:

Research Question 1: What are Facebook users’ primary motives for Facebook use?

Social Capital & SNS Use

In recent years, the concept of social capital has become a topic of increasing concern. Specifically, this concept refers to “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 119). Researchers have begun to approach the concept of social capital at the individual level instead of at the community level and the virtual world instead of the corporeal and to discern between two particular types of social capital at an individual level.

Specifically, Putnam (2000) distinguished between bridging and bonding social capital. Bridging social capital refers to weak ties representing loose social connections (Granovetter, 1982) between individuals in network research. In network research, weak ties (e.g., casual acquaintances) increase the possibility of exposure to novel ideas and innovations (Phua & Jin, 2011; Valente, 1999), but they exist typically without emotional attachment (Granovetter, 1982). On the other hand, bonding social capital refers to close relationships and is found between individuals in tight-knit and emotionally close relationships, and those involved provide each other with emotional support or scarce resources (Ellison et al., 2007; Putnam, 2000). As mentioned above, previous research indicates that bridging social capital may be augmented well by the use of SNSs, because SNS use supports loose social ties and helps users create and maintain relationships they constructed for accessing resources (Donath & Boyd, 2004; Ellison et al., 2007; Resnick, 2001; Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001). This may also be the case with Facebook. Thus, this study predicts that SNSs’ users tend to use Facebook to enhance and maintain their loose social networks, and posits the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Intensity of Facebook use will be positively related to bridging social capital.

At the same time, however, previous research exploring the relationship between Internet use and human relationships has produced mixed results, especially when focused on strong (or close) relationships. That is, a strand of research has revealed that “by using the Internet, people are substituting poorer quality social relationships for better relationships, substituting weak ties for strong ones” (Kraut et al., 1998, p. 1028). With respect to the association of Facebook use with bonding social capital, literature has yielded mixed results as well. For example, while Ellison et al. (2007) and Liu et al. (2013) found a positive relationship between intensity of Facebook use and bonding social capital, Johnston, Tanner, Lalla, and Kawalski (2013) did not find a significant relationship between them. Although studies on this theme have revealed positive relationships between Facebook use and bonding social capital (e.g., Ellison, Vitak, Steinfield, Gray, & Lampe, 2011), these studies focus on a certain feature use (e.g., privacy setting use) that may not capture the broad phenomenon characterized by the possible different uses of Facebook. For this reason, the current study seeks to examine the relationship between Facebook use and the creation of bonding social capital, and posits the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Intensity of Facebook use will be positively related to bonding social capital.

With respect to the research on the U&G approach mentioned above, most of the research explores what Internet users, including SNS users, indicate as needs and motives for using the Internet, including SNSs. Although literature on the U&G approach has placed an emphasis on user motivation, media usage patterns and their consequences are also integral components of the U&G frame (Campbell & Kwak, 2010; Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974). Although recent research on social media (e.g., Facebook) and social capital suggests the focus on the particular media uses to find stronger association between the U&G approach and outcome variables (e.g., Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011; Petrič, Petrovčič, & Vehovar, 2011), Papacharissi and Mendelson (2011) argue that a combined perspective examining the uses, networks, and affordances of media is also necessary to investigate the relationships between the U&G approach and resulting outcomes. For this reason, this study follows the perspective of Papacharissi and Mendelson and investigates whether differential forms of Facebook use are linked to bridging social capital and bonding social capital.

Research Question 2: To what extent are Facebook use patterns associated with bridging social capital and bonding social capital?

Method

Sample

To obtain the sample, a survey invitation was sent through a website that advertises ongoing research studies to classes in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison after obtaining instructor permission. This email contained a short description of the study, information about confidentiality and incentives, and a sign-up page. Among 548 students contacted, a total of 176 undergraduate students signed up, yielding a 32.1% response rate, between March 1, 2011, and April 15, 2011. Finally, 152 participants fully completed the online survey and were offered extra credit. Of the 152 subjects who completed the survey, 105 (69.1%) were female and 47 (30.9%) were male. The participants’ average age was 20.2 years (SD = 1.44). Additional demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics (n = 152).

