Chapter12

TowardaNew(er)Sociability:Uses,Gratifications,andSocialCapitalonFacebook

ZiziPapacharissiandAndrewMendelson
Emergingconvergentplatformsofsocialityonlinegeneratepublicinterestandinvitea
reconsiderationoftraditionaltheoreticalparadigmsofmediaresearch.Socialnetwork
sites,specifically,affordavarietyofsocialbehaviorsthatsimultaneouslyexpandand
challengeourconventionalunderstandingofsociability,audienceactivity,passivity,and
involvement.OnlineplatformssuchasFacebook,MySpace,LinkedIn,orCyWorldand
othersprovideindividualswiththeopportunitytopresentthemselvesandtoconnectwith
existingandnewsocialnetworks.Thesenetworkedplatformsofsociallyorientedactivity
permitanintroductionoftheselfviapublicdisplaysofconnection(boydandEllison,2007;
Donathandboyd,2004;Papacharissi,2002a&b;2009).Indoingso,theypromote
multimediatedidentitydrivenperformancesthatarecraftedaroundtheelectronic
mediationofsocialcirclesandstatus.Inaddition,theyprovideflexibleandpersonalizable
modesofsociability,whichallowindividualstosustainstrongandweaktiesthrougha
varietyofonlinetoolsandstrategies(Ellison,Lampe,SteinfieldandVitak,2010).These
customizedexpressionsofonlinesociabilityallowuserstopursuesocialbehaviorsthrough
variablelevelsofinvolvement,activity,andmultitasking(HargittaiandHsieh,2010;
Papacharissi,2010).
Individualsengagetheconnectiveaffordancesofsocialnetworksites(SNSs)soasto
combineofflineandonlinecommunicationstrategiesforinteraction.Thesestrategies
employconvergedmediabutalsoconvergesocial,culturalandpoliticalpracticesand
spheres(e.g.,Waltheretal.,2010).Conductingresearchinaconvergedmediaenvironment

requiresthatresearchersdeveloptheoriesandanalyticaltoolsthatexamineuses,effects,
activity,involvement,andcontentacrossmedia.Thesetoolsmustalsorecognizethatina
convergedenvironment,mediauseallowsaudiencestoserveasbothconsumersand
producersofmedia,frequentlyatthesametime.Theresultingconfluenceofemerging
behaviorsescapestheanalyticallensoftheoreticalapproachesthatassociateuses,user
profileswithparticularmediaandgenresofactivity.Thischapterproposesatheoretical
modelthatcombineselementsoftheUsesandGratificationsandtheSocialNetworks
approachessoastoexplicatepatternsofmediause,activity,andsociabilityemergingpost
convergence.

UsesandGratifications
Usesandgratifications(U&G)isapsychologicalcommunicationperspectivethatexamines
howindividualsusemassmedia,ontheassumptionthatindividualsselectmediaand
contenttofulfillfeltneedsorwants.ContemporaryU&Gresearchisgroundedinthe
followingfiveassumptions:(a)"communicationbehavior,includingmediaselectionand
use,isgoaldirected,purposive,andmotivated";(b)"peopletaketheinitiativeinselecting
andusingcommunicationvehiclestosatisfyfeltneedsordesires";(c)"ahostofsocialand
psychologicalfactorsmediatepeople'scommunicationbehavior";(d)"mediacompetewith
otherformsofcommunication(i.e.,functionalalternatives)forselection,attention,anduse
togratifyourneedsorwants";and(e)"peoplearetypicallymoreinfluentialthanthemedia
intherelationship,butnotalways"(A.Rubin,1994,p.420).U&Ghasbeenemployedto
understandvariousmediausesandconsequences,coveringforinstancesoapoperas(e.g.,
Alexander,1985;Perse,1986;A.Rubin,1985),newsprograms(e.g.,Palmgreen,Wenner

andRayburn,1980;A.Rubin,1981),usingtheVCR(e.g.,Levy,1987;A.RubinandBantz,
1989),listeningtotalkradio(e.g.,Turow,1974),watchingcableTV(e.g.,Becker,
DunwoodyandRafaell,1983),channelsurfing(e.g.,Ferguson,1992),magazinereading
(Payne,SevernandDozier,1988;Towers,1987a),tabloidreading(SalwenandAnderson,
1984),theInternet(e.g.,PapacharissiandRubin,2000),realityTV(e.g.,Papacharissiand
Mendelson,2007)andreligioustelevision(Pettersson,1986).
Specificallyrelatedtotechnologicalconvergence,U&Ghasbeenusedtounderstand
howindividualsemploytheInternettomeetdifferentgoals,basedontheirsocio
psychologicaldisposition(e.g.,Rubin,1994).Scholarshaveexaminedconnectionsbetween
onlinenewsandcivicengagement,publicopinionorpoliticalbehavior(e.g.,Hardyand
Scheufele,2005;KayeandJohnson,2002)orhowindividualsselectorcombineonlineand
offlinenewssources(e.g.Dimmick,ChenandLi,2004;DeWaal,SchoenbachandLauf,
2006).ResearchhasidentifiedmotivesforusingtheInternet,linkingthemtodistinct
sociopsychologicalcharacteristicsandtypesofInternetuse(PerseandFerguson,2000;
PapacharissiandRubin,2000;Papacharissi,2002aandb,2007).Consensussuggeststhat
onlinemediaserveasfunctionalalternativestointerpersonalandmediated
communication,providingoptionsorcomplementsforaspectsofanindividuals
environmentthatarenotasfulfilling.Alignedwithtimeandothermediumdisplacement
effectsthatotherstudiesonthesociabilityofnewmediahaveidentified(e.g.,Krautetal.,
1998;2002),thesestudieshelpexplicatetheplaceofnetbasedtechnologieswithinthe
individualsmediaecology.Tothisend,U&Ghasbeenusefulinconnectingspecific
attributestocertainusesoftheInternet,anddistinguishingbetweenusesthataremore
goalorientedorinstrumentalversusothersthatareofahabitualorritualisticnature.The

perspectivehasalonghistoryofbeingcombinedwithotherperspectives,andmore
recently,ithasbeenintegratedwiththeexpectancyvalueapproachtounderstandonline
mediaadoptionbehaviors(Lo,Li,ShihandYang,2005),andwithdiffusionofinnovations
toanalyzeindividualdifferencesingamingadoption(Chang,LeeandKim,2006).
However,U&Ghasnotyetidentified,instudiesofthesociabilityofnewmedia,a
particularsocialoutcomethatwouldbetheresultofmotives,sociopsychopredispositions
andusesworkingtogether.Infact,lackofconceptualclarityontheconceptofgratifications
hasbeenrepeatedlyraisedasatheoreticallimitationoftheperspective(Lometti,Reeves
andBybee,1977;Swanson,1977).Theperspectivehasbeencritiquedasbeingtoo
individualisticandunderemphasizingthevalueofinteraction(McQuail,1979).Thesocial
networkapproach,ontheotherhand,isstructuredaroundtheconceptofnetworked
interaction.Itfocusesontheoutcomeoftheinteraction,thatis,thenetworkandthesocial
capitalgeneratedbythenetwork.Still,whilethesocialnetworksapproachisrichinits
examinationofstructuralfeaturesofnetworks,itisbydefinitionnotconcernedwiththe
sociopsychologicalprofileoftheindividual.Thispresentsapossibleareaforconceptual
integrationbetweenthetwoapproaches,soastopresentaframeworkthatexamines
individualorientationstowardsocialnetworkuseonline.

