What can we learn about social network sites by studying Facebook? A call and recommendations for research on social network sites

New Media and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 114-131

  Rains, Stephen A ^a   Brunner, Steven R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication and information technology; computer mediated communication; social network sites

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921275813     PISSN: 14614448     EISSN: 14617315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461444814546481     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Adamic L,Adar E.How to search a social network.Social Networks. 2005;27:187-203
2. BaumgarnerBA (2007) You have been poked: exploring the uses and gratifications of Facebook among emerging adults. First Monday12. Available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2026/1897
3. Beer D.Social network(ing) sites … revisiting the story so far: a response to danah boyd & Nicole Ellison.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008;13:516-529
4. boyd dRace after the Internet. Nakamura LChow-White PA, ed. New York: Routledge; 2011:203-222.
5. boyd d,Ellison NB.Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2007;13:210-230
6. boyddHargittaiE (2010) Facebook privacy settings: who cares?First Monday15. Available at: http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3086/2589
7. Burke M,Kraut R,Marlow C.Social capital on Facebook: differentiating uses and users.ACM CHI 2011: conference on human factors in computing systems; 2011Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2011.
8. Coe JB,Weijs CA,Muise A, et al.Understanding veterinary students’ use of and attitudes toward the social networking site, Facebook, to assist in developing curricula to address online professionalism.Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. 2012;39:297-303
9. Cook TD,Campbell DTQuasi-Experimental Design & Analysis for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 1979:
10. Dimock WC.World literature on Facebook.PMLA. 2011;126:730-736
11. DwyerCHiltzSRPasseriniK (2007) Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: a comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth Americas conference on information systems. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339
12. Ellison NB,boyd dThe Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Dutton WH, ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013:151-172.
13. Facebook (2014) Company information. Available at: http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/
14. Fogg BJ,Iizawa D.Online persuasion in Facebook and Mixi: a cross-cultural comparison.Persuasive Technology. 2008;5033:35-46
15. Gibson JJThe Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1986:
16. HamptonKNGouletLSRainieL. (2011) Social networking sites and our lives (research report). Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org
17. Hargittai E.Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008;13:276-297
18. Heidemann J,Klier M,Probst F.Online social networks: a survey of a global phenomenon.Computer Networks. 2012;56:3866-3878
19. Heiferman M.Has Facebook killed the photo?.Art in America. 2011;99:55-61
20. Jansen BJ,Sobel K,Cook G.Classifying ecommerce information sharing behaviour by youths on social networking sites.Journal of Information Science. 2011;37:120-136
21. JerniganCMistreeBFT (2009) Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation. First Monday14. Available at: http://firstmonday.org
22. Johnston K,Tanner M,Lalla N, et al.Social capital: the benefit of Facebook “friends.”.Behaviour and Information Technology. 2013;32:24-36
23. Kairam S,Brzozowski M,Huffaker D, et al.Talking in circles: selective sharing in Google+.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems; 2012Austin, TX; 2012. 1065.
24. Kietzmann JH,Hermkens K,McCarthy I, et al.Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media.Business Horizons. 2011;54:241-251
25. Kim J,Baek TH,Martin HJ.Dimensions of news media brand personalities.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2010;87:117-134
26. Kim W,Jeong O,Lee S.On social websites.Information Systems. 2010;35:215-236
27. Kujath C.Facebook and MySpace: complement or substitute for face-to-face interaction.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2011;14:75-78
28. Kuruvilla HG.Student attitudes toward using Facebook as a tool for the dissemination of laboratory results in a cell biology course.Paper session presented at the meeting of ASCB; 2011Denver, CO; 2011.
29. Lampe C,Ellison NB,Steinfield C.Changes in use and perception of Facebook.Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work; 2008San Diego, CA; 2008. 721.
30. Lewis K,Jason K,Nicholas C.The taste for privacy: an analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008a;14:79-100
31. Lewis K,Kaufman J,Gonzalez M, et al.Taste, ties, and time: a new social network dataset using Facebook.com.Social Networks. 2008b;30:330-342
32. McDowell WS.Exploring free association methodology to capture and differentiate abstract media brand associations: a study of three cable networks.Journal of Media Economics. 2004;17:309-320
33. Markus ML,Silver MS.A foundation for the study of IT effects: a new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit.Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2008;9:609-632
34. Nadkarni A,Hoffman SG.Why do people use Facebook?.Personality and Individual Differences. 2012;52:243-249
35. Parks M.What will we study when the Internet disappears?.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2009;14:724-729
36. Roa V.Facebook application and playful mood: the construction of Facebook as a “third place.”.Proceedings of the 12th international conference on entertainment and media in the ubiquitous era; 2008Tampere; 2008. 8.
37. Rui J,Stefanone MA.Strategic self-presentation online: a cross-cultural study.Computers in Human Behavior. 2013;29:110-118
38. Smock AD,Ellison NB,Lampe C, et al.Facebook as a toolkit: a uses and gratifications approach to unbundling feature use.Computers in Human Behavior. 2011;27:2322-2329
39. Thelwall M.Homophily in MySpace.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2009a;60:219-231
40. Thelwall MAdvances in Computers. Zelkowitz M, ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2009b:19-73.
41. TownsendA (2011). 5 failed social networks even worse than MySpace. Time, January. Available at: http://techland.time.com/2011/01/14/5-failed-social-networks-even-worse-than-myspace/
42. Treem JW,Leonardi PM.Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association.Communication Yearbook. 2012;36:143-189
43. Tufekci Z.Grooming, gossip, Facebook, and MySpace.Information, Communication & Society. 2008;11:544-564
44. Vasalou A,Joinson A,Courvoisier D.Cultural differences, experience with social networks and the nature of “true commitment” in Facebook.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2010;68:719-718
45. Wan Y,Kumar V,Bukhari A.Will the overseas expansion of Facebook succeed?.IEEE Internet Computer. 2008;12:69-73
46. Wikle TA,Comer JC.Facebook’s rise to the top: exploring social networking registrations by country.International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking. 2012;4:46-60
47. Wilkinson D,Thelwall M.Social network site changes over time: the case of MySpace.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2010;61:2311-2323
48. Wilson RE,Gosling SD,Graham LT.A review of Facebook research in the social sciences.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:203-220