	Frequency (%)	M (SD)
Age, years		20.2 (1.44)
Gender
Female	105 (69.1)
Male	47 (30.9)
Home residence
Out-of-state	66 (43.4)
In-state	86 (56.6)
Member of fraternity or sorority
No	110 (71.0)
Yes	42 (27.6)
Bridging social capital		4.14 (0.53)
I feel I am part of the UW-Madison community.		4.18 (0.74)
I am interested in what goes on at the UW-Madison.		4.35 (0.62)
UW-Madison is a good place to be.		4.53 (0.59)
I would be willing to contribute money to the UW-Madison after graduation.		3.81 (0.88)
Interacting with people at the UW-Madison makes me want to try new things.		4.07 (0.69)
Interacting with people at the UW-Madison makes me feel like a part of a larger community.		4.16 (0.67)
I am willing to spend time to support the UW-Madison activities.		4.08 (0.73)
At the UW-Madison, I come into contact with new people all the time.		4.21 (0.69)
Interacting with people at the UW-Madison reminds me that everyone in the world is connected.		3.88 (0.88)
Bonding social capital		3.54 (0.49)
There are several people at the UW-Madison I trust to solve my problems.		3.84 (0.93)
If I needed an emergency loan of $100, I know someone at the UW-Madison I can turn to.		3.69 (1.13)
There is someone at the UW-Madison I can turn to for advice about making very important decisions.		4.14 (0.84)
The people I interact with at the UW-Madison would be good job references for me.		3.99 (0.81)
I do not know people at the UW-Madison well enough to get them to do anything important.		3.94 (1.03)

Note. UW = University of Wisconsin.

Operationalization

Intensity of Facebook Use

One popular approach to measure media use is gauging the frequency of exposure to a medium and the time spent on it. However, this approach has some limitations when the user experience is provided by interactive online sites (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009). To account for this limitation, the current study employed a more complete measure: intensity of Facebook use, developed by Ellison et al. (2007), which was created to gauge user engagement in Facebook activities based on the number of Facebook friends, amount of time spent on Facebook on a typical day, and the degree of users’ emotional attachment to Facebook. With respect to the degree of users’ emotional attachment to Facebook, participants were asked if they agree or disagree with six statements such as “Facebook is part of my everyday activity,” on the responses: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree (Cronbach’s α = .80). As for the intensity of Facebook use, the individual items—number of Facebook friends, amount of time spent on Facebook on a typical day, and the degree of users’ emotional attachment to Facebook—were first recoded to the range from 0 to 1 before taking an average to create an intensity of Facebook use scale, due to differing item scale ranges and to ease the interpretation of the statistical analyses (α =. 79; see Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Scale of Intensity of Facebook Use (n = 152).

	%	M	SD
Intensity of Facebook use^a (Cronbach’s α =.79)		−0.0003	0.614
How many total Facebook friends do you have?		7.35	2.72
<100	0.0
100-199	3.9
200-299	3.9
300-399	12.3
400-499	6.5
500-599	11.6
600-699	11.0
700-799	7.7
800-899	13.5
900-999	8.4
1,000 or more	17.4
Average minutes on Facebook per day		7.59	3.20
<10	0.0
10-19	1.9
20-29	2.6
30-39	9.0
40-49	11.6
50-59	4.5
60-69	5.2
70-79	16.8
80-89	5.8
90-99	5.2
>100	36.8
Average log-on times per day		8.09	5.35
Facebook is part of my everyday activity^b		4.42	0.71
I am proud to tell people I am on Facebook^b		3.53	0.88
Facebook has become part of my daily routine^b		4.40	0.75
I feel out of touch when I haven’t logged onto Facebook for a day^b		3.48	1.14
I feel I am part of the Facebook community at the campus^b		3.67	0.94
I would be sorry if Facebook shut down^b		3.91	1.05

Individual items were first recoded to a 0 to 1 range before taking an average to create the scale.