OnlineSocialNetworksandSocialNetworkSites
Researchononlinesocialnetworksexaminestheformationandmaintenanceofonline
networksthatsupportexistingandnewsocialties(WassermanandFaust,1994;Wellman
andBerkowitz,1997).Theunitofanalysisistheinteractionorrelationbetweenpeople,
measuredintermsoftiesheldbyindividualsmaintainingarelation,thetypesof

exchanges,frequencyofcontact,strengthofties,intimacy,qualitativeelementsofrelations,
sizeofnetworks,globalorlocalspanofnetworksandnumerousothervariables
(Haythornthwaite,2000,2005;Haythornthwaite,WellmanandMantei,1995;
HaythornthwaiteandWellman,1998).
Earlieronlinesocialnetworkresearchexaminedcommunicationandmediumuse
(email,phone,faxandvideoconferencing)inaworknetworkofcolocatedresearchers,to
findthatpairsofindividualspossessingstrongertiestendedtocommunicatemore
frequently,maintainagreaternumberofrelationsandcommunicatemorefrequently
(Haythornthwaite,WellmanandMantei,1995;HaythornthwaiteandWellman,1998).This
findinghasresurfacedinavarietyofnetworksandcontext,includingdistancelearning
(e.g.,Haythornthwaite,2000),organizationalcontexts(e.g.,Garton,Haythornthwaiteand
Wellman,1997),andsocialsupportnetworks(e.g.,Hlebec,ManfredaandVehovar,2006)
allowingresearcherstofinetunetheconceptsofsocialnetworkrelation(typeofexchange
orinteraction,characterizedbycontent,directionandstrength),tie(pairswhomaintain
oneormoretypesofrelations,developingstrong,weakorlatentties),networkaswebof
persontopersonconnectivity(distinguishingbetweenegocenteredorwholenetwork
analysis,whichmayexaminerange,centralityorroles),andmediamultiplexity(the
tendencyofmorestronglytiedpairstomakeuseofmoreavailablemedia).Studies
focusingonNetville,awiredsuburbofToronto,revealedthatonlineinteractionfrequently
supplementedorservedasanalternativetofacetofaceinteraction,inwaysthathad
positiveeffectsonsocialcapital(e.g.,HamptonandWellman,2000;Hampton,2002).
Socialnetworksitesrepresentanaturalextensionofthiswork,astheyconnect
networksofindividualsthatmayormaynotshareaplacebasedconnection.Social

networksitesaredefinedaswebbasedservicesthatallowindividualsto(1)constructa
publicorsemipublicprofilewithinaboundedsystem,(2)articulatealistofotherusers
withwhomtheyshareaconnection,and(3)viewandtraversetheirlistofconnectionsand
thosemadebyotherswithinthesystem(boydandEllison,2007).Theyhostsocial
networksthatarearticulatedonline,andassuch,theypresentoneiterationoraspectof
socialnetworkresearch.OnmostSNSs,usersarenotlookingtomeetnewpeopleorto
network,butrathertosustaincontactwiththeirexistinggroupoffriendsand
acquaintances(boydandEllison,2007).Indoingso,presentingaprofileanddisplaying
connectionswithotherspubliclyformsthebasisforinteractiononSNSs(boydandEllison,
2007;boydandHeer,2006;Donath,2007;Donathandboyd,2004).SNSssupportvarying
typesofinteractionondiverseanddifferingplatforms,andSNSslikeFriendster,MySpace
andFacebookhavehadasignificantinfluenceontheorientationofmostotherSNSs(fora
timelineofSNSs,seeboydandEllison,2007).

SocialNetworkSitesasSocialArchitectures
ResearchonSNSsgeneratesinterdisciplinaryinterestandevidenceofevolvingsocial
behaviorsonline.Selfpresentationonlineandimpressionmanagementpresentsacommon
startingpointformostresearchers.boydandHeer(2006)studieduserprofilesonSNSsas
conversationalpieces,andfoundthatFriendsterusersdisplayfriendstosuggestorsignal
aspectsoftheiridentitytopotentialaudiences.Inthiscontext,publicdisplaysof
connectionpresentthecenterofidentityperformance,andaretypicallyviewedasa
signalofthereliabilityofonesidentityclaims(Donathandboyd,2004:73).

SeveralresearchersemploythearchitectureoftheSNSasstartingpoint,todiscuss
andinvestigateavarietyofrelatedtopics.Stutzman(2006)trackedthetypesofpersonal
informationmostlikelytobedisclosedonSNSs,pointingoutthatlexicalorarchitectural
differencesamongtheseSNSs(Friendster,MySpace,andFacebook)contributedto
tendenciesorvariationsinpersonalinformationdisclosure.GrossandAcquisti(2005)
furtherexaminedhowindividualsdiscloseinformationandprotectprivacyonFacebook,
findingthatmostuserssharepersonalinformationopenlyandfewmodifytheirdefault
privacysettingsforincreasedprotection.FormembersofaYouTubecommunity,publicly
private(privatebehaviors,exhibitedwiththememberstrueidentity)andprivately
public(sharingpubliclyaccessiblevideowithoutdisclosingmemberstrueidentity)
behaviorsweredevelopedwithinthearchitecturalconfinesofthesystemtosignal
differentdepthsofrelationshipsandtocommunicateempathy,respectorinclusionamong
membersofthenetwork(Lange,2007).OnMySpaceandFriendster,displaysofinterests
werecarefullyselectedandarrangedsoastocommunicateaffiliationwithaparticular
tastecultureorfabric(Liu,MaesandDavenport,2006;Liu,2007).Thesetrendsare
reflectiveofbehaviorsthatareneedoriented,andaredevelopedaroundthecustomization
ofsocialattributesoftechnologies,effectedforthecommunicationofsocialinformation.
Theysuggestaconfluenceofusermotives,mediaattributes,andsocialtiesoroutcomes
thathavebeenpreviouslyexaminedinmediaresearchwithintheapproachesofusesand
gratifications,socialnetworks,andthroughadiscussionofmediaattributesoraffordances
ofparticularmediagenresorplatforms.
Inthesenetworksthatareparticularlyegocentered,individualsatthecenterof
theirownnetworkstakechargeandadaptnetworknormstofitpersonal,culturaland

