being "friends" in the facebook age: examining social media's role in the...

Being "Friends" in the Facebook Age: Examining Social Media's Role in the Relationship Maintenance

Process Jessica Vitak

College of Information [email protected] | @jvitak

jessicavitak.comApril 23, 2013



http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2009/04/

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?



Social Network Site Adoption, 2005-2012 (Source: Pew Internet)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 18-29

30-49

50-64

65+

Sept. 2005 May 2008 Nov 2008 Apr 2009 Dec 2009 May 2010 May 2011 Feb 2012



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



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)



Characteristics of modern relationships

Multi-modal

Large networks of weak ties



Features vs. Affordances

See Treem & Leonardi (2012)



SNS Affordances

4 Affordances of SNSs:

1) Persistence

2) Association

3) Visibility

4) Editability

1

2

3

4

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



FB Relationship Maintenance Scales

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.”


Exploratory Factor Analysis, 55 items, PCA, Promax rotation


Predicting FB’s Impact on Relationships

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).


Two DVs of Interest:


Interaction Effect: Closeness by Maintenance Strategy on FB Relational

Closeness



Interaction Effect: Closeness by Maintenance Strategy on FB Relational

Stability



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)



FB as Primary CommunicationTraditional

CommunicationFacebook

Communication

Face-to-face Wall posts

Phone calls Comments

Text messages Likes

EmailMeasurement scale: 1=Never, 5=Very Often

Estimate the frequency with which you do the following with (person's name):Response Options: Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Often | Very Often



FB as Primary Communication

So how does this subgroup’s use of Facebook differ from users?

Controlling for closeness, Friends whose communication primarily occurred through publicchannels on Facebook:

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 the rest of the sample

Face-book

Channels (Wall,

comments, Likes)

Other

Face-to-FacePhone CallsText messagesEmails

Facebook as Primary Communication Breakdown



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?



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”



Takeaways

Must consider other ways in which these sites differ from more traditional forms of interaction.

Context collapseManaged through:

Boundary regulation Self-censorship Lack of management (i.e., embracing network

flattening to achieve greater potential benefits)



Next steps

Family member Spouse/romantic partner Close Friend Current Coworker Former Coworker Someone in your field of

work (but not a coworker) Current classmate

Former classmate Hometown friend (non-

classmate) Friend of a friend

Moving beyond tie strength to other ways of classifying relationships.

Survey Question: Which category *best* represents your relationship with (person's name)?



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


Next steps

To what extent do actual

behaviors in Facebook map onto perceived

relational outcomes (e.g.,

closeness, satisfaction,

access to resources)?

Next Steps

Graph search: Maintenance tool?



Thanks!

Questions?

Jessica VitakCollege of Information Studies

[email protected] | @jvitakjessicavitak.com



being "friends" in the facebook age: examining social media's role in the...

Technology