Response categories ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Measures of Bridging and Bonding Social Capital

This study used the measures of Ellison et al. (2007) to measure bridging and bonding social capital, with a few minor changes. Specifically, this study changed some words in the measures to meet the context of the present study. The bridging social capital measure included nine items such as “I feel I am part of the college community” (note: in the measures, “college” is replaced with the actual university name; α = .89). In addition, the bonding social capital measure was comprised of a total of five items such as “There are several people at the college I trust to solve my problems” (α = .80). These items were measured on the responses: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Motivation

A pool of gratification items for the Facebook use was assembled from prior gratification-related studies on the Internet and SNS (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000). Because some items were used to examine gratification of the Internet and general SNS use, the present study edited and redefined the items so that they fit Facebook users’ needs. As a result, a total of 30 measure statements regarding the reasons for the Facebook use were constructed for the study. These include statements such as “I use Facebook in order to communicate with friends on campus.” To measure consumers’ motives in this study, a 5-point Likert-type scale was used as a response format ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Results

To investigate Hypotheses 1 and 2, and Research Question 2 regarding the relationship between the intensity of Facebook use, motivations for Facebook use, and bridging and bonding social capital, this study conducted hierarchical regression analyses (n = 150). In each hierarchical regression, demographic factors were controlled to see if the intensity of Facebook use and motivations for Facebook use accounted for variance in the dimensions of social capital over and above these other independent variables. All regression coefficients presented are standardized (beta weights).

Intensity of Facebook Use and Social Capital

To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, the present study first investigated the extent to which demographic factors predicted the amount of bridging/bonding social capital reported by students. Overall, the control block accounted for 3.3% and 2.4% of the variance in bridging social capital and bonding social capital, respectively. Then the intensity of Facebook use variable was included, which raised the R² for bridging social capital to .165 (F = 29.59, p < .001) and the R² for bonding social capital to .039 (F = 5.98, p < .05). The key finding is that after controlling for demographic factors, the extent to which students devoted themselves to Facebook significantly predicted the amount of bridging social capital (β = .20, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 1. With respect to bonding social capital, however, this study did not find any effects of the intensity of Facebook use variable on bonding social capital (β = .04, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported in this study.

Facebook Use and Motives

To examine Research Question 1, principal component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to find what the primary motives were for Facebook use. The principal component analysis produced a six-component solution that accounted for approximately 71.13% of the total variance. Each factor had an eigenvalue of at least 1. A total number of 13 motivational statements were excluded in any of the factors because these items were loaded on multiple factors. With respect to the factor analysis, Table 3 illustrates the six-factor structure with the 17 motive items and contains a summary of these results such as factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients, as well as variance values.

Table 3.

Principal Component Analysis of the Facebook Use Motives (n = 152).

	Components
Motives	1	2	3	4	5	6
(Component 1: Information seeking; α = .76)
To get information I need to know from others about daily life	.77	.19	.15	.08	.15	.16
To get contact information (i.e., e-mail addresses, phone numbers, etc.)	.72	.12	.19	−.07	−.05	−.11
To learn about people I do not know well	.72	−.02	.04	.20	.15	.17
To learn more about other people who live in my community	.64	.16	.35	.14	.07	.21
(Component 2: Entertainment; α = .79)
To have a good time	.11	.92	.12	.08	.13	.17
To have fun	.15	.90	.17	.08	.07	.17
To free myself from the stress of daily life	.11	.60	.12	.15	.25	−.18
(Component 3: Communication; α = .77)
To share my views with other people	.08	.13	.84	.01	.20	.06
To learn other people’s opinions on important issues	.23	.20	.80	.10	.05	.05
To get information about what is happening in the world	.29	.06	.67	.26	−.01	.11
(Component 4: Social relations; α = .66)
To keep in touch with friends I rarely see	−.05	.03	−.12	.79	−.15	−.14
To connect with people I met recently	.24	.11	.21	.73	.00	−.02
To communicate with friends on campus	.08	.15	.26	.71	.09	.06
(Component 5: Escape; α = .81)
To find my own space online	.14	.13	.16	−.03	.87	.10
To get the time alone	.07	.21	.05	−.04	.86	.14
(Component 6: Facebook applications; α = .71)
Because Facebook provides funny applications such as games and quizzes	.01	.06	.09	−.09	.09	.88
Because Facebook provides an search tool to find specific types of people	.28	.08	.09	−.00	.15	.79
Variance (explained by each factor)	.14	.13	.13	.11	.10	.10
Cumulative variance	.14	.27	.40	.51	.61	.71

Note. Factor loadings >.60 are in boldface.