socialcontext(boyd,2006a).Moreover,SNSusersfrequentlyinterpretcuesdepositedin
memberprofiles,suchasmessageonFacebookwallsorpicturesofmemberfriendsto
makeinferencesaboutthememberscharacter(Walther,VanDerHeide,Kim,Westerman
andTong,2008).Inacontextthatismarkedlynonwestern,suchasCyworld,architectural
SNSfeaturesareadaptedtomatchtheculturalnormsoftheusersandthehighcontext
relationaldialecticsofKoreans(KimandYun,2007).Theseempiricaldatafurther
documentreappropriationsoftechnologythatcatertothefulfillmentofparticularneeds
associatedwiththesustenanceofsocialtieswithavarietyofcirclesornetworks.
Finally,severalstudiesdeveloparoundFacebook,themostpopularofsocial
networksatpresent.Inparticular,studiesofFacebookfindthatusersemploythenetwork
tolearnmoreaboutindividualstheymeetoffline,thusfurtherdocumentingtheconnection
betweenonlineandofflinebehaviorsandtendencies(Lampe,EllisonandSteinfield,2006).
Furtherstudiesrevealastrongassociationbetweenbridgingsocialcapital,whichexpands
socialopportunitiesandenhancesinformationsharingamongprimarilyweakties,and
individualsreportinglowsatisfactionandlowselfesteem(Ellison,SteinfieldandLampe,
2007).Thesefindingsunderlineconnectionsbetweenuserorientationsandsubsequent
generationofsocialcapital,whichmapoutacredibleintersectionforU&Gandthesocial
networksapproach.

Rationale

TheproposedstudyisbasedonatheoreticalframeworkthatcombinesU&Gwith

thesocialnetworkapproachtostudyhowmotivesandsocialpsychologicaltraitsaffect
Facebookuse,socialnetworkstructuralfactors(sizeofnetwork,density,typesofties)and

socialcapitalgenerated.ThestudycombinesconceptsidentifiedandmeasuredbyU&Gand
socialnetworkresearchers,withaparticularfocusonsocialandpsychological
predispositions,motives,socialties,andsocialcapital.Thefollowingparagraphsdetailthe
variablesstudiedwithinthistheoreticalframework,andhowtogethertheyformthe
conceptualstructurefortheintegrationofthetwoperspectives.Thestudyfocusesonthe
followingresearchquestions:
RQ1: WhataresalientmotivesforFacebookuse?
RQ2: Howdomotivesandsocialandpsychologicalantecedentsinteractwithsocial
capitalgeneratedonFacebook?
Method
Sample
Atotalof344studentsenrolledinintroductorycommunicationclasseswithinanurban
universityweresurveyedabouttheiruseofFacebook.Participationinthestudywas
voluntary,andparticipantsreceivedextracreditinthecourses.Theinitialsamplewasthen
snowballed,throughparticipantsaskingtheirFacebookfriendstocompletethesurvey.An
onlinesurvey,administeredthroughZoomerang.com,wascreatedinordertoexamine
individualsuses,motivationsandeffectsofFacebook.Thesamplebreakdownwas64.3%
female(n=221)and35.7%male(n=123);85%ofsamplewerecurrentundergraduates
incollege.Ofthose36.8%werefreshman;25.1%weresophomores;26.4werejuniors;
and,11.7%wereseniors.Themajorityofparticipantswerebetweentheageof18and25
(88.4%).73.7%ofthesamplewasWhite,14.5%AfricanAmerican,7.4%AsianAmerican,
3.6%Hispanic,and4.1%ofmultiethnicorigin.
FacebookUse

PatternsofFacebookuse.ParticipantsweresurveyedabouttheirgeneralInternet

andFacebookUse.Overall,participantsspentanaverageof74minutesonline(SD=77.53)
perweek.Morespecifically,83.7%oftheparticipantsreportedcheckingtheirFacebook
pagedaily.Infact,participantsreportedcheckingtheirFacebookpagesanaveragealmost
6timesperday(m=5.78;SD=5.831)andspendinganaverageofalmost36minutesper
dayonFacebook(m=35.83;SD=127.427).Wewantedtogetasenseofwhatparticipants
didwhentheyloggedontoFacebook.Aseriesofquestionsexaminedanumberofactivities
(ona1to5scale;1=everytimeIlogon;5=never).Participantsmostoftensentmessages
(M=2.54;SD=.901;median2.00)andwroteonfriendswalls(M=2.17;SD=.907;median
=2.00).Lessfrequentlyparticipantspostednewphotographs(M=3.04;SD=.963;median
=3.00),searchedforadditionalfriends(M=3.16;SD=.992;median=3.00),andtagged
alreadypostedphotos(M=3.16;SD=1.022;median=3.00).Theyseldomupdatedtheir
ownprofile(M=3.60;SD=.885;median=4.00),playedgames(M=4.37;SD=.984;
median=5.00),tookquizzes(M=4.26;SD=.919;median=5.00),incorporatednew
addons(M=3.97;SD=.823;median=4.00)andusedaddonstheyalreadyhad(M=3.97;
SD=1.075;median=4.00).
91.3%oftheparticipantsreportedhaving51ormorefriends.Sixtypercentofthe
participantsreportedhaving51ormorephotospostedontheirpage.55.8%reported
havingbetweenoneandfiveaddonsontheirpage,andanother30.7%reportedhaving
between6and15addons.Finally,20%oftheparticipantsbelongedtobetweenoneand
fiveFacebookgroups,another37.9%belongedtobetweensixand15groups,and25.6%
morebelongedtobetween16and30.Only37.8%oftheparticipantsreportedstartinga
Facebookgroup.

Motives
Wecombinedinterpersonal(inclusion/companionship),media(entertainment,habit,
information,socialinteraction,escape,passtime,andrelaxation),newermedia(coolness
factor/noveltyoftechnology,selfexpression),andprofessionaladvancementmotivesto
construct11apriorimotivecategoriesofpossibleFacebookmotives:passtime,relaxation,
entertainment,informationsharing,professionaladvancement,companionship,social
interaction,coolandnewtechnology,selfexpression,habit,escape).Threeitemswereused
torepresenteachoftheseaprioricategories,andweadaptedthestatementsfrom
previousresearchtoFacebook(Papacharissi&Rubin,2000;Pornsakulvanich,Haridakis&
Rubin,2008).Respondentswereaskedtoindicatehowmuchthesereasonswereliketheir
ownreasonsforusingFacebookona5pointLikertscale(5=exactly,1=notatall).We
usedprincipalcomponentsanalysiswithVarimaxrotationtoextractandinterpretpossible
Facebookmotivefactors.Werequiredaneigenvalueof1.0orgreatertoretainafactor,
whichalsohadtocontainatleastthreeitemsmeetinga60/40loadingcriteria.Responses
totheretaineditemsweresummedandaveragedtoformthescalesrepresentingeach
factor.Theanalysisaccountedfor69%ofthevariance,andtheresultsaresummarizedin
responsetoRQ1below.
SocialandPsychologicalAntecedents
Contextualage.Contextualageisaconstructthatwasdevelopedtoaccountforthe
inaccuraciesresultingfromonlyusingchronologicalageincommunicationresearchand
wasdevelopedas"atransactional,lifepositionindexofaging"(A.Rubin&Rubin,1986).
Dependingoncontextualage,peoplemayalsousemediatedchannelsasfunctional
alternatives(overinterpersonalones)forthefulfillmentofinterpersonalneeds(A.Rubin&

