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

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

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)
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


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
1
of SNSs:

4 1) Persistence

2) Association
2

3) Visibility

4) Editability

3

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

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.”


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).


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)


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


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


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 collapse
Managed through:
 Boundary regulation
 Self-censorship
 Lack of management (i.e., embracing network
flattening to achieve greater potential benefits)


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

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 Vitak
College of Information Studies
jvitak@umd.edu | @jvitak
jessicavitak.com


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

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Más de Jessica Vitak

Más de Jessica Vitak (13)

Último

Último (20)

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

Notas del editor