Motivations of Facebook Use and Social Capital

As a block, motives of Facebook use accounted for 12.3% and 8.7% of the variance in bridging social capital and bonding social capital, respectively. With regard to the motives for Facebook use, the usage of Facebook for social relations was significant and positively related to the bridging social capital measure (β = .27, p < .01), and the factor, communication, was only marginally significant (β = .15, p < .10) as a predictor of bridging social capital. With respect to bonding social capital, Facebook use for escape was negatively and significantly related to bonding social capital (β = −.19, p < .05; see Table 4).

Table 4.

Regressions Predicting Bridging Social Capital and Bonding Social Capital (n = 150).

	Bridging social capital		Bonding social capital
	β	t	β	t
Control variable
Gender (male)	.04	0.59	−.01	−0.06
Age	−.03	−0.46	.01	0.06
Fraternity/sorority (yes)	.09	1.13	.18	1.96^†
Home residence (in state)	−.01	−0.11	.06	0.70
R²	.033		.024
Facebook variable
Intensity of Facebook use	.20	2.22*	.04	0.39
Incremental R²	.165***		.039*
Motives
Information seeking	.06	0.65	.16	1.59
Entertainment	.11	1.31	.07	0.70
Communication	.15	1.73^†	.08	0.85
Social relations	.27	3.17**	.16	1.63
Escape	−.10	−1.25	−.19	−2.02*
Facebook applications	−.06	−0.75	.09	1.03
Incremental R²	.123**		.087*
Final R²	.321**		.150*
Adjusted R²	.267**		.082*

Note. Regression coefficients are standardized; incremental R²change refers to the unique contribution of each block of variables controlling for the previous variables entered in the regression.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

One purpose of this study was to explore whether college students’ intensive use of Facebook related to bridging social capital and bonding social capital. In line with the findings of previous research (e.g., Ellison et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2013), we predicted that there would be positive relationships between them. Our results provide partially consistent evidence, indicating only a positive association between the intensity of Facebook use and bridging social capital. Consistent with Valenzuela et al. (2009), these findings do not support the view that heavy Internet users, including Facebook users, are more isolated and less connected with others than those who use the Internet occasionally. However, the present study did not find evidence that the intensity of Facebook use predicts increased bonding social capital. With respect to the finding, as Haythornthwaite (2005) suggested, the phenomenon that close friends make active interactions via multiple channels for communication, media multiplexity, may provide a theoretical explanation. Therefore, future research should consider the interplay of a variety of SNSs and the relationship to social capital, especially bonding social capital, rather than focusing on a certain SNS use (e.g., Facebook only) and the association with social capital.

A second purpose of this study was to identify motivational drives for Facebook use. As for primary motives, the study found that information seeking topped other motives regarding Facebook use. That is, it is likely that most students use Facebook for the purpose of learning about their friends and to obtain information needed for socialization. The finding is consistent with the findings of Ellison, Steinfield, et al (2011). The implications of this observation have important consequences, especially at the collegiate level. For instance, it is plausible that presentations on Facebook often highlight certain social aspects such as drinking or partying. Thus, if younger students were to considerably expose themselves to such aspects-related information, they may be influenced by negative, and possibly false, social norms leading to behavior such as binge drinking (Moreno, Christakis, Egan, Brockman, & Becker, 2012).

Our results suggest that a significant number of students use Facebook for entertainment reasons. This is not entirely surprising because that motive has been frequently mentioned as an important one for general Internet use including media use.