Rubin,1982,1986;R.Rubin&Rubin,1982).A.RubinandRubin's(1982)ContextualAge
Scalewasusedtoassesslifeposition,consistingofthefollowingdimensions:physical
health,interpersonalinteraction,mobility,lifesatisfaction,socialactivity,andeconomic
security.Thephysicalhealthandeconomicsecuritydimensionswerenotincludeddueto
lowexpectationofsignificantvariationwithinthepopulationunderstudy.Eachremaining
dimensionlifesatisfaction,mobility,socialactivity,andinterpersonalinteraction
containedfiveitems(A.Rubin&Rubin,1982;R.Rubin&Rubin,1982).Respondentsstated
theirlevelsofagreementwiththesestatementsona5pointLikerttypescale(5=strongly
agree,1=stronglydisagree).Responsestotheitemsofeachsubscaleweresummedand
averaged.Themeanscoresfortheseparatedimensionswere:lifesatisfaction(M=3.32,SD
=.75,=.68);mobility(M=3.68,SD=0.87,=.62);socialactivity(M=3.67,SD=0.70,
=.67);andinterpersonalinteraction(M=3.75,SD=0.66,=.45).

Unwillingnesstocommunicate.Burgoon(1976)conceptualizedunwillingnessto

communicateasachronictendencytoavoidand/ordevalueoralcommunication(p.60).
Theconstructhasbeenlinkedtoanomiaandalienation,introversion,selfesteem,
communicationapprehension,andreticence(Burgoon1976).Ithasbeenappliedtomass
mediaresearchtohelpexplaindifferencesinmediaandnewtechnologyuseandhasbeen
linkedtoapreferenceforonlineormediatedchannelsofcommunicationforindividuals
whodidnotfindfacetofacechannelsasconvenient,readilyavailable,orcomfortable.It
hastwodimension:(a)approachavoidance(UCAA),whichindicatesanxiety,introversion,
anddiminishedparticipationingeneralcommunication,and(b)reward(UCR),which
includesdistrust,perceivedisolation,andanevaluationoftheoverallutilityof
communication.WeadaptedBurgoons(1976)20itemscaleto10itemsforuseinthis

study.ThescalewascodedsothathighscoresforUCAAimplyatendencytowelcomeand
seekoutinterpersonalencounters,andhighscoresforUCRreflectanindividualwhofeels
valuedbytheirenvironmentandperceivesinterpersonalcommunicationtoberewarding.
Weuseda5pointLikerttypescale(5=stronglyagree,1=stronglydisagree)tobe
consistentwiththerestofthemeasuresinthestudy,andsummedandaveragesresponses
totheitems.ThemeanfortheUCAAdimensionwas(M=3.69;SD=.65,=.79)andfor
theUCR(M=4.07;SD=.52,=.70).
CommunicationOutcomes
SocialCapital.Socialnetworktiesarefrequentlyassessedbymakinguseoftheconcept
ofsocialcapital.Previousliteratureonsocialcapitalconceptualizesthreedifferentformsof
socialcapital.Bondingsocialcapitalfocusesonresourcespeoplehaveforstrengthening
theconnectionbetweenpeopleintheircloselyconnectedgroups.Bridgingsocialcapital
focusesonreachingoutsidetraditionalingroupstolinkwiththoseunlikeyou.And
maintainedsocialcapitalfocusesonstayingconnectedtogroupsfrompreviousmoments
inoneslife(Ellison,Steinfield&Lampe,2007).Fifteenitems(fiveforeachtypeofsocial
capital),modifiedfromWilliams(2006)andEllison,Steinfield&Lampe(2007)were
included(maintained(M=3.94;SD=.62;=.75),bridging,(M=3.43;SD=.63;=.72),
andbonding(M=3.38;SD=.67;=.72).
Affinitywithmediahasbeenlinkedtomanymotives,suchasarousal,habit,pass
time,escape,entertainment,companionship,andinformationseeking,inthetelevisionand
onlinecontext.(e.g.,A.Rubin,1981;Papacharissi&Rubin,2000).TheTelevisionAffinity
Scale(A.Rubin,1981)wasadaptedtoassesslikingfororaffinitywithFacebook.Thiswasa
5itemLikertscale(5=stronglyagree,1=stronglydisagree),reflectinghowattached

peoplearetotheplatform,howmuchtheymightmissitifgone,orhowmuchtheydepend
onitfortheirdailyroutines.Responsestotheitemsweresummedandaveraged.The
meanforthescalewas2.50(SD=0.33,=.88).

OpenEndedQuestions
ParticipantsweregiventheopportunitytoexpandupontheirviewsofFacebook

throughthreeopenendedquestions.Theseresponseswereanalyzedqualitatively,pulling
outthemajorthemesthatarose.Weasked:Inyourownwords,whatisitaboutFacebook
thatmakesitappealing?WhatdoyoulikethemostaboutFacebook?Whatdoyoulikethe
leastaboutFacebook?Responsesareemployedinthediscussionsection,toilluminateand
substantiatequantitativefindings.
Results
RQ1:MotivesforFacebookUse.

Thefactoranalysisofthemotivestatementsyieldednineinterpretablefactors:

expressiveinformationsharing,habitualpasstime,relaxingentertainment,coolandnew
trend,companionship,professionaladvancement,escape,socialinteraction,andnew
friendships.Thefirstfactor,expressiveinformationseeking(=.85),accountedfor11.39%
ofthevarianceafterrotation.Itcombinedfiveitemsfromtheinformationsharingandself
expressionaprioricategories,pointingtoaneedtosharebothgeneralandpersonal
informationwithothers,andalludingtoalackofdistinctionbetweenthetwothatis
characteristiconFacebook.Thesecondfactor,habitualpasstime(=.85),consistedoffive
itemsfromtheaprioricategorieshabitandpasstime,andexplained10.54%ofthe
variance.TheitemsallpointedpasstimeusesofFacebookofaritualisticnature,possibly
attestingtotheaddictivenatureofthegenre.Thethirdfactor,relaxingentertainment(=

.82),combinedfiveitemsfromtherelaxandentertainmentmotivecategories,and
accountedfor9.4%ofthevariance.Thefactorindicatedapassiveandentertainment
orientedmodeofengagingwithFacebook.Thefourthfactor,coolandnewtrend(=.80),
accountedfor7.03%ofthevariancecontainedallthreeitemsofthesameapriorimotive
category,representingacleanloadingofthisfactor.Thismotivecategorysuggestedthat
individualswereonFacebookbecauseitisthethingtodo,itiscool,andbecause
everybodyelseisdoingit,thuspointingtothesocialdesirabilitycostofstayingoff
Facebook.Thefifthfactor,companionship(=.83),retainedallthreeitemsfromits
respectiveaprioricategory,andexplained6.76%ofthevariance,pointingtotheabilityof
themediumtosimulatecompanionshipintheabsenceofotherchannels.Thesixthfactor,
professionaladvancement(=.80),alsodidnotdeviatefromitsaprioriconceptualization,
andaccountedfor6.74%ofthevariance.Theseventhfactor,escape(=.75),alsoemerged
initsaprioriformationpostrotation,andaccountedfor6.56%ofthevariance.Thisfactor
suggestedprocrastinatoryusesofFacebook,toavoidtasksorindividuals.Theeighth
factor,socialinteraction(=.83),explained6.16%ofthevariance,butonlycontainedtwo
itemsfromitsaprioricategory,andthuswasnotemployedissubsequentanalysis.The
ninthandfinalfactorwasasingleitemfactor(Meetnewpeople),explaining4.3%ofthe
variance.WhiletheitemattestedtotheimportanceofFacebookinmakingnew
connections,unfortunatelythemakeupofthefactordidnotmeetthecriteriaforinclusion
instatisticalanalysis.Futurestudiesmaytrytoexpandandperfecttheselasttwofactors,
astheyappeartoalludetoimportantsocialneedsfulfilledbyFacebook.

Habitualpasstime(M=3.82,SD=.75)andrelaxingentertainment(M=3.02,SD=

.68)hadthehighestmeanscores,renderingthemthemotivesmorelikelytobesalientto
most.Expressiveinformationsharing(M=2.75,SD=.80),escapism(M=2.54,SD=.87),and
coolandnewtrend(M=2.50,SD=.92)werealsofairlysalientfactors,alongwith
companionship(M=2.35,SD=.95),toalesserextent.Professionaladvancement(M=1.92,
SD=.84)wastheleastsalient,indicatingthatitwasmorelikelytobesignificantfora
specificandsmallerpartofthestudypopulation.Mostmotivescorrelatedmoderately,with
thehighestcorrelationsnotedbetweencompanionshipandescapism(r=.45),
companionshipandrelaxingentertainment(r=.40),escapismandhabitualpasstime(r=
.43),andescapismandrelaxingentertainment(r=.44),p<.001.Thesetendencies
sketchedoutratherritualisticandsociallyorientedusesoftheFacebookgenre.
RQ2:Motives,Antecedents,andSocialCapital
Themostsignificantandhighestcorrelationswerenotedamonginterpersonal
interactionandtheapproachavoidance(UCAA)(r=.43,p<.001)andthereward(UCR)(r
=.53,p<.001)dimensionsoftheunwillingnesstocommunicatescale.UCAAalso
correlatedhighlywithlifesatisfaction(r=.49,p<.001)andsocialactivity(r=.40,p<
.001),asdidUCRwithlifesatisfaction(r=.46,p<.001)andsocialactivity(r=.45,p<
.001).Maintained,bondingandbridgingsocialcapitalcorrelatedpositivelyand
significantlywithallmotives,withthehighestandmostsignificantrelationsnoted
betweenbridgingsocialcapitalandexpressiveinformationsharing(r=.43,p<.001),as
wellasrelaxingentertainment(r=.38,p<.001).
Fourseparatehierarchicalmultipleregressionanalyseswereconductedtofurther
investigatethenatureanddirectionoftheserelationships.FacebookAffinity,bonding,

bridgingandmaintainedsocialcapitaleachservedasthedependentvariableforthefour
regressions.Variablesassociatedwiththeamountoftimespentonline,numberoftimes
individualscheckFacebookdaily,estimatedtimespentonFacebookperweek,andnumber
ofyearsofexperiencewiththeInternetwereenteredonthefirststepoftheregression
analysis.Contextualagedimensions(mobility,interpersonalinteraction,lifesatisfaction
andsocialactivity),UCApproachAvoidanceandUCRewardwereenteredonthesecond
step,asantecedentvariables.TheMotivesforFacebookUsescaleswereenteredonthe
thirdstepoftheanalysis.Foraffinity,twopredictorsemergedatthefinalstepofthe
analysis:TotaltimespentonFacebookperweek(F=4.90,p=.03)andthemotiveof
escapism(F=4.13,p=0.5),inanoverallsignificantequation(R=.73,R2=.54,F[7,29]=
2.02,p=.01).ThisindicatedthatthemorepeopleusedFacebook,thegreatertheaffinity
theydevelopedforit,especiallyforusesassociatedwithescapistneeds.
Thesamehierarchicalregressionprocedurewasrepeatedforthethreetypesofsocial
capital.Theequationforbondingsocialcapitalyieldedtwosignificantpredictors,bothof
whichincreasedinsignificanceinthefinalstepoftheanalysis:Totaltimespentonlineper
dayoffwork(F=5.76,p=.02),andthecontextualagedimensionofsocialactivity(F=
11.13,p=.002),inanoverallsignificantequation(R=.81,R2=.66,F[7,28]=3.22,p=
.003).Theseresultsindicatedstrongersocialtieswerebestservedbymoretimespentline,
forthoseindividualswhoenjoyedagreateramountofsocialactivity.Thesefindings
supporttheideathattimespentonlineallowsthosesocialtomaintainorincreasetheir
levelofsocialconnectivity.

Theregressionequationcalculatedforbridgingsocialcapitalproducedanoverall

significantequation(R=.86,R2=.74,F[7,28]=4.72,p=.000),withfoursignificant

predictors,allofwhichemergedonthefinalstep:Mobility(F5.68,p=.02),andthemotives
ofrelaxingentertainment(F=5.63,p=.02),coolandnewtrend(F=5.64,p=.02),and
professionaladvancement(F=6.12,p=.02).Theresultsoftheequationindicatedthatthose
withincreasedmobility,usingFacebookforentertainment,relaxation,becauseitisanew
trend,andforprofessionaladvancementtendedtoincreaseandsustainweakertieswith
distancedfriendsorindividualsinextendedornontraditionalingroupsofcontact.The
findingssupporttheideathatmobileindividualstendtouseFacebooktosupportand
extendtheirmobilitytospheresofcontactthatmaynotbereadilyavailableoraccessible.