Next, this study found that Facebook users utilize Facebook for the purpose of communication, which includes sharing their views with other Facebook users, learning other peoples’ opinions on certain issues, and getting information on what is happening in the world. With respect to this finding, the potential to flow or present personal perspectives to politics or goods consumption through SNSs (here Facebook) is perhaps important for political campaign and marketing communication strategists who seek to have the greatest impact with their messages. In a sense, given the information seeking and entertainment seeking on Facebook, a viral message (including a digital image) seen on a Facebook news feed may have more reach and impact than a commercial placed on television.

A final result of particular interest is the presence of an escape motive: College students use Facebook to get away from the real world or real life, which may be related to worries or problems. This is consequential for Kraut et al. (1998) and Papacharissi and Rubin (2000), who found that people who have a higher desire to escape from worries and problems are more likely to use the Internet. Future research should consider exactly what the effects are of escaping one’s own life into the social presence of others. It is plausible that there can be unique effects when the gratification of escape is examined with respect to the interactive nature of social networks. While Facebook has been hypothesized to be a unique tool for fighting things such as depression among college students (Moreno et al., 2011), these results suggest that such findings might be contingent on motivation for Facebook use.

The second aim of this study was to examine how Facebook use may either support or hinder the formation of bridging social capital and bonding social capital. Among the motives for Facebook use identified in this study, the social relations motive was positively and significantly associated with bridging social capital. This suggests that keeping in touch with Facebook users who are currently linked as friends may be a strategy to maintain and/or increase the size of one’s bridging social capital. Because some studies provide evidence that bridging social capital (weak ties) may provide increased opportunities in the job market for job seekers (e.g., senior-year college students) such as getting information about job openings, it is plausible that users with many weak ties will get benefits from Facebook when it comes to professional aspirations.

While there was evidence supporting the positive impact of certain motives of the Facebook use on bridging social capital, this study did not find any factors positively influencing bonding social capital. As mentioned above, media multiplexity may be applied to the finding about the relationships between Facebook use motives and bonding social capital. However, this study found that the escape gratification of Facebook use was negatively and significantly associated with bonding social capital. In line with Haythornthwaite’s (2000) suggestion that online communicators who communicate with each other more frequently may be more likely to have closer relationships, more frequent communication with other Facebook users is necessary to build closer relationships as a first step toward bonding social capital. Thus, when the “social” is taken out of this social network, when it is a network for lurking and not interactivity, there exists little benefit in bonding social capital.

Limitations

This study, as any behavioral science study, has several limitations. While the university in which the sample was drawn is a diverse environment including national and international students, the results are not as fully generalizable. In addition, although this study was conducted based on the assumptions from Steinfield et al.’s (2008) longitudinal study, this investigation was based on cross-sectional data, so causal inferences cannot be made due to the inability to determine temporal sequence. Future research with larger samples including various contexts such as other institutions and a movement to experimental research will help researchers better understand the impact of different motives for and SNS use itself on the development of users’ social network ties.

Next, rather than investigating simply the U&G of the platform as a whole, or simply looking at the effects of general Facebook use, this study combines these notions to examine how specific motivations and uses are connected to the outcomes, bridging and bonding social capital. However, consistent with previous research on the U&G approach indicates, a lack of predictive power of the approach, especially related to bonding social capital, was found in this study. With respect to this finding, research has mentioned that the U&G approach is too simplistic to account for the gratifications users seek through media use (Littlejohn, 1996; Mondi, Woods, & Rafi, 2008). Future research should continue to explore the reasons for media use in more detail and nuance to elicit new uses survey items.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Min-Woo Kwon is a PhD candidate at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. His research interests cover social and psychological impacts of communication and information technologies and how social media affect human behavior.

Jonathan D’Angelo is a PhD student in Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He holds a Master’s in Communication from Ohio State University and a Master’s in Education from the University of Michigan.

Douglas McLeod is the William T. Evjue Professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research develops the antecedents and consequences of mass communication: social conflicts and the mass media, and media content and public opinion and knowledge.