Finally,theregressionequationformaintainedsocialcapitalwasoverallnot

significantandfailedtoproducesignificantpredictors.Itispossiblethisisrelatedtothe
variablesexaminedorthedemographiccharacteristicsofthepopulationsurveyed.
Discussion

ThisstudyfocusedonthesocialutilityofFacebook,byemployingatheoretical

modelthatcombinedtheUsesandGratificationsperspectivewithSocialNetworktheory,
especiallycenteredontheconceptofSocialCapital.Theconceptualframeworkproposed
thatantecedentvariables,togetherwithusermotives,morphtheFacebookexperienceand
influencethetypeofsocialcapitalgeneratedbyFacebookuse.Inordertoprovide
supportingevidenceforthismodel,relationshipsamongtheincludedconceptswere
examined.
Prevalentmotivesthatemergedfromtheanalysisincludedthemotivesofhabitual
passtimeandrelaxingentertainment,bothofwhichcombinedmotivecategoriesfor
traditionalmedia.Notonlydidthisreflecttheconvergednatureoftheservicesprovidedby
Facebook,butitalsosuggestedsalientusesformostuserstendedtobeofaritualisticand

relativelypassivenature.Themoreinstrumentalusesofexpressiveinformationseeking
andprofessionaladvancementwerenotassalientwiththissample.Atthesametime,
escapismandcompanionship,twotraditionalmediausemotivesusuallyassociatedwith
televisionuse,weremoderatelysalientforthispopulation,thusconfirmingtheabilityof
Facebooktoconvergetraditionalandnewmedianeeds.Intheopenendedresponses,
participantsreferredtotheabilityofFacebooktohelprelieveboredomordistractthem
fromorrelievethemofdailystresses.Asonerespondentsaid:[Facebook]isentertaining
enoughtospendtimeontogetawayfromhomework.Anothersaid,Itisfun,andnot
stressfullikeschoolworkcanbe.Thiscanvergeonaddiction,accordingtooneuser:Its
easytogetsuckedinto,whileanotherrespondentadded,IthinkthereasonFacebookis
soappealingbecauseitoffersawidevarietyofwaystodistractpeoplefromthestress.
Theregressionanalysesdocumentedsomesubstantiallinksbetweensocialcapital,
Facebookmotives,andsocialandpsychologicalpredisposition.Overall,thesetendedto
supportanimageofauserwhoemploysthisparticulartechnologygenretoamplify
opportunitiesathisorherdisposal.UnlikeearlierstudiesoftheNetingeneral,which
pointedtotheparadoxofasocialtechnologythatisolatesindividualsinprivatesphereof
communication,andincontrasttothepopularstereotypeoftheantisocialcomputergeek,
theseresultsindicatethosemobileandleadingasociallyactivityareabletoreapthesocial
benefitsofFacebook,andemployittoincreasebondingandbridgingsocialcapital.Thus,
thisonlinesocialnetworksustainsthesocialconnectivityofmembersthatarealready
fairlyactiveandmobile.Interestinglyenough,theseusersrarelyhavethegenerationof
socialcapitalinmind,astheytendtoapproachFacebookfromthenotsogoaldirected,
relativelypassive,andritualisticmotivesforrelaxingentertainmentandhabitualpastime.

Fortheseusers,thisbecomesadailyroutinethatconvenientlymaintainsandextends
individualsspheresofcontact.Throughtheopenendedresponses,participantsrevealed
someapprehensionoftheaddictivenatureofFacebook,typicallypresentedasathird
personeffect,affectingothersbutnotthemdirectly.Forexample,onepersonsaid,The
obsessivewaysomepeopleareaboutcheckingFacebook,updatingtheirpage,etc.Its
annoying.

Additionalresponsestoopenendedquestionsfurthersolidifiedourinterpretations.

ParticipantsrepeatedlystressedthecommunicativeaspectsofFacebook,specifyingthat
theyreliedFacebookforstayingconnectedtothosetheyalreadyknowandformeeting
newpeople.ParticipantsvaluedFacebookforhelpingthemkeepupwithpeopleata
distance,informothersaboutthemselvesandfindpeoplewithsimilarinterests.For
example,onerespondentstated:[Facebookisappealingbecauseof]theabilitytobeapart
ofsomeoneseverydaylifenomatterhowfarawaytheyare.Anotherrespondentstated:I
canconnecttomyfriendsacrossthecountryandworldeasilyandseewhattheyreupto
whichusedtobesomewhatofahassle.Icanstaymoreeasilyconnectedtofriendsfrom
highschoolaswell.OnepersonsummarizedFacebooksabilitytomeetpeopleintermsof
buildingonthosetheyalreadyknow.Theabilitytomeetsomeonerandomlyandmake
thatpersonapartofthepeopleyouknowinyourlifetime.Participantsenjoyedbeingable
tokeepupwiththeirfriendsachievements,news,relationshipstatusandlife
developments.SeveralindicatedthatnotbeingpartofFacebookwouldequalbeingleftout
ofthesedevelopmentsandsphereofcontact,thusalludingtothesocialcostofnotjoining.
QualitativeandquantitativeresponsesondominantusesofFacebookpointedtoa
userstatethatpalindromesbetweenthesociallyactiveandidle,ormorecolloquiallyput,

describesasocialcouchpotato.Usershappilyconnectwithotherssocially,aslongasthey
maydosofromthecomfortanelectronicallymediatedcouch,inastatethatpermitsthe
stationarypursuitofsocialactivity.Thisantithesisreflectstherealitiesofour
contemporaryeverydayroutines,whichblurspheresofworkandplay,friendsandco
workers,publicandprivatelife.Futureresearchcouldplacesocialnetworksinthegreater
contextofpubliclife,andspecificallyexaminehowtheysupportandreinforcedominant
worklifepatternsandroutines.Beyondthepointoffulfillingshorttermneedsfor
relaxation,entertainmentandsocialcontactsimultaneously,thesenetworksaretellingof
contemporarytrendsthatincludeglobalization,trasnationalmobilityandwork,social
spheresthatarelocal,globalandglocal,andingeneral,withwhatZygmuntBauman(2005)
referstoasamoreliquidpaceoflife.Challengingourconventionalunderstandingof
sociabilityasanactivitydrivenimperative,theseresultssuggestacontemporary
interpretationofsociabilitythatincludesstaticsocialbehaviorsenabledthroughonline
technology.Inarelaxedstatethatconvergespassivityandsociality,socialnetworksite
userstraversespheresofsocialinteractiontolearnaboutandinteractwithothersthey
connectto.
Moreover,equippedwithatoythatenablessocialconnections,individualsareable
tofulfilltraditionalmediatedandinterpersonalneedssimultaneously,whileatthesame
timeexpandingtheirsocialconnectionsandsocalledsocialnetworthinsatellitesocial
spheres.RelaxingentertainmentalsoprovidedawayinwhichFacebookbecameusefulfor
thegenerationofbondingsocialcapital,thusreaffirminguserstiesandconnectionsto
theirclosesphereoffamilyandfriends.

Inconclusion,forcommunicationresearchers,thesefindingsbothaffirmand
challengeourunderstandingofaudienceactivityandpassivity.Therelevanceoftraditional
mediatedandinterpersonalmotivesforFacebookusersconfirmsthepermanenceofthese
needsandtheirfulfillmentviamediatedcommunication.Atthesametime,theseneeds
emergeinaconvergedstate,capturingintermittentlyactiveandidlestatesofengagement
thatchallengethebinarymannerinwhichwe,ascommunicationscholarsunderstand
activityandpassiveuses.Futureresearchononlinemediacouldmoveawayfromlinear
understandingsofusermotivationsandsocialoutcomes,tonetworkedtheoretical
conceptualizationthatpermitustofollowtheorganicgenerationofdevelopingformsof
sociability.Thesocialnetworksapproachincorporatestheorganicappropriationofsocial
ties,socialcapitalgeneration,andthefrequentlynonlinearrationaleofsocialbehavior.
Theusesandgratificationsapproach,ontheotherhad,adoptsamoreconventionally
linearityinitsapproach,but,atthesametime,isparticularlyisusefulforasystematic
understandingoftheconnectionsbetweenuserprofiles,motivations,orientations,
practices,andresultingoutcomes.
Acombinedperspectiveexaminingtheuses,networks,andaffordancesof
convergentmediawouldconnectantecedentvariablesandmotivestoparticularusesof
networks,whicharesensitivetotheaffordancesofonlinemedia.Suchanapproachwould
beguidedbythefollowing,remediatedassumptionsthata)"sociallymotivatedbehaviors,
includingmediaselectionanduse,arebothpurposiveandritualistic";(b)"ahostofsocial
andpsychologicalfactorsmediatepeople'scommunicationbehavior";(c)"peopleadoptor
adapttheaffordancesofconvergentmediatosatisfyfeltneedsandtoformandmaintain
socialnetworks";(d)"mediacompeteandconvergewithotherformsofcommunication

forselection,attention,andusetogratifyourindividualandcollectiveneeds";and(e)
"mediatedbehaviorspossesssocialoutcomes,whichresultinavaryingqualitiesand
quantitiesofsocialcapitalgenerated.Thisisasociopsychologicalcommunication
perspectivethatexamineshowindividualsuseconvergedmedia,tofulfillfeltneedsor
wantsthatarepersonalandcollective,andgeneratesocialoutcomesthatpermita
networkedsociality.

References
Alexander,A.(1985)Adolescentssoapoperaviewingandrelationalperceptions,Journal
ofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,29:295308.
Bauman,Z.(2005)LiquidLife,Cambridge:PolityPress.
Becker,L.,Dunwoody,S.7Rafaell,S.(1983)Cable'simpactonuseofothernewsmedia,
JournalofBroadcasting,27:127142.
boyd,d.andEllison,N.B.(2007)Socialnetworksites:Definition,history,andscholarship,
JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,13(1):article11.AvailableHTTP:
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>
boyd,d.andHeer,J.(2006)Profilesasconversation:Networkedidentityperformanceon
Friendster,ProceedingsofThirtyNinthHawai'iInternationalConferenceonSystem
Sciences.LosAlamitos,CA:IEEEPress.
Chang,B.,Lee,S.andKim,B.(2006)Exploringfactorsaffectingtheadoptionand
continuanceofonlinegamesamongcollegestudentsinSouthKorea:Integrating
usesandgratificationanddiffusionofinnovationapproaches,NewMediaand
Society,8(2):295319.

DeWaal,E.,Schoenbach,K.andLauf,E.(2006)Onlinenewspapers:Asubstituteor
complementforprintnewspapersandotherinformationchannels?,
Communications:TheEuropeanJournalofCommunicationResearch,30(1):55.
Dimmick,J.,Chen,Y.andLi,Z.(2004)CompetitionbetweentheInternetandtraditional
newsmedia:Thegratificationopportunitiesnichedimension,JournalofMedia
Economics,17(1):1933.
Donath,J.andboyd,d.(2004)Publicdisplaysofconnection,BTTechnologyJournal,22(4):
71.
Ellison,N.B.,Lampe,C.,Steinfield,C.andVitak,J.(inpress)WithaLittleHelpfromMy
Friends:HowSocialNetworkStiesaffectSocialCapitalProcesses,inZ.Papacharissi,
(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites.
NewYork:Routledge.
Ellison,N.B.,Steinfield,C.andLampe,C.(2007)ThebenefitsofFacebook"friends:"Social
capitalandcollegestudents'useofonlinesocialnetworksites,JournalofComputer
MediatedCommunication,12(4),article1.AvailableHTTP:
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html>
Ferguson,D.A.(1992)Channelrepertoireinthepresenceofremotecontroldevices,VCRs
andcabletelevisionJournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,36:8391.
Garton,L.,Haythornthwaite,C.andWellman,B.(1997)Studyingonlinesocialnetworks,
JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,3(1).AvailableHTTP:
<jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html>
Hampton,K.(2002)PlacebasedandITmediatedcommunity,PlanningTheoryand
Practice,3(2):228231.

Hampton,K.andWellman,B.(2003)NeighboringinNetville:HowtheInternetsupports
communityandsocialcapitalinawiredsuburb,CityandCommunity,2(4):277
311.
Hardy,B.andScheufele,D.(2005)ExaminingdifferentialgainsfromInternetuse:
Comparingthemoderatingroleoftalkandonlineinteractions,Journalof
Communication,55(1):7184.
Hargittai,E.andHsieh,Y.L.(inpress)FromDabblerstoOmnivores:ATypologyofSocial
NetworkSiteUsage,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:Identity,
CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites,NewYork:Routledge.
Hargittai,E.(2007)Whosespace?Differencesamongusersandnonusersofsocial
networksites,JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,13(1):article14.
AVAILABLEHTTP:<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html>
Haythornthwaite,C.(2000)Onlinepersonalnetworks:Size,compositionandmediause
amongdistancelearners,NewMediaandSociety,2(2):195226.
Haythornthwaite,C.(2005)Socialnetworksandinternetconnectivityeffects,Information
CommunicationandSociety,8(2):125147.
Haythornthwaite,C.andWellman,B.(1998)Work,friendshipandmediausefor
informationexchangeinanetworkedorganization,JournaloftheAmericanSociety
forInformationScience,49(12):11011114.
Haythornthwaite,C.,Wellman,B.andMantei,M.(1995)Workrelationshipsandmediause:
Asocialnetworkanalysis,GroupDecisionandNegotiation,4(3):193211.
Hlebec,V.,Manfreda,K.L.7Vehovar,V.(2006)Thesocialsupportnetworksofinternet
users,NewMediaandSociety,8(1):932.