References

Bourdieu

Wacquant

(1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Campbell

S. W.

Kwak

(2010), Mobile Communication and Civic Life: Linking Patterns of Use to Civic and Political Engagement. Journal of Communication, 60, 536-555. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01496.x

Donath

Boyd

(2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22, 71-82.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfield

Lampe

(2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13, 873-892. doi:10.1177/1461444810385389

Ellison

N. B.

Vitak

Steinfield

Gray

Lampe

(2011). Negotiating privacy concerns and social capital needs in a social media environment. In Trepte

Reinecke

(Eds.), Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web (pp. 19-32). New York, NY: Springer.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gross

(2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633-649.

Haythornthwaite

(2000). Online personal networks. New Media & Society, 2, 195-226.

10.

Haythornthwaite

(2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8, 125-147.

11.

Hew

K. F.

(2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 662-676. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020

12.

Johnston

Tanner

Lalla

Kawalski

(2013). Social capital: The benefit of Facebook “friends.” Behaviour & Information Technology, 32, 24-36. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2010.550063

13.

Katz

(1959). Mass communications research and the study of popular culture: An editorial note on a possible future for this journal. Studies in Public Communication, 2, 1-6.

14.

Katz

Blumler

J. G.

Gurevitch

(1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In Blumler

J. G.

Katz

(Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

15.

Katz

Haas

Gurevitch

(1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181.

16.

Kraut

Patterson

Lundmark

Kiesler

Mukophadhyay

Scherlis

(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.9.1017

17.

Lenhart

Madden

Hitlin

(2005). Teens and technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

18.

Littlejohn

S. W.

(1996). Theories of human communication. New York, NY: Wadsworth.

19.

Liu

Shi

Liu

Sheng

(2013). The moderating role of attachment anxiety on social network site use intensity and social capital. Psychological Reports, 112, 252-265. doi:10.2466/21.02.17.PR0.112.1.252-265

20.

Mondi

Woods

Rafi

(2008). A “uses and gratification expectancy model” to predict students’ “perceived e-learning experience.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11, 241-261.

21.

Moreno

M. A.

Christakis

D. A.

Egan

K. G.

Brockman

L. N.

Becker

(2012). Associations between displayed alcohol references on facebook and problem drinking among college students. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 166, 157-163. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.180

22.

Moreno

M. A.

Jelenchick

L. A.

Egan

K. G.

Cox

Young

Gannon

K. E.

Becker

(2011). Feeling bad on Facebook: Depression disclosures by college students on a social networking site. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 447-455. doi:10.1002/da.20805

23.

Papacharissi

Mendelson

(2011). 12 Toward a new (er) sociability: uses, gratifications and social capital on Facebook. In Papathanassopoulos

(Ed.), Media perspectives for the 21st century (pp. 212-230). New York, NY: Routledge.

24.

Papacharissi

Rubin

A. M.

(2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175-196.

25.

Park

Kee

K. F.

Valenzuela

(2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 729-733. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0003

26.

Petrič

Petrovčič

Vehovar

(2011). Social uses of interpersonal communication technologies in a complex media environment. European Journal of Communication, 26, 116-132. doi:10.1177/0267323111402654

27.

Phua

Jin

S. A.

(2011). “Finding a home away from home”: The use of social networking sites by Asia-Pacific students in the United States for bridging and bonding social capital. Asian Journal of Communication, 21, 504-519. doi:10.1080/01292986.2011.587015

28.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

29.

Raacke

Bonds-Raacke

(2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 169-174. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0056

30.

Resnick

(2001). Beyond bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. In Carroll

J. M.

(Ed,), Human-computer interaction in the new millennium (pp. 647-672). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

31.

Rubin

A. M.

(2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 10, pp. 165-184). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

32.

Ruggiero

T. E.

(2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 3-37.

33.

Shah

D. V.

Kwak

Holbert

R. L.

(2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-162.

34.

Steinfield

Ellison

N. B.

Lampe

(2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434-445. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002

35.

Valente

T. W.

(1999). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Hampton Press.

36.

Valenzuela

Park

Kee

K. F.

(2009). Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875-901.

37.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2007). Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1169-1182. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x

38.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

Schouten

A. P.

(2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 584-590. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584

39.

Wellman

Haase

A. Q.

Witte

Hampton

(2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436-455. doi:10.1177/00027640121957286