Kaye,B.,Johnson,T.(2002)Onlineandintheknow:UsesandgratificationsoftheWebfor
politicalinformation,JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,46(1):5471.
Kraut,R.,Patterson,M.,Lundmark,V.,Kiesler,S.,Mukophadhyay,T.andScherlis,W.(1998)
Internetparadox:Asocialtechnologythatreducessocialinvolvementand
psychologicalwellbeing?,AmericanPsychologist,53:10171031.
Kraut,R.,Kiesler,S.,Boneva,K.,Cummings,J.,Helgeson,J.andCrawford,A.(2002)Internet
paradoxrevisited,JournalofSocialIssues,58(1):4974.
Lampe,C.,Ellison,N.7Steinfield,C.,(2006)AFace(book)inthecrowd:Socialsearchingvs.
socialbrowsing,pp.167170,inProceedingsofthe200620thAnniversary
ConferenceinComputerSupportedCooperativeWork,NewYork:ACMPress.
Lange,P.G.(2007)Publiclyprivateandprivatelypublic:SocialnetworkingonYouTube,
JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,13(1),article18.AvailableHTTP:
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html>
Levy,M.R.(1987)VCRuseandtheconceptofaudienceactivity,CommunicationQuarterly,
35:267275.
Liu,H.(2007)Socialnetworkprofilesastasteperformances,JournalofComputer
MediatedCommunication,13(1):article13.AvailableHTTP:
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/liu.html>
Liu,H.,Maes,P.andDavenport,G.(2006)Unravelingthetastefabricofsocialnetworks,
InternationalJournalonSemanticWebandInformationSystems,2(1):4271.
Lo,V.,Li,Y.,Shih,Y.7Yang,S.(2005)Internetadoption,uses,andgratificationsobtained,
MassCommunicationResearch,83(1):127165.

Lometti,G.E.,Reeves,B.7Bybee,C.R.(1977)Investigatingtheassumptionsofusesand
gratificationsresearch,CommunicationResearch,7:319334.
McQuail,D.(1979)Theusesandgratificationapproach:Past,troubles,andfuture,
Massacommunicatie,2:7389.
Palmgreen,P.C.,Wenner,L.A.andRayburn,J.D.(1980)Relationsbetweengratifications
soughtandobtained:Astudyoftelevisionnews,CommunicationResearch,7:161
192.
Mendelson,A.andPapacharissi,Z.(inpress)Lookatus:CollectiveNarcissisminCollege
StudentFacebookPhotoGalleries,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.)TheNetworkedSelf:
Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites.NewYork:Routledge.
Papacharissi,Z.(2009)TheVirtualGeographiesofSocialNetworks:AComparative
AnalysisofFacebook,LinkedInandASmallWorld,NewMediaandSociety,11(12):
199220.
Papacharissi,Z.(2007)TheBloggerRevolution?AudiencesasMediaProducersin
Tremayne,M.(ed.)Blogging,Citizenship,andtheFutureofMedia,NewYork:
Routledge.
Papacharissi,Z.andMendelson,A.(2007)TheRealityAppeal:Usesandgratificationsof
realityshows.JournalofBroadcastingandElectronicMedia,51(2):355371.
Papacharissi,Z.(2002a)Theselfonline:Theutilityofpersonalhomepages,Journalof
BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,46(3):346368.
Papacharissi,Z.(2002b)Thepresentationofselfinvirtuallife:Characteristicsofpersonal
homepages,JournalismandMassCommunicationQuarterly79(3):643660.

Papacharissi,Z.andRubin,A.(2000)PredictorsofInternetuse,JournalofBroadcasting
andElectronicMedia,44(2):175196.
Payne,G.,Severn,J.7Dozier,D.(1988)Usesandgratificationsmotivesasindicatorsof
magazine,readership,JournalismQuarterly,65:909915.
Pettersson,T.(1986)TheaudiencesusesandgratificationsofTVworshipservices,
JournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion,25:391409.
Perse,E.(1986)Soapoperaviewingpattersofcollegestudentsandcultivation,Journalof
BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,30:175193.
Perse,E.andFerguson,D.(2000)ThebenefitsandcostsofWebsurfing,Communication
Quarterly,48(4):343359.
Pornsakulvanich,V.,Haridakis,P.andRubin,A.M.(2008)Theinfluenceofdispositionsand
Internetmotivationononlinecommunicationsatisfactionandrelationship
closeness,ComputersinHumanBehavior,24:22922310.
Rubin,A.M.(1981)Amultivariateanalysisof60Minutesviewingmotivations,
JournalismQuarterly,58,529534.
Rubin,A.M.(1985)Usesofdaytimetelevisionsoapoperabycollegestudents,Journalof
BroadcastingandElectronicMedia,29:241258.
Rubin,A.M.(1994)Mediausesandeffects:Ausesandgratificationsperspective,inJ.
ZillmannandD.Bryant(eds)MediaEffects:AdvancesinTheoryandResearch,
London:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Rubin,A.andBantz,C.(1989)Usesandgratificationsofvideocassetterecorders,pp.181
195,inJ.SalvaggioandJ.Bryant(eds)Mediauseintheinformationage:Emerging
patternsofadoptionandconsumeruse,Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Rubin,A.M.andRubin,R.B.(1982)Contextualageandtelevisionuse,Human
CommunicationResearch,8:228244.
Rubin,A.M.andRubin,R.B.(1986)Contextualageasalifepositionindex,International
JournalofAgingandHumanDevelopment,23:2745.
Rubin,R.B.andRubin,A.M.(1982)Contextualageandtelevisionuse:Reexaminingalife
positionindicator,CommunicationYearbook,6:583604.
Salwen,M.B.andAnderson,R.A.(1984)Theusesandgratificationsofsupermarkettabloid
readingbydifferentdemographicgroups,EastLansing,MI:NationalCenterfor
ResearchonTeacherLearning.
Stutzman,F.(2006)Anevaluationofidentitysharingbehaviorinsocialnetwork
communities,paperpresentedattheiDMAaandIMSCodeConference,Oxford,Ohio.
Swanson,D.L.(1977)Theusesandmisusesofusesandgratification,Human
CommunicationResearch,3:214221.
Turow,J.(1974)Talkshowradioasinterpersonalcommunication,Journalof
Broadcasting,18:171179.
Walther,J.B.,Carr,C.,Choi,S.S.W.,DeAndrea,D.,Kim,J.,Tong,S.T.7VanDerHeide,B.(in
press)InteractionofInterpersonal,Peer,andMediaInfluenceSourcesOnline:A
ResearchAgendaforTechnologyConvergence,inZ.Papacharissi,(ed.),The
NetworkedSelf:Identity,CommunityandCultureonSocialNetworkSites,NewYork:
Routledge.
Walther,J.B.,VanDerHeide,B.,Kim,S.Y.,Westerman,D.andTong,S.T.(2008)Therole
offriends'appearanceandbehavioronevaluationsofindividualsonFacebook:Are
weknownbythecompanywekeep?,HumanCommunicationResearch34(1):2849.

Wasserman,S.andFaust,K.(1994)SocialNetworkAnalysis,Cambridge,MA:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Wellman,B.,Haase,A.Q.,Witte,J.andHampton,K.(2001)DoestheInternetincrease,
decrease,orsupplementsocialcapital?Socialnetworks,participation,and
communitycommitment,AmericanBehavioralScientist,45(3):436.
Williams,D.(2006)OnandOfftheNet:ScalesforSocialCapitalinanOnlineEra,Journal
ofComputerMediatedCommunication,11